Map from the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission showing LNG export terminal projects in North America (FERC)
What is it about the islands in Douglas Channel? First, Enbridge gets in to a lot of hot water, so to speak, for erasing the islands in Douglas Channel in an animation promoting the Northern Gateway Pipeline. See for example The Vancouver Sun on back on Aug. 16, 2012, when it picked up a story from the Times Colonist – Enbridge map sinks islands, angers critics. The controversial video segment showed Douglas Channel wide open for navigation, rather than marked with about one thousand square kilometres of mountainous islands. This map, created by the Leadnow.ca and Sumofus.org websites was widely used by the media to show the difference. Enbridge later amended its video with a disclaimer that it is “broadly representational.” A video by Shortt and Epic Productions “This is Not An Enbridge animation” showing the beauty of northwestern BC quickly went viral.
As this was happening, the United States government Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a map that shows Liquified Natural Gas import and export terminals across North America, a map that adds an island to the Channel–“Douglas Island.”
In fact, the map manages to get a lot about Canadian LNG projects wrong. It locates the BC LNG project on the non-existent Douglas Island. The company’s name Douglas Channel Energy Partnership actually gives the proper location this way
south of the Moon Bay Marina, within the District of Kitimat and the asserted traditional territory of the Haisla Nation. The site is approximately 10 km southwest of Kitimat and 7 km north of Bees Cove Indian Reserve 6 (Bish Cove)
The small cove where BCLNG will put its barges to create the LNG is often locally called North Cove.
The FERC map also misplaces the Shell LNG project, now known as LNGCanada, in Prince Rupert, even though Shell confirmed the Kitimat location on May 15, 2012. It also calls it Prince Rupert Island, although the town of Prince Rupert is actually located on Kaien Island.
The map does apparently get the KM LNG project somewhat correct, attributing it to Apache Canada, but leaving off Apache’s partners, Encana and EOG.
The map recently also appeared on the website of Oregon Public Broadcasting in an article Five Keys To The Pacific Northwest’s Natural Gas Export Debate by reporter Amelia Templeton, which outlines the growing controversy over the plans to export US LNG through Coos Bay, Oregon via the Jordan Cove Project.
It appears that in Oregon, the Coos Bay LNG project is becoming as controversial as the Northern Gateway project is in Canada.
The issues outlined by Templeton include the threat of expropriation (called “eminent domain” in the US and also a key issue in the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline on the plains). There are arguments on jobs versus the environment, especially the perceived threat to wild rivers and salmon spawning grounds. Finally one issue that is lower on the agenda in northwestern BC but a big worry in Oregon, the potential for a devastating earthquake along the Cascadia fault.
During the NEB hearings on the KM LNG (Apache/EOG/Encana) project in June, 2011, many of the “expert” witnesses urged that that first Kitimat project go ahead quickly because of perceived competition from Oregon.
Unlike in Oregon, LNG projects are generally perceived positively in the northwest and all three are going ahead, although not as quickly as originally planned due to market volatility among prime potential customers in Asia.
The future of the Northern Gateway project is now completely in the hands of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet.
Today, Friday, August 3, 2012, Environment Minister Peter Kent used the provisions of what the Harper government calls the Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act (former Bill C-38) to set a final deadline for a report from the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel on December 31, 2013 and reserve the final environmental decision for the Governor-in-Council.
Today’s move, in effect, is the final gutting of the Joint Review Process, making it irrelevant, since, as long suspected, the government will now make the decision on its own.
The Joint Review Panel no longer has the power to reject the Northern Gateway on environmental grounds, that is now solely up to the Harper cabinet. Once the Gateway project is approved, as expected, the NEB has been ordered to issue the approval certificate within seven days.
By releasing the news on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, the Harper government spin doctors through Environment Minister Peter Kent have also pulled the classic government move of releasing bad news when it will least be noticed.
There is also the new agreement between the Ministry of Environment and the National Energy Board. The revised memorandum of agreement says:
The Governor in Council will make the decision on the environmental assessment (whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if, so whether such effects are justified in the circumstances). The Governor in Council will decide, by order, whether the board should issue a certificate and will give reasons for the order.
Under the act, the NEB now has to file its environmental assessments within 543 days of the act coming into force, hence the imposed deadline.
If there are no excluded periods this would mean that the environmental assessment and report must be submitted no later than Dec. 31, 2013.
The final paragraph of Kent’s letter also says
If the Project is approved by the Governor in Council, the NEB will issue the certificate of public convenience and necessity within seven days of the Governor in Council’s order.
That’s a clear indication that the Harper government still intends at this point to fast track the Northern Gateway project.
Apart from giving the most environment unfriendly cabinet in Canadian history the decision power, most of the memorandum of agreement are legalistic changes necessary to bring the former agreement into compliance with the new law.
The environmental sections of the agreement, based on the amendments to the Environmental Assessment act have a couple of interesting points
any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause in listed wildlife species as critical habitat or residences of that species….
Although the memo goes on to say
any change to the project that may be caused by the environment whether such change or effect occurs within or outside Canada
While this may be simply legalistic language, given the overall tone of the Harper government’s policy, especially the changes in the Fisheries Act that only protects fish habitat when it affects commercial species, one has to wonder if the emphasis on listed (that is threatened or endangered) species is again a narrowing of the criterion for approving the pipeline.
The second phrase is also ambiguous, seemingly to imply that the environment could be to blame for any problems the project may face. Opponents have long pointed out that the environmental conditions and risks such as geologic instability along the pipeline route and the heavy weather in the waters off British Columbia are factors that increase the danger of an oil spill event whether on land or sea. However, the new agreement presents an almost Orwellian scenario that would blame the environment, an “Act of God” in insurance terms, rather than the company or the government for any future disaster.
The main phrase in the agreement “whether such effects are justified in the circumstances” clearly indicates that the Harper government is fully prepared to ignore the environmental fallout of the Northern Gateway project and so the stage is set for a much wider political battle.
The US agency that looks after pipelines, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has issued an updated “Corrective Action Order” on the oil spill at Grand Marsh in Wisconsin, slamming Enbridge because the company’s “integrity management program may be inadequate.”
The order goes on to say:
PHMSA has communicated its longstanding concerns about this pattern of failures with Respondent [Enbridge] over the past several years. Given the nature, circumstances, and gravity ofthis pattern of accidents, additional corrective measures are warranted.
The Corrective Order tells Enbridge to file its cleanup plans with the PHMSA and to have its actions checked by an independent, outside agency.
Before the PHMSA allows Enbridge to restart Line 14, which runs from Superior, Wisconsin, to Mokena, Illinois, and is a part of the 1,900 mile-long Lakehead Pipeline system, which transports “hazardous liquid” from Neche, North Dakota, to Chicago, Illinois, with an extension to Buffalo,
Enbridge must (1) submit, for review and approval, a comprehensive written plan, including timelines for specific actions to improve the safety record of Respondent’s Lakehead pipeline system and (2) hire an independent third party pipeline expert to review and assess the written plan, which the third party will submit to PHMSA and to Respondent concurrently. Further, the third party expert must oversee the creation, execution and implementation of the actions identified in the plan, and must provide monitoring summaries to PHMSA and Respondent concurrently. Respondent must commit to address any deficiencies or risks identified in the third party’s assessment, including repair and replacement of high-risk infrastructure. The plan must be sufficiently detailed with specific tasks, milestones and completion dates.
At a minimum, the plan must address:
a. Organizational issues, including the promotion of a safety culture and creation of
a safety management system;
b. Facilities response plan;
c.Control room management;
d.Priorities for pipe replacement;
e.Training;
f.In-line inspection result interpretation;
g.Current engineering and probability of failure modeling;
h.Leak detection systems;
1.Sensor and flow measuring and valve replacement;
J.Integrity verification;
k.Quality management system; and
1.Any other risk, task, issue or item that is necessary to promote and sustain the
safety ofits pipeline system.
The agency notes also that
After receiving and analyzing additional data in the course of this investigation, PHMSA may identify other corrective actions that need to be taken. In that event, Respondent will be notified of any additional measures required and further amendment of the CAO will be considered. To the extent consistent with safety.
The order says Enbridge will be given an opportunity for a hearing prior to the imposition of any additional corrective measures.
The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel today denied a request from Skeena Bulkley Valley MP to reconsider its decision not to hold the questioning round of final hearings in Kitimat. The JRP is still reserving its decision on locations for final arguments.
The panel had previously decided to hold those hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and Edmonton.
In its ruling on Cullen’s request, the JRP said:
Your request for the Panel to reconsider its decision on the locations for the questioning phase of the final hearings did not contain any new information that was not considered by the Panel in its original determination. As such, your request is denied. The Panel further notes that no decision has been made with respect to the location for the final hearings for final argument. As indicated in Procedural Direction #8, these locations will be announced at a later date.
Cullen had also asked to be allowed to question government participants in the hearing. That request was also denied because filed the request after the deadline. Cullen also plans to question Northern Gateway witnesses and so the JRP reminded him that:
In accordance with the Panel’s letter of 25 July 2012, you are reminded that the names of the witnesses or witness panels you intend to question and an estimate of how much time you will need to question each party or witness panel is to be submitted by 3 August 2012.
The National Energy Board is following up a highly critical report by the US National Transportation Safety Board on the Marshall, Michigan spill by conducting an overall safety audit of Enbridge pipeline management and practices. The NEB says the review began even before the NTSB report was released:
even prior to the release of the final report, we have been reviewing Enbridge’s management practices. In the next weeks and months, we will be conducting safety audits to review and confirm that improvements, particularly to their control room practices in Edmonton, are satisfactory.
In a letter to the public from NEB chair, Gaétan Caron, posted on the NEB website, the agency says: “Pipeline safety is and always has been of paramount concern to the National Energy Board and we recognize it is of growing concern to Canadians.”
The letter goes on to say:
Given recent events, it is important that Canadians understand how we hold companies accountable for public safety and protection of the environment and take swift and appropriate action when they do not.
The Board takes a proactive approach to preventing spills and releases, with the ultimate goal of seeing none at all. We require pipeline companies to anticipate, prevent, manage and mitigate potentially dangerous conditions associated with their pipelines.
To do this, we conduct compliance verification activities which include things such as inspections, compliance meetings, emergency exercises, audits and investigations on a regular basis with all companies we regulate. In the specific case of Enbridge, in recent years the NEB has conducted approximately 25 compliance verification activities per year, focusing on every aspect of their management system. In addition, the NEB imposed two precautionary pressure restrictions on Enbridge pipelines, one in 2010 and another in 2011, which remain in effect.
When the NEB identifies deficiencies in a company’s systems, projects or programs, we require the company to immediately implement changes to correct those deficiencies or to develop a corrective action plan for NEB approval. It is important to note that we aim to prevent incidents from occurring in the first place and we will take all available actions at our disposal to protect the environment and the public. The NEB may revoke authorizations, impose safety orders that restrict operations, issue stop-work orders and monetary penalties as well as pursue criminal prosecution.
The NEB has also reviewed the synopsis of the National Transportation Safety Board’s report on Enbridge’s Line 6B rupture in Michigan in 2010 to see what we can learn in the interests of public safety and environmental protection. A thorough review of the final report will be conducted in order to identify all lessons that may be applied to pipelines and companies under the Board’s jurisdiction, however even prior to the release of the final report, we have been reviewing Enbridge’s management practices. In the next weeks and months, we will be conducting safety audits to review and confirm that improvements, particularly to their control room practices in Edmonton, are satisfactory.
The NEB goes on to stay that Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (formerly Bill C-38) is giving the agency more bight:
the Government of Canada will be adding another tool to our compliance and enforcement toolkit: administrative monetary penalties (AMPs). The new AMP sections in the NEB Act set out the maximum daily penalties for both individuals and companies. For individuals the maximum daily penalty is $25,000 for each violation and for companies the maximum daily penalty is $100,000 per violation.
The Act stipulates that each day a violation continues is considered to be a separate violation. This means that separate penalties could be issued per infraction, per day with no maximum total financial penalty.
Some of the details of the AMPs design are described in the government amendments to the NEB Act, but other details, such as what activities will be considered violations, will be written in a new regulation. We have committed to have these new regulations ready to use by July 6, 2013.
The NEB says it will continue to make public any enforcement measures it takes.
As a part of our Action Plan on Safety and Environmental Protection, we began posting all documents related to Board-initiated safety and environmental compliance actions to our website in fall of 2011.
The Board is committed to continually improving the way we do business and we welcome any opportunity that allows us to do so in the interests of pipeline safety and environmental protection.
Enbridge has not yet responded to the NEB release.
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.
The province of British Columbia has refused requests from some of the intervenors in the Northern Gateway Joint Review to provide witnesses for cross-examination during the final stages of the hearings.
In a letter to the JRP dated on July 20, and posted recently on the JRP website, Christopher Jones, counsel for the province in the hearings says: “I write only to note that the province is an intervnor, not a government participant. Also as the province has not filed evidence, it will not be providing witnesses for cross-examination at the final hearings.”
It was just four days later that Premier Christy Clark and members of her cabinet, in releasing the Liberal government’s five conditions for the Northern Gateway project which called for “Successful completion of the environmental review process.” The provincial government has consistently refused to take part in the proceedings, and with the credibility of the Joint Review process already under question because of the limitations on reviews in Stephen Harper’s Bill C-38, BC’s continued refusal to participate can only further undermine that credibility.
BC NDP leader Adrian Dix, right, speaks to Kitimat Councillor Rob Goffinet, left, after a breakfast meeting with District of Kitimat Council members on July 30, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Dix made the remarks after a breakfast meeting with members of District of Kitimat Council prior to embarking on a three day trip down Douglas Channel and the Inside Passage to see the proposed tanker route for himself.
The second of the five conditions for the pipeline, set out last Monday by Premier Clark calls for:
World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments
“It is an overturning of what’s been a government of BC policy for a long time, which is for a moratorium for super tankers on this part of the coast. That’s not a condition, that’s an overturning,” Dix said in a brief scrum with reporters after the breakfast and before heading to Kitamaat Village to start his boat trip.
“The frustration is that our premier’s position is that we should sell our coast got for money. The premier has a report that says the projects bad for the province, it’s bad for the economy, it’s bad for the environment, that’s the concluson of her report and now she says ‘we’ll forget about that if you give us a few bucks.’
“I don’t think most people agree with that in British Columbia and so what we’ve tried to do is to take a more serious approach. In this case, the province gave up our jurisdiction. If people are concerned about spills and concerned about the environmental impact as the Liberal purport to be, they wouldn’t have handed over the right to decide on environmental assessment fully to the federal government, which, by the way supports, the project.”
The Clark had government had declined to take part in the Northern Gateway Joint Review process and so did not produce any evidence for the panel prior to the filing deadline.
Dix said the Liberal policy on the JRP was, “Like a student who misses a deadline for a term paper, they missed the deadline to produce evidence in the process and now after the debate has gone on, the Premier wants to get into the debate.”
He concluded by saying, “This isn’t about her, it isn’t about me, it’s about the economy and the environment of this province for decades to come. And that’s the approach we’ve [the NDP Opposition] taken.”
The “informal” tanker “moratorium” has been in effect since 1972 and requires oil tankers transiting the west coast to remain fire out to sea and away from Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound.
In 2009, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government said there was no moratorium on tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia and have maintained that position ever since.
In December 2010, the House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.
Dix said he was, “In Kitimat to meet with the community and of course in Kitimat village with the Haisla. Later today he will go “for a trip down where the tankers will go if the Enbridge project succeeds, go down the Channel to Hartley Bay and then over the next couple of days to Bella Bella. Dix said hew as in the northwest to “take note of that in person. I always like to see things for myself, meet with people and hear what they have to say.”
Update 3 Joe Oliver statement
Update 2 Statement from Alison Redford
Update 1 Enbridge statement
The government of British Columbia has outlined five what it calls “minimum requirements that must be met for the province to consider the construction and operation of heavy oil pipelines within its borders.”
But at a news conference announcing the conditions, Environment Minister Terry Lake says the province will still not take an official position on the pipeline project itself.
In news release, Premier Christy Clark said, “Our government is committed to economic development that is balanced with environmental protection. In light of the ongoing environmental review by the Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge pipeline project proposal, our government has identified and developed minimum requirements that must be met before we will consider support for any heavy oil pipeline projects in our province. We need to combine environmental safety with our fair share of fiscal and economic benefits.”
We wish to reiterate our commitment to working with governments, including BC, in determining what we can do to further address concerns and to engaging in a dialogue to ensure full understanding of the assessments of risk, the many safety and environmental protection measures in the plan as well as the benefits that would come with the project.
Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed
World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments
World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines
Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project
British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.
The release says that “any project proposal must be approved through appropriate environmental assessment (EA) processes.”
Pie chart of the “environmental risk” from pipeline projects as released by the government of British Columbia
However, trust for the environmental processes has been falling since Stephen Harper’s government passed Bill C-38 which is designed to fast track approvals and is seen by may in the environmental movement as gutting the review process.
Action plan
The province is also proposing a joint plan of action with the federal government that would include the following elements:
Limits to liability that ensure sufficient financial resources to properly address any spills;
increased federal response capacity;
Full adoption of the Unified Command model;
Strengthened federal requirements on industry for the provision and placement of marine response equipment and infrastructure;
Industry-funded terrestrial (land-based) spill co-operative with sufficient human and technical capacity to manage spill risk from pipelines and other land-based sources;
Increased capacity within the provincial emergency response program to ensure adequate oversight of industry;
A Natural Resources Damage Assessment process to provide certainty that a responsible party will address all costs associated with a spill.
In the release, BC Environment Minister Terry Lake said: “When we consider the prospect of a heavy oil pipeline, and of the increased oil tanker traffic that would result, it is clear that our spill prevention and response plans will require significant improvements. Our government has already initiated discussions with the federal government on improving our response plans and resources,” said Environment Minister Terry Lake. “This represents an opportunity for British Columbia and Canada to develop world-leading environmental protection regimes.”
First Nations
The government release says
The fourth requirement for the B.C. government to consider support for heavy oil pipeline proposals is First Nations participation. Governments in Canada have a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations, and British Columbia is committed to meeting this test. British Columbia has developed a set of tools to help First Nations to partner with industry and participate in economic development. These agreements help to create certainty for development that benefits all British Columbians. British Columbia remains committed to this approach.
“We believe the benefits to First Nations from major pipeline proposals must be clearly identified, along with the measures that will help protect against environmental impacts,” said Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Minister Mary Polak. “As recently as last week, such an approach was endorsed by the Canadian Council of CEOs in their report on Aboriginal participation.”
Show me the money
The government is also emphasizing that the province benefit from any heavy oil project:
Lastly, British Columbia must receive a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of any proposed heavy oil project. B.C. will shoulder 100 per cent of the risk in the marine environment and a significant proportion of the risk on the land should a spill event ever occur. Current heavy oil project proposals do not balance the risks and benefits for British Columbia.
“We have identified aggressive environmental requirements and principles for First Nations engagement, and we have clearly stated we expect a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits for our province,” said Premier Clark. “British Columbians are fair and reasonable. We know we need resource and economic development, but we also expect that risks are managed, environmental protection is uncompromised and that generations will benefit from the decisions we make today.”
A pie chart, released by the BC government, showing the economic benefits of pipeline projects
In its release, Enbridge repeated its earlier statements that the company will continue
to reach out and encourage conversation with British Columbians about the project through our website and blogs, community meetings and conversations. We have devoted much effort and resources into consultations with communities, First Nations, and Métis…”
The company went on to say:
Enbridge and the Northern Gateway project team have worked hard to ensure this unique project would be built and operated to the highest standards and has committed to further enhancements to make what is already a safe project even safer.
This project will bring real and tangible benefits to the communities and Aboriginal groups along the proposed route, and to the province of British Columbia as a whole.
This map, created by the Leadnow.ca and Sumofus.org websites was widely used by the media to show the difference. Enbridge later amended its video with a disclaimer that it is “broadly representational.” A video by Shortt and Epic Productions “This is Not An Enbridge animation” showing the beauty of northwestern BC quickly went viral.
