Joint Review | Northwest Coast Energy News

Joint Review Panel refuses to consider possible Enbridge plans for a natural gas Northern Gateway

The Joint Review Panel has ruled that it doesn’t have to include possible plans by Enbridge to add a natural gas pipeline to to the Northern Gateway project in its consideration of the bitumen pipeline.

Since the JRP has no evidence at the moment to suggest that Enbridge has such a project “in sufficient planning stages to warrant inclusionwithin Northern Gateway’s cumulative effects assessment,” the Panel considers that it is inappropriate to consider a possible natural gas pipeline. If Enbridge did want to build a natural gas pipeline along the route, it would be subject to new and separate hearings.

Last fall there were reports in the media that Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel (who is now about to retire) wanted to join the natural gas rush to the Pacific coast by adding a natural gas pipeline to the Northern Gateway bitumen project (there was also some speculation that Enbridge might want to replace the bitumen pipeline with a natural gas pipeline).

One of the JRP intervenors, Dr. Josette Weir of Smithers filed a motion in December with the JRP asking that the Joint Review Panel:
.

a. order Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership (“NGPLP”) to confirm if it plans a gas pipeline in the same right-of-way as the tar sands and condensate proposed pipelines;
b. order NGPLP to confirm if such gas pipeline is planned to be constructed during the same time as the two proposed pipelines under review;

Weir also asked the JRP to include possible plans for a gas pipeline in its overall assessment of the cumulative affects of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

In response to the motion, Ken MacDonald Vice President, Law and Regulatory Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership replied that Gateway confirms that it is not currently proposing to construct a gas pipeline in the right-of-way that would be required for the construction of the Northern Gateway Project and, making a legal point, called an Enbridge natural gas pipeline along the same route as “hypothetical.”

However, the next sentence in MacDonald’s letter could be a problem for the existing Pacific Trails Pipelines plans for their own natural gas pipeline, which some in the region fear is paving the way for the Northern Gateway pipeline. The letter reads: “Northern Gateway
has been attempting to engage the proponents of the Pacific Trails Pipeline for an extended
period of time regarding collaboration on routing, construction and access management, and will
continue to do so in the future.”

Last fall, members of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation blockaded an Apache/Pacific Trails Pipeline survey crew and one reason for the blockade was the possible use of the Pacific Trail survey for the Northern Gateway. PTP and Apache, both in a report to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, and at a public meeting in Terrace on Thursday, March 1, say they continue to consult with the Wet’suwet’en houses and the Office of the Wet’suwet’en on the issue.

MacDonald’s letter to the JRP goes on to complain about the time it is taking for the review process

The project inclusion list for the Northern Gateway cumulative effects assessment was determined at the time of finalizing the Terms of Reference established for the Project’s environmental assessment. This was more than 2-years ago. Northern Gateway’s Application has been under review for over a year and a half with the information request phase of the proceeding on the Application having been completed. It would be impossible to ever complete an environmental assessment for a major project if the project proponent had to continually update its cumulative effects assessment for projects announced during the course of the review
proceedings on regulatory applications. In the case of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, it may end up taking four years to complete the regulatory approvals process. During such an extended period of time, new projects will inevitably be planned and announced. Northern Gateway cannot be expected to revise its cumulative effects assessment to take into account projects announced during the course of the current regulatory review.

Enbridge pointed to earlier legal rulings on “hypothetical projects”

with respect to other projects to consider in a cumulative environmental effects assessment, the NEB has ruled in the past that the other projects considered in a cumulative effects assessment cannot be hypothetical. The Courts have said that the decisions of RAs are not required to “consider fanciful projects by imagined parties producing purely hypothetical effects”. The Board is of the view that EBPC’s methods for identifying other projects for consideration in the cumulative effects assessment were appropriate.
Northern Gateway submits that, at this point, any natural gas pipelines beyond the Pacific Trails Pipeline are hypothetical. Requiring Northern Gateway to include such hypothetical projects in its cumulative environmental impact assessment would be inconsistent with previous practice and NEB decisions and would result in further delay to what has already become a protracted regulatory process.

The Joint Review Panel agreed, ruling

The Panel acknowledges the media statements by Enbridge that you noted in your motion. However, based on Northern Gateway’s comments and the fact that the Panel has no other evidence to indicate that such a project is in sufficient planning stages to warrant inclusion within Northern Gateway’s cumulative effects assessment, the Panel is of the view that it would not be appropriate to order Northern Gateway to do so. Further, the Panel notes that should Northern Gateway or any other proponent propose a gas pipeline to the west coast in the future,
that project would be subject at that time to the relevant environmental assessment and regulatory requirements.

Panel Commission Ruling on Enbridge natural gas pipeline

Northern Gateway Pipelines response to motion

Joint Review Panel issues venues, rules for oral statement phase of Gateway hearings

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has announced the venues and the rules for the oral statements phase of the pipeline hearings, tentatively scheduled to begin in November 2012.

Procedural Directive #5 defines what is an oral statement. Those rules appear to be somewhat looser than the continuing controversy over the current “community hearings” where intervenors are permitted to talk about traditional or personal knowledge, but not allowed to make any technical or legal arguments on the pipeline project itself. Panel chair Sheila Leggett has to keep telling the intervenors that those arguments will be heard during the final argument phase, tentatively scheduled for April 2013. The panel has also scheduled a “questioning phase” in September and October 2012, where “where the applicant, intervenors, government participants and the Panel will question those who have presented oral or written evidence. ”

The oral statements must still be based “on personal knowledge.” That means, the panel directive says, unlike presentations by intervenors, visual aids, including electronic presentations such as PowerPoint, will not be permitted.

The communities so far chosen to hear oral statements are

Bella Bella, BC
Hartley Bay, BC
Prince Rupert, BC
Bella Coola, BC
Hazelton, BC
Skidegate, BC
Burns Lake, BC
Kelowna, BC
Smithers, BC
Calgary, AB
Kitamaat Village, BC
Terrace, BC
Comox, BC
Klemtu, BC
Vancouver, BC
Edmonton, AB
Old Massett, BC
Victoria, BC
Fort St. James, BC
Port Hardy, BC
Grande Prairie, AB
Prince George, BC

The JPR defines oral statements this way:

An oral statement is an opportunity for registered participants to provide their personal knowledge, views and concerns regarding the proposed Project to the Panel in their own words during the community hearings. Oral statements are brief and limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. Your oral statement should describe the nature of your interest in the application and provide any relevant information that explains or supports your statement.

People who registered by the Oct. 6. 2011 and who are not intervenors may make an oral statement. They are required to make the statement themselves and cannot be represented. No “walk-ins’ will be permitted.

Like the presentations by intervenors, the witnesses will be under oath. No questions will be permitted except questions of clarification from the panel itself.

Panel-Commission Procedural Direction 5 Community Hearings for Oral Statements (pdf)

“Fake Enbridge” Twitter account joins Gateway pipeline battle

Soon after Enbridge Northern Gateway decided to ramp up its social media campaign, it had a rival, a Twitter account, clearly labelled “satire” called Fake Enbridge, @FakeEnbridge.

Satirical Twitter accounts are becoming more common on the social media service, although many seem to fade away as issues die or the posters lose interest.

The fake account is a bit of a gadfly, poking fun at various players in the Northern Gateway pipeline debate as well as issues such as the Alberta bitumen sands and climate change. There are also digs at figures like Environment Minister Peter Kent, MP Justin Trudeau, Ethical Oil campaigner Ezra Levant, Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

Some postings include:

@albertachambers Remember to keep completely ignoring climate change when discussing how much Canada ‘benefits’ from oil sands.

@justinpjtrudeau – We dig your combative style! You should think about getting a job with the @ezralevant / @Ethical_Oil crowd.

Stephen Hawking and the pope may know a thing or two, but they are wrong to see climate change as a major problem.

@andrew_leach But ‘jobs’ is such a good selling point for us! Especially with politicians terrified about the bad state of the economy.

Anyone planning to swim across the Skeena River: it’s probably wise to do it before the @NorthernGateway pipeline:

@ezralevant Lots of Canadians seem to support these enviro-orgs. Some weird ‘respect for the planet we depend on’ quirk of personality.

@MarcLeeCCPA: Joe Oliver is actually a double-agent with a secret agenda to increase funding for ENGOs and derail #NGP” Cabinet shuffle?

@mpPeterKent Normally, Enviro Mins do a better job of at least pretending to care about the environment.

@mpPeterKent We’re just curious why the Enviro-Min is so pro-bitumen and anti-sea creatures / stable climate / forests / etc.

@BCFerrys All your experience suggests that the waters off Kitimat are safe places for massive oil-filled ships, right? Hundreds a year?

Smithers council votes to oppose Northern Gateway, fourth council within a month

Smithers has become the third northwestern British Columbia municipal council to vote against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, joining Prince Rupert and Terrace. Earlier, one regional district, Skeena Queen Charlotte, also voted against the controversial pipeline and tanker project.

The vote in Smithers was 5-1.

Smithers Councillor Phil Brienesse, in a statement posted on his Facebook page, said

I brought forth a new motion to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The motion passed 5-1 after careful and considerable debate by council. My decision was based in part on new information that came out from recent decisions made in Terrace, SQCRD, and Prince Rupert that made it clear that local governments had the right and are clearly permitted to provide information to the Joint Review Panel. Since the previous motion was tabled with the reasoning being that it was felt we should not be influencing the JRP it seemed appropriate to bring forth a new motion at this time taking into consideration that we made the decision based on the information currently available.

Brienesse was quoted by CFJW on Tuesday night: “I hope this really brings our community together and in particular what it does, is it brings the north together so now we have Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert, and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District all opposing Enbridge, in their own unique ways that makes sense to their community,” said Brienesse, adding “we have a united North, so I am very positive about this.”

CFJW said the only vote against the motion was from Councillor Charlie Northrup, who noted not all councillors were present for last night’s meeting — and he wanted to table it until everyone was there.

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway, speaking on CBC Radio, repeated what he said to Northern View after the Prince Rupert vote, that it was better for all communities to wait until the Joint Review Panel had finished the hearings and then make a decision based on all the evidence.

TERMPOL report on Enbridge marine operations sees “no regulatory concerns,” tankers could be “unassisted” by tugs

A report from TERMPOL for the the Joint Review Panel on Enbridge’s proposed marine operations for the Northern Gateway pipeline project, finds

While there will always be residual risk in any project, after reviewing the proponent’s studies and taking into account the proponent’s commitments, no regulatory concerns have been identified for the vessels, vessel operations, the proposed routes, navigability, other waterway users and the marine terminal operations associated with vessels supporting the Northern Gateway Project. Commitments by the proponent will help ensure safety is maintained at a level beyond the regulatory requirements.

Even though Enbridge has promised that tankers would have escort tugs, the report goes to so far as to suggest that super tankers could come and go along Douglas Channel “unassisted.”

TERMPOL has taken all the assurances from Enbridge at face value, including the use of escort tankers, and takes into consideration the company’s proposed “environmental limits (weather and sea conditions) on oil tanker navigation,” and “commitment to use industry best practices and standards.”

The report says:

The overall increase in marine traffic levels is not considered to be an issue for the shared safe use of the project’s preferred shipping routes. The proponent has also committed to including safe speeds for oil tankers and tugs in its terminal rules and requirements. It will also include safety limits for environmental and marine conditions for both vessels and terminal operations.

With the increase in shipping activity, there may be an increased threat to the well-being of marine mammal populations along the shipping route. To address this risk, the proponent has proposed measures to avoid contact with mammals. The proponent is encouraged to develop appropriate procedures to help minimize harmful effects on marine mammals.

Read the report: Transport Canada Process Report on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (PDF)

In a news release, Enbridge welcomed the findings, quoting Janet Holder, Enbridge’s Executive Vice-President of Western Access and the senior executive with responsibility for Northern Gateway, as saying: “It is important for the public, particularly BC residents, to know that we’ve done our homework and that our marine plan has been thoroughly reviewed. I think the TERMPOL review underlines that what we are proposing is well planned and safe – and indeed would enhance safety for all shipping on BC’s north coast.”

The release says “Northern Gateway is encouraged by the positive conclusions of this technical review of the marine components of the project – including the safe operation of the Kitimat terminal and safe passage of tankers to and from the facility through Canadian waters.”

TERMPOL is an intergovernmental agency made up of officials from Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard and the Pacific Pilotage Authority. It can make recommendations and compliance with the recommendations is “voluntary.” So far companies contemplating tanker operations along the northwest coast have agreed to follow the TERMPOL recommendations.

Marine safety simulator — A marine safety simulator (Enbridge Northern Gateway)

All of the conclusions depend on Enbridge’s commitment to implement and monitor practices for safer shipping for the Northern Gateway Project. “Tankers and shipping operations, like any other vessel operations, will have to comply fully with national and international regulatory frameworks. Through the proponent’s oil tanker vetting and acceptance process, ship operators will have to follow the proponent’s additional safety enhancements, which are designed to reduce the risks during operations.”

Termpol did note that with up “to 250 additional tankers per year arriving in Kitimat, there will be an impact on Transport Canada’s compliance monitoring programs.” This comes at a time the government of Stephen Harper is already drastically cutting the resources for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard on the west coast and is making across the board cutbacks at Environment Canada.

The simulations show that the largest proposed oil tankers are capable of safely navigating the entire proposed shipping route, unassisted. The route includes an S-curve where the channel widths are between 3,500 and 5,000 metres. Navigation simulations carried out by the proponent have demonstrated that a typical 320,000 tonne crude oil tanker loaded, or in ballast, can safely negotiate this area.
TERMPOL report

Based on reviews by the Canadian Coast Guard and computer simulations of bridge operations, the teports says the waterways comply with all Canadian and international regulations and says:

The proposed routes provide the required clearances for good vessel manoeuvrability and allowances for very large crude oil tankers to safely navigate…

The simulations showed that tankers of the largest design are capable of navigating the entire route un-assisted. This is also consistent with opinions of Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada and the British Columbia Coast Pilots. The British Columbia Coast Pilots identified some narrow sections of the waterways as warranting caution for two-way traffic. The Canadian Coast Guard identified that the Lewis Passage-Wright Sound area warrants caution as a result of multi-directional traffic. In practice, the British Columbia Coast Pilots, supported by information from Marine Communications and Traffic Services, would adjust a vessel’s speed to avoid meeting other vessels in these areas. Transit speeds may also have to be adjusted to take into account traffic in the Wright Sound area.

TERMPOL says the “proposed shipping routes are appropriate for the oil tankers that will be used at the proposed terminal,” largely because Douglas Channel is so deep.

The next sentence says “there are no charted obstructions that would pose a safety hazard to fully loaded oil tankers,” which was pretty well known by people who sail Douglas Channel.

Testimony at the Joint Review hearings in Kitimat, presentations to District of Kitimat council and the history of the region, as related by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal sailors, show that there are concerns about dangerous storms, general heavy weather, tricky winds off the mountains and currents from the rivers meeting the ocean.

The report also says the Canadian Hydrographic Service is in the process of updating several charts of the area to ensure the most accurate information is available for safe navigation.

The report does acknowledge that there could be a tanker collision in certain areas of the British Columbia coast, saying: “The narrower passages along the North and South routes, each with charted depths of 36 m (20 fathoms) or more are all wide enough for two-way navigation by the largest design vessel,” but adds that while “the proposed channels meet the specified requirements for two-way marine traffic, the BC pilots “may choose to ensure that passing and overtaking situations do not occur in the narrowest sections, by good traffic management.”

It says that in certain areas “that the meeting of two large ships …. should, in general, be avoided, particularly during severe (wind 30 knots or above) weather conditions. The reason for this restriction is that the margins for safe navigation are limited in case of an emergency situation where the engine is lost or the rudder is locked at an angle different from ‘mid ship’.”

According to the pilots, the meeting of ships at these locations can easily be avoided through oroper planning and pilot to pilot communication and available navigation and ship tracking data.

It adds, as Enbridge has proposed, “In order to mitigate risk, all laden tankers will have a tethered escort tug throughout the Confined Channel sections (from Browning Entrance or Caamaño Sound to the Kitimat Terminal).

The report adds:

It is important to keep in mind that the emergency situations described rarely occur, but that it is necessary for the Pilots and Tug Masters to rehearse these situations on a regular basis in order to be prepared in case an incident actually occurs.

Related TERMPOL

Douglas Channel Watch calls on Kitimat council to “get off the fence”

The environmental group, Douglas Channel Watch, Monday, Feb. 20, called on the District of Kitimat Council to “get off the fence” and oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

Dieter Wagner, spokesman for Douglas Channel Watch, addressed the council at its regular meeting. His call came after both Terrace Council and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District voted to oppose the controversial pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and condensate back to Alberta.

The council listened to Wagner’s presentation but took no action, despite calls at the close for a referendum on the issue.

“Our group and many others can’t quite comprehend why our mayor and council hold the position of neutrality regarding the Northern Gateway. We are requesting you to abandon this position and officially oppose this project,” Wagner said. “Few places tend to lose as much as Kitimat does from the inevitable dilbt spill, either in our river system or our marine environment.”

(“Dilbit” is the industry term for “diluted bitumen.” The pipeline from Alberta will carry oil sands bitumen but for it flow through the pipeline, it must be diluted using a form of refined natural gas called condensate.)

Wagner said that most of the “massive amount of information available on everything concerning this project” is negative. He warned that some documents said there is even a risk of death and injury if humans are exposed to dilbit. He also said that in his view, neither Enbridge nor any level of government have given people enough warning and education abut the effects of a dilbit spill.

Wagner returned to a point made time and time again by Douglas Channel Watch, that is often the local people who detect pipeline spills, sometimes by smelling them, not the sensors used by Enbridge. He cited the case of the Enbridge pipeline breach at Kalamazoo, Michigan, where the spill was reported by calling 911 to local police, rather than by Enbridge’s Edmonton control centre.

Wagner pondered who would detect such a spill on the Kitimat River where there is nobody to report it.

“We are concerned who would detect a spill along the Kitimat River, especially in winter time,” he said. “If there is a spill in the upper Kitimat River, no one will know about it until it gets way down here.”

He maintained that the Gateway project has not adequately addressed the issue of emergency response along the water courses, a point that Enbridge would certainly dispute, given the thousands of pages of documents it has filed with the Joint Review Panel concerning emergency procedures and contingency plans. (For example, Douglas Channel Watch recently objected to an Enbridge plan to burn the Kitimat estuary if there was an oil spill there)

Wagner then turned to the sinking of the cruise ship Costa Concordia off Italy. “The latest technology is no absolute safeguard against a shipping disaster,” he told the councillors. “Cruise ships are normally really well equipped to take care of thousands of people. No technology has yet been invented to deal with human error. Many of these things are due to human error, not equipment failure.”

He quoted the Polaris Institute which he said has found there were 204 spills in Enbridge pipelines from 1999 to 2010, spills which leaked 169,000 barrels of oil into the environment.

Wagner then turned to the growing controversy over the credibility of the Joint Review Process, especially due to political interference by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and members of his cabinet.

“We believe it is better to be proactive to influence the JRP, rather than wait for their decision,” he said’ “When they have made their decision, it is no good, it [ a decision by Kitimat] has to be done before, by making it known that our community does not support this project.”

“The impartiality of the JRP is already threatened by the federal and provincial government officials. Mr Harper in China has already said this project is gong to go ahead and you’re going to get yours, so why are we having the JRP hearings?

“We believe that the management of large corporations and foreign political interests are not in the best interest of our community; the environmental movement has been labelled as enemies of the state by Prime Minister Harper and [Natural Resources] Minister [Joe] Oliver.

Wagner added that support “for these so called radicals, so called enemies” is growing, as seen through growing contributions to the environmental groups.

“When our government labels every day citizens who are actively participating in democracy and its processes, we feel that we need to speak out against that and to address the serious levels of interference we face on the issue,” Wagner said.

“We believe not in the risk of a spill we believe that a spill is a certainty.”

He concluded by saying that in the pre-election all candidates meeting last fall, new councillors Mary Murphy and Edwin Empinado had backed calls for a referendum on the pipeline issue.

Wagner then pointed to the vote by council not to take any decisions until after the JRP report, adding: [New councillors] “Edwin Empinado and Mary Murphy backed down from this promise at the last council meeting. I wonder if this is something they learned from Ex-Premier Gordon Campbell; that this intended to be a promise not kept.

“We ask you to abandon the official position of neutrality.”

(Wagner was referring to an election promise by former premier Campbell not to introduce the HST, which lead to a political campaign to rescind the tax, ending a successful anti-tax referendum and the end of Campbell’s tenure as premier of British Columbia)

The partisan audience, many members of Douglas Channel Watch or supporters, applauded, while Mayor Joan Monaghan admonished Wagner for “knocking down our council.”

Murphy then responded by saying.“ We all debate. Once we became councillors, we represent everybody in the town, not just one particular group,” she said. “We represent every citizen in Kitimat now so personal opinions,” Murphy said.

She then pointed that Haisila Chief Counsellor Ellis Ross told the JRP on the first day of hearings that he would wait for the JRP to make their decision. What Murphy did not mention was that the federal government has told the Haisla and other First Nations that the constitutional mandated consultation with First Nations will not take place until after the JRP report. That means that it would be a bad tactic for First Nations directly affected by the pipeline to make any decision until after the report that could affect those consultations.

As the council moved on to other business, there murmurs of dissatisfaction from the audience with cries of “referendum” and “why did I vote for her?” (referring to Murphy). Most of the Douglas Channel Watch supporters then left the chambers.

More pipeline debate coming to the Northwest: Changes to the Pacific Trails natural gas Pipeline

Pacific Trail Pipelines map — The Pacific Trails Pipeline map as of Feb. 2012. (PTP/BCEAO)

Another pipeline debate is about to open in the northwest. This time for changes to the Pacific Trails (natural gas) Pipeline, that will run from Summit Lake, just outside Prince George, to Kitimat.

Public information meetings will be held in Terrace, Houston, Burns Lake and Vanderhoof in the next couple of weeks.

The PTP runs entirely within British Columbia, and so comes under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Assessment Office of British Columbia. The application to build the PTP was filed in 2005 and approved in 2008 which means the process for the amendments will go much faster than the current Northern Gateway Joint Review hearings for the Enbridge twin bitumen/condenseate pipeline which are expected to last at least another eighteen months.

Pacific Trails is asking to

Change the location of the compressor station;
Establish two new temporary stockpile sites;
Make pipeline route modifications

The period for commenting on the Pacific Trails Pipeline amendments opens on February 27 and closes March 28. The public meeting on the changes to the compressor station were held in Summit Lake last September.

The documents filed with the BCEAO say that Pacific Trails Pipelines is in ongoing negotiations with First Nations where the PTP will cross their traditional territory.

The natural gas project has general support in northwestern BC, and the relations between First Nations and PTP, and Apache, the main backer of the Kitimat LNG project are much better than those with Enbridge. (The PTP would supply the liquified natural gas terminals in Kitimat)

Significantly, the documents show that the PTP is trying to enter separate negotiations with the Wet’suwet’en houses that are now objecting to the pipeline route through their traditional territory.

The filing says:

In addition, PTP is now consulting, or making all reasonable efforts to consult, with one of the 13 Wet’suwet’en Houses as a discrete entity. PTP was informed in February 2011 that Chief Knedebeas’s House, the Dark House, was no longer part of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en although the latter still maintains responsibility for the welfare of all Wet’suwet’en lands and resources. Consultation that took place prior to this year with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en included consultation with the Dark House. PTP has been diligent in seeking to consult with the Dark House since April 2011. The spokesperson for Chief Knedebeas of the Dark House, Freda Huson, states that she also represents a group called Unist’ot’en.

But it’s Enbridge that is the sticking point, and could bring controversy to this amendment request. The Wet’suwet’en houses that blockaded a PTP survey crew last fall said they were worried that the Northern Gateway pipeline follows roughly the same route as the PTP. The PTP application was filed and approved long before the controversy over the Enbridge Northern Gateway began to heat up.

One reason is that original approval was for a pipeline to import natural gas before the shale gas boom changed the energy industry. As PTP says in the application to change the compressor station.

When the original purpose of the PTP Project was to transport natural gas from an LNG import facility at Kitimat to the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline facilities at Summit Lake, the design called for the installation of a mid-point compressor station to enable the required throughput of natural gas. This compressor station was sited at the hydraulic mid-point of the pipeline. The location of the compressor station in 2007 was south of Burns Lake and just east of Highway 35.

Now that the PTP Project is designed to move natural gas from Summit Lake to Kitimat, or east to west, a compressor station is required at Summit Lake rather than at the hydraulic mid-point of the pipeline. The new Summit Lake compressor station is required in order to increase the pressure of the natural gas from where it is sourced at the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline facilities.

The EAO will hold open house meetings on the pipeline route changes from 4 pm to 8 pm at each location at

Monday, February 27, 2012
Nechako Senior Friendship Centre, 219
Victoria Street East
Vanderhoof, BC

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Island Gospel Gymnasium
810 Highway #35
Burns Lake, BC

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Houston Senior Centre
3250 – 14th Street W
Houston, BC

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Best Western Plus Terrace Inn
4553 Greig Avenue
Terrace, BC

The EAO says: Displays containing information on the proposed amendments will be available for public viewing. The EAO will be available to answer questions on the amendment process. The Proponent will be available to answer questions on the Project and proposed amendments.

The documents show there are route changes to the pipeline route along the Kitimat River, but those are considered “minor route adjustments” so no meetings are planned for Kitimat.

Documents

PTP meeting schedule

Complete filing documents from PTP are available on the BCEAO site here.

Pacific Trails Pipeline

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

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

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

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

The panel rejected Enbridge’s motion, saying

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

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

It saysoral evidence should not include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his letter, Cullen says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Massett Village Council Letter of Comment pdf

Terrace Council votes to oppose Northern Gateway, tanker traffic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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