w.v
3/27/12
ancouv
of
Opinions
bitumen
Northern The
approval
contaminated
He
in
Lee
That
effects
Lee
Gas
“The
reference
because
Kenneth
chance
information
Enbridge
Northern
Enbridge
documents
B.C.’s
Enbridge
BY
DFO
ocean
Memo
other
charge
wrote
ersun.com/story_print.html?id=
WILL
Fisheries
noted
sought
and
deadline
Northern
of
central
crudes.
to
to
CAM
scientist
differ
Gateway’s
to
the
Energy
Lee
Enbridge’s
of
reference
Gateway
says
officials
Kitimat,
oils
his
Inc.’s
do
do
approval
overseeing
show
show.
PBELL
Coast
water
submitted
Department
hints
research
more
suggests
on
the
used
coast
Gateway
the
response
Research
whether
a
research.
B.C.,
AND
confirm
two
Guard
deals
twin
would
research.
scientist
in
oils
plan
doesn’t
to
says
the
VIVIAN
react
would
7149267&sponsor
where conduct
the the
to
pipelines
a
Enbridge
pipeline
with
Memo
had
be
a research
did hypothetical
is
the plan
marine
(COOGER).
response
results
spill
planning
“uncertain”
at
take
LUK
the
effective
conventional
also
not
“strong
spill
hints
it
the
for
would
a
of
proposal
same
TH
would
respond
into Enbridge
species”
series
a
be
response
diluted
would
Department
proposal
escapes.ca
potential
CANADIAN
to
used
limitations
account
if
be
way
spill
carry
is
whether
used
a
of
based
IN-prepared
come
transferred
is
lacks
spill
bitumen
to
would
crude
once
models,”
by
studies
plan
in
questions
in
spill
natural
ill-prepared
PRESS
the
the
into
of
December
too
key
a
due
traditional
spilled,
for
be
they
oil
Northern
Fisheries
of
Canadian
on
unique
would
B.C.
oil
through
late
information
and
wrote
completed.
Northern
to
spiN
gas
to
AUGUST
have
crude
about inaccurate
for
waters.
in
tankers
but
not
react
ocean
condensate
oil
saying
Lee,
the
methods
Gateway
to
and
filed
documents
Coast
the
mixture
27,
whether
Gateway
2015,
Northern
so
rather
head
on
2012
for
Oceans
diluted
with
the
dramatically
inputs.”
the
Guard,
export.
to
the
when
spill.
for
the
matter
of
to
Lee’s
chemical
contain
oil
obtained bitumen
DFO’s
Gateway
pipeline
Alberta
argued
than
federal
into
final
the
oil
requires
group
the
agency
differently
an
Centre
tests
composition
bitumen
and
vigorously the
spill
would
review
under
review
oil
pristine
was
pipeline
on
diluted
spill
further
for
that
carry,
given
access panel
the
panel.
from
in
and
Offshore
waters
would
for
“toxic
oilsands
study
will
of
clear
studying
spills
a
the
to
carry.
be
off Oil /27/12 Memo hints Enbridge is ill-prepared for oil spilt in ocean
Bitumen is oil extracted from oil-sands. It’sthick and heavy like molasses, though a diluted version is what would be moved through the Enbridge pipeline ifthe $6-billion project gets approved.
That’s about all everyone - including Calgary-based Enbridge, the B.C. government, pipeline engineers, spill response experts and environmentalists - can agree on.
There is no agreement on whether diluted bitumen behaves differently in water than conventional crude oil once it is spilled.
Ray Doering, manager of engineering with the Northern Gateway project, and Elliott Taylor, one of the company’s oil spill experts, said a combination of factors, over time, willprompt diluted bitumen to get denser.
For example, when the lighter properties evaporate, the heavier stuff remains, so it may sink. Or turbulent water or wave action could cause it to sink. Or ifthe oil gets mixed with sand or sediment - like it probably would in a river or a stream, or close to a shoreline - then it would sink.
But both say that’s true of all crude. “The tool box that is going to be put together for this project will start with the same type of equipment that you use for any type of oil spill because we know that initially,that behaviour is going to be just like any other crude oil,”said Taylor, a marine geologist and oil spill response expert with Polaris Applied Sciences.
“Ifit gets into water it’s going to float, so you would use the same techniques as long as those techniques are effective and address the behaviour of the oil at that stage.
“Ifit does get heavier, as it weathers and picks up some of those sediments, whether that’s at the shoreline or in the river, we would still go after that.”
The B.C. government maintains that if a marine spill were to happen along the West Coast, diluted bitumen is more likelyto sink than conventional crude oil.
“Agreater degree of difficulty is involved in recovering bitumen and more remediation is required should an unintended release occur, particularly once bitumen sinks into the water column or into soils,” a technical analysis released by the government last month says.
The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the 2010 Enbridge crude oil pipeline breach and spill in Michigan found that two days after the spill, the denser oil fractions had sunk to the bottom of the river bed, prompting Enbridge to clean it up by gathering up the bottom sediments and disposing of them.
In the spring of 2011, a reassessment still found a “moderate-to-heavy contamination of 200 acres (80 hectares) of the river bottom,” the report said.
Enbridge acknowfedged that some properties in spilled diluted bitumen means it could eventually sink.
“Initially,it willhave the same behaviour as conventional crude oil,” Doering said. “Over time, the w ,vancouv ersun.com/storyprint.html?id=7149267&sponsor=escapes.ca /27/12 Memo hints Enbridge is ill-prepared for oil spill in ocean
condensate - the diluent used to blend - can begin to evaporate and the property of the diluted bitumen becomes denser.”
© Copyright (C) The Vancouver Sun
‘tw .vancouv ersun.com/stonLhtrnl?id=7149267&sponsor=escapes.ca
w
1/24/12
.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=7115116&sponsor=
that
made
assessment
Earlier
appropriate
Under
appropriate
“DFO
level
DFO
medium
crossings
department The
continue
phase,”
The
crossings,
the
water
Northern
And
Documents
environmental
show
While
oilsands
BY
over
Fisheries
Enbridge
Budget
are
DENE
upper
response
department
of
said
critics
through
is
the
this
some
the
Prime
mitigation
associated
politics’
of
to
M
DFO
and,
to
the Gateway
OORE,
of
proposed
the
month,
current Fraser,
high.
we
say
mitigation
mitigation
rating
on
tankers
filed
of
tributaries
Minister
federal
wrote
an
view
are
should
added
and
that
the
cuts
assessment
CANADIAN
there
didn’t
independent
with
required.
Harper
that
unable
regulatory
Skeena
with
project
risk
project
that
science
pledge Budget
in
on
pipeline
Oceans
ministry
that
the
is
the
Stephen
measures
and
a
will
have
posed
to
the
the
leave
the
no
fivepage
PRESS cuts
told
National
project
the to
there
be
compensation
asked
and
time
project,
British
risk
leave
that isn’t
submit
them.
will
determined
regime,
will
Kitimat
reporters
by
evaluation
Harper
Kitimat
posed for
scientists
“may
documents
to
cross. forthcoming.
is
AUGUST
the
be
continue
letter
Fisheries
scientists
Columbia
Energy
now
“As
protect
the
and
a
approved,
pipeline
River
comprehensive
DFO
be
short
says
by
watersheds.
DFO
science
dated The
underway.
in
20,
that’s
differences
measures,”
conducted
by
the
of
Vancouver
Board
to
fish
2012
where
will
and
time
the
pipeline
has coast
DFO.”
work
at
June
project
how
ensure
and
to
our
to
fate
Oceans
some
not
reveal
analyze
show
Enbridge
be
with
will
we
6,
fish review
of
short
is
conducted
by
of
to
completed
said
2012.
list
that
be
conduct crossings.
that
Enbridge
to
the
the Enbridge’s
opinion”
habitat
scientists fish
Canada
as
traverse
based
the
problems
“decisions
will
environmental
company
prior
rated
and
requested;
project
continue
department’s
of our
will
a
to
on
between
fish
before
for
It
the
into
complete
proposed
nearly
any
be
provided
business.”
time
science
risk
to
habitat
on
risk
based
the
regulatory
determine
into
a
however,
these
with
assessments
1,000
the
federal
as review
economic
the
review
and
response.
can
two
pipeline
to low
on
company
kinds
regulatory
streams
PM’s
the
not
examples
but
be
panel
deadline
this
analyze
the
approvals,
of
managed
final
politics,
costs
fisheries
of
from
all
work
risk
for
studying
and
projects
‘science
proposed
and
risk
the
level
the
and
permitting
of
for
will
the
documents
rivers
the
rated
bodies
through
the
Alberta
risks
and
are
the
in
it of /24/12 Budget cuts leave scientists short of time to analyze Enbidge project
He added, “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”
But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them their positions willbe cut. Thirty-two of them willbe laid off outright.
The cuts willleave the department in B.C. with half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.
Allbut five of the province’s Fisheries field offices willbe cut as part of a $79-million - 5.8 per cent - cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.
The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.
“He [Harper] says the science willmake the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’sa cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”
Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees. Given the Dec. 31, 2013, deadline set by the federal government, Anderson said fisheries department scientists simply don’t have time to complete any substantial scientific study of the project.
“You can’t do these studies on the spur of the moment. Ittakes time to do them,” Ander-son said. “And the federal fisheries have just been subjected to the most remarkable cuts, so you’re in the throes of reorganization and reassessment and reassigning people, and on top of it you throw them a major, major request for resources and work.
“Itcan’t be done.” The department has three major projects in B.C. under-going federal environmental assessment: Northern Gateway, the Site C dam, and a gold-cop-per mine near Williams Lake.
Steve Hrudey, who was chair-man of the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel on the environmental impact of the oilsands two years ago, said it is normal for the company asking for environmental approval - in this case Enbridge - to pro-vide the information in question in the review process.
“They have to foot the bill,”said Hrudey, who was also involved in more than two dozen reviews over 17 years as a member and then chairman of the Alberta Environmental Appeals board.
The project proponent pays consultants to prepare studies and reports required by the review board, the relevant federal departments look at those reports, respond with questions and comments of their own, and the panel then goes back to the proponent with those questions and requests for further information. There may be several cycles of this back-and-forth. “Inthe end DFO willsay ‘No, it’s what vw .vancouversun.com/storyprint.html?id= 7115116&sponsor= /24/12 Budget cuts leave scientists short of time to analyze Enbridge project
we think it is and therefore you have to take measures we feel are appropriate for that rating,”’ Hrudey said.
But ifthe department’s ability to do the studies itself is questionable, some scientists fear the process willunfold without independent scientific study.
“It[the response from fisheries to the panel] implies that the request to the joint review panel willnot be answerable until after a decision has been made, until after the project has been approved,” said Jeffrey Hutchings, a marine biologist at Dalhousie University.
“This seems, from a science perspective, a rather indefensible position in so far as a key part of the environmental review process is to evaluate the degree to which the pipeline willaffect fish habitat.”
A representative for the panel said there has been no further request for information from DFO, and no further information is expected. The federal department said no one was available for an interview, but in an email statement said fisheries is providing advice to the assessment panel on the project’s potential impacts on fish and fish habitat.
© copynght (c) The Vancouver Sun
ww .vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=71 15116&sponsor= /24/12 Harper disembowelled’budget for science on North Gateway: former DFO officer Harper ‘disembowelled’ budget for science on North Gateway: former DFO officer
BYDENEMOORE,THE CANADIANPRESS AUGUST 19, 2012
Rime Mnister Stephen Harper says science — not politics — will ultirmtely determine whether the Northern Gateway pipeline proceeds, and he is refusing to get into an argument with British Coluntia about how to share “hypothetical revenues” from the project. Photograph by: THECAND1AN PRESS/Darryl Dyck, THE CANADIANPRESS/Darryl Dyck
VANCOUVER- While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast willbe based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.
And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.
Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline willcross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.
The department didn’t have them.
“As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work willcontinue and, should the project be approved, our review willcontinue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.
The response went on to say there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. Itprovided two examples of
crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.
DFO said the federal ministry willcontinue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.
“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response.
“Under the current regulatory regime, DFO willensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat willbe based on the final risk assessment rating that willbe determined by DFO.”
Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are vw .vancouversun.com/storyj,rint.html?id=7113922&sponsor= /24/12 Harper ‘disembowelled budget for sdence on North Gateway: former DFO officer made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.”
He want on to say “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”
But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions willbe cut. Thirty-t of them willbe laid off outright.
The cuts willmean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.
All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices willbe cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that uld have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.
The marine contaminant group that wuld have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.
“He (Harper) says the science willmake the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’sa cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”
Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.
Given the Dec. 31, 2013, deadline set by the federal government, Anderson said scientists in the Fisheries Department simply don’t have time to complete any substantial scientific study of the project.
“You can’t do these studies on the spur of the moment. Ittakes time to do them,” Anderson said. “And the federal Fisheries have just been subjected to the most remarkable cuts, so you’re in the throes of reorganization and reassessment and re-assigning people, and on top of it you throw them a major, major request for resources and vrk.
“Itcan’t be done.”
The department has three major projects in B.C. currently undergoing federal environmental assessment: Northern Gateway, a massive hydroelectric project called the Site C dam, and a gold- copper mine near Williams Lake, B.C., that was previously rejected following a federal environmental review.
Dr. Steve Hrudey, who was chairman of the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel on the environmental impact of the oil sands tv years ago, said it is normal for the company asking for environmental approval — in this case Enbridge — to provide the information in question in the review process.
WW.V ancouv ersun.com/story_print.htrnPid=71 13922&sponsor= /24/12 Harper disembowelled budget for science on North Gateway: former DFO officer
“They have to foot the bNl,”said Hrudey, who was also involved in more than two dozen reviews over 17 years as a member and then chairman of the Alberta Environmental Appeals board.
The project proponent pays consultants to prepare studies and reports required by the reviewboard, the relevent federal departments look at those reports, respond withquestions and comments of their own, and the panel then goes back to the proponent withthose questions and requests for further information.
There may be several cycles of this back-and-forth.
“Inthe end DFO willsay ‘No,it’swhat we think it is and therefore you have to take measures we feel are appropriate for that rating,” Hrudey said.
But ifthe department’s abilityto do the studies itself is questionable, some scientists fear the process willunfoldwithoutindependent scientific study.
“It(the response from Fisheries to the panel) impliesthat the request to the joint review panel willnot be answerable untilafter a decision has been made, untilafter the project has been approved,” said Jeffrey Hutchings,a marine biologist at Dalhousie University.
“This seems, from a science perspective, a rather indefensible position in so far as a key part of the environmental review process is to evaluate the degree to whichthe pipeline willaffect fish habitat.”
A spokesperson for the panel said there has been no further request for informationfrom DFO, and no further informationis expected.
The federal department said a spokesperson was not available for an interview, but provided a statement via email saying Fisheries is providing advice to the assessment panel on the potential impacts of the project on fish and fish habitat.
“Fisheries and Oceans Canada has provided its assessment and is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat in the freshwater and marine environments can be managed by the proponent through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the email, which echoed the response sent to the panel.
“The Department notes in its submission that the proponent has conducted a reasonable ecological risk assessment and provided useful information on the risks that an oil spill (in either marine or freshwater) would pose to fisheries resources.”
Hutchings found it odd that they’re so sure.
“Well, how can you make that judgment when you have not yet conducted a complete review of all
proposed crossings?” he said. “Again, from a science perspective, Idon’t see how it’s possible to be able to draw that conclusion.”
The proposed Northern Gateway is a $6-billion project expected to spur $270 billion in economic w w .vancouversuri.com/story_print.html?id=7113922&sponsor= /24/12 Harper disembowelled budget for science on North Gateway: former DFO officer
growth in Canada over 30 years.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun Previous Next
Rirre rvlnister Stephen Harper says science — not politics — will ultirretely deterrtine whether the Northern Gateway pipeline proceeds, and he is refusing to get into an argument with British Colurrtia about how to share “hypothetical revenues” from the project Photograph by: THEC4NADLN PRESS/Darryl Dyck, 11-fECANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
ww.v ancouv ersun.com/story_ptint.html?id= 7113922&sponsor= /24/12 Oil play becomessocialsciencelab Oil play becomes social science lab Despite PM’s vow, politics key to pipeline fate
BY CRAIG MCINNES,VANCOUVERSUN AUGUST 9, 2012
Itwauld be nice to believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was showing a new-found interest in science during his visit to British Columbia this waek. But that wauld take a major leap of faith given his government’s approach so far to evidence-based decision making.
That approach has led it to ignore medical advice on Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection centre; to adopt a lock-’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key model for sentencing, contrary to the advice of most criminologists; to muzzle scientists who wark for the government and to shut down long-running projects, such as ozone monitoring, that produce the data governments in the future willneed if they want to make scientifically sound decisions.
And to be precise, he didn’t say that no politics vi.ouldbe involved in the decision his government will make on Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. What he said was the decision on whether to allow Enbridge to ship bitumen from the olisands to a tanker terminal in Kitimat wauld not be made “simply on political criteria.”
The notion that a government that has been so profoundly anti-science is now pledging to respect an independent scientific evaluation process is in itself Mrthy of skepticism. More to the point, however, is that the question of whether this is a real conversion may have become academic.
Despite Harper’s protestations, there is little doubt that the decision on whether heavy crude from the oilsands is ever loaded on a tanker in Kitimat willultimately be “simply political.” The only real question is who gets to make that decision. The irony is that while the fear has been that Harper wauld run roughshod over the science, the reverse is at play. The politics that have now emerged around the pipeline may have made it impossible for him to do so.
Opposition to the pipeline is running so deep in B.C., no amount of scientific evidence that it is the safest or best avail-able alternative for catering to an energy-hungry world may be enough to turn it around.
Harper’s comments were made in the context of whether his government would make use of the power it has given itself to overrule the National Energy Board if it deems a project to be in the national interest.
The National Energy Board is part of the joint review panel now holding hearings on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Last woek, Environment Minister Peter Kent and NEB chair-man Gaetan Caron issued a deadline of the end of next year for the joint review panel to finish its work.
Harper clearly believes it is in Canada’s interests to develop the oilsands and develop a way to ship what comes out of the ground to markets in Asia. w .vancouversun.com/storyj,rint.htmPid=7062762&sponsor= /24/12 Oil play becomes socaI science lab
The wastern link is important not only as a marketing opportunity in itself but as a way of ensuring that Canada is not captive to the American market.
So in theory, ifthe joint review panel turns down the Enbridge application, cabinet could give it the go- ahead. But as Enbridge has clearly started to realize, getting the necessary approvals from the federal government, regardless of the route, n’t be enough to get the pipeline and tanker terminal up and operating. Enbridge’s full-page newspaper ads this waek ware the latest attempt by the company to try to directly influence public opinion, which has increasing become as important as a green light from the regulators.
Premier Christy Clark’s recently announced conditions for the province’s cooperation have become another significant hurdle, one that can only be described as political.
As political leaders, both Harper and Clark are at a point on the pipeline issue beyond which their potential followers aren’t willingto be led.
Perhaps more significantly, first nations’ opposition appears to be deeply entrenched. They are threatening a legal battle royal if the project is approved.
At some point, Enbridge’s investors may simply decide it’s not vorth it.
So even if Harper and Clark say it’s a go, all they may do is reinforce the lesson King Canute delivered down at the beach when he ordered the tide not to come in to demonstrate the limitsto his power.
In B.C., the political tide has turned against Enbridge. Politicians who don’t want to drown are starting to take notice.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
w .vancouversun.com/storyj,tint.htmpld=7062762&sponsor= /24/12 Pipeline risks need a closer look Pipeline risks need a closer look Neither funding nor expertise are in place to deal with an oil spill along the British Columbia coast
BY CHRIS GENOVALIANDMISTY MACDUFF, VANCOUVERSUN JULY 31, 2012
The B.C. government has announced five requirements that must be met before it approves any new heavy-oil pipeline, such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The province’s primary concern is about getting a bigger piece of the oil royalty pie, which the Alberta government has immediately rejected out of hand. Economist Robyn Allan, former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), sums it up this way. “Itis impossible to compensate for all environmental damage when it occurs because so much is left out of financial estimates of what constitutes cleanup and compensation. What the premier seems to be suggesting is the introduction of some groundbreaking revenue sharing to ensure that after we are harmed, at least some of the hurt willbe paid for. That’s like saying you can beat me as long as you promise to pay the hospital bills.”
Another one of the B.C. government’s dead-on-arrival requirements calls for “world-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline.” This is not even remotely close to being in place, and likely could never be met given both the current realities of oil spill cleanup technology and the policies of the federal government.
The marine approaches to the coast of northern B.C. and the port of Kitimat are a dangerous coastline for ships. Navigation is more complex than in Prince WilliamSound, where the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef in Valdez Arm. At least 225 supertankers would leave Kitimatannually, loaded with more than 300 millionlitres of diluted bitumen for shipment to Asian and American markets. An additional number of tankers would enter Kitimat carrying condensate. Wright Sound, where tankers would enter B.C.’s Inside Passage, is a busy place for ships. More than 5,000 vessels move through it annually, and it is not without a history of accidents.
Should an accident occur involving a large ship, serious inadequacies in B.C.’s response capabilities would hinder rescue and containment operations. B.C.’s south coast relies heavily on the availability of American rescue tugs based out of Washington state to respond to incidents. Additionally, procedures betwoen the B.C. government and the federal government to coordinate responses to large vessel incidents are not well harmonized.
A November 2010 Postmedia News article revealed that according to an internal audit “The Canadian Coast Guard lacks the training, equipment and management systems to fulfilits duties to respond to offshore pollution incidents such as oil spills - The audit paints an alarming picture of an agency that would play a key role in Canada’s response to a major oil spill off the world’s longest coastline.” The article also identifies the relatively pal-try budget of $9.8 millionfor the coast guard’s environmental response unit.
WW.V ancouv ersun.com/story.print.html?id=701543 1&sponsor=escapes.ca /24/12 Pipeline risks need a closer look This was the state of affairs before the federal government announced the closure of B.C.’s command centre for emergency oil spills. These closures come at a time when B.C. is facing the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipeline projects, both of which willbe accompanied by major escalations in oil tanker traffic. Neither the Coast Guard or Transport Canada have the capacity to deal with a catastrophic oil spill, so exactly what entity does the provincial government think willfillthe gap?
But a larger question arises: Has there ever been a successful cleanup from a massive tanker spill? Oil spill technology only werks in ideal conditions with very little wind and waves. More importantly, the behaviour of diluted bitumen once spilled in the ocean is a complete unknown. The condensate component is highly toxic and not recoverable through conventional oil spill technology, and once it dissipates, it is probable the oil willsink or float submerged below the surface. What kind of technology is going to deal with that?
As a formal intervener in the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) process for Northern Gateway, Raincoast Conservation Foundation produced a large amount of substantive technical and scientific evidence analyzing the Enbridge environmental socio-economic assessment. Parenthetically, unlike the B.C. government, we submitted our evidence by the required deadline to ensure its inclusion in the JRP process. One of the issues we addressed is the potential impact to the marine environment from oil tankers. The following excerpt is from the conclusion of that section:
“The environmental risks introduced by tankers are first associated with the transportation of petroleum products such as bitumen, condensate, light fuel, bunker oil and crude. The spill of these substances from catastrophic or chronic releases threatens the presence of countless species, food webs and ecosystems that are relied upon for subsistence, cultural, social, economic, physical and spiritual well-being by an untold number of individuals and communities. In many cases, hydrocarbon impacts to species and habitats are additive in terms of the cumulative impacts and stressors that coastal ecosystems are under.”
Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Misty MacDuffee is a conservation biologist with Raincoast.
© copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
ww .vancouv ersun.com/story j,iint.htrnl?id=701543 1&sponsor=escapesca /24/12 Highturnover at DF0 threatens environmental reviews: records High turnover at DFO threatens environmental reviews: records
BY MIKEDESOUZA, POSTMEDIA NEWS JUNE28, 2012
Heavy w orkloads and high turnover at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could jeopardize the federal governments abilityto protect Canadians from the dangerous inpacts of c, say internal government records obtained by Postrmdia News. Photograph by: Fvrk Ralston, AFP/Getty Imeges
OTTAWA - Heavy wrkloads and high turnover at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could jeopardize the federal government’s ability to protect Canadians from the dangerous impacts of industrial projects, say internal government records obtained by Postmedia News.
The warnings were made before the federal government started a series of multi-million-dollar budget cuts to scientific research and monitoring programs across several departments.
The internal records, released under access to information laws, suggested scientists and policy experts at the fisheries department were already overworked in efforts to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia.
“Continuity of DFO team members throughout the above process is critical to providing clear, consistent, and defensible advice, positions, and permits,” said an internal government management plan drafted in March 2010 at the fisheries department.
The Harper government is expected to adopt legislation this week that rewrites Canadian ww .vancouversun.com/story..pñnt.htmI?id=6856339&sponsor= ‘ww
‘24/12
.vancouvesun.com/storypint.html?id=6856339&sponsor=
The
environmental At the waaken Other considered replacing industrial Ashfield The Panas new Fisheries substances.” legislation problems, later and provide translate department The pipeline. “Timely prepared “I’ll “Individual discussions snow-free One project
mdesouzapostmedia.com my
the
be
fisheries
best
changes
other regime
internal records
senior referred
proposed
same
going
in
would
advice
a
protections
to has
a
projects. into
it
and
for
comment.
staff and
offers times
stream
June
adhere
with
to
scientist would
colleagues
time, with
government department,
great-guns declined
also
fisheries
include
the
effects
be
be
Oceans
laws.
“high
from
during
new
changes
of
14
the
“few
difficult
of
questions
indicated the
“provide crossing
to
year,’
for letter commercial,
High
science
provisions
turnover” suggested
proponent
on
removing them.”
government
tools
a
department a
Minister
species
turnover
on
request
regulatory the
again
to
wrote
records
that would including
Jan
to
flexibility
complete
the
review
to
MPMO
requires
at
authorize
some
in Environment
after
23,
Keith department
existing John that DFO
at
as
in
eliminate
to
recreational
September
indicated
risk
internal confirmed
staff
is
we explain
2011.
threatens
a
phase
(federal
would
snowmelt, of
and
quite
Summers, Ashfield
substantial
based
significant
work
and
the
working
protections
pollution
establish
thousands
environmental
of
prevent
time correspondence
his changes
limit
the to
anticipated
Canada,
on
Major
the
2010.
on
or
told
remarks, minimize
but
fisheries the
and
public
senior
on
aboriginal
Wednesday
advance
Enbridge
reduction
other
the
Projects there new
“serious
the
federal
that
reviews:
energy
to
of
where
Union
participation
laws
habitat
than
environmental
tools
a impacts
environmental
referring
prohibit
will
department
“high
planning,”
records
project
value.
government’s in
Management
are
harm” intensive,
a
definitely a by
of
to
it
habitat
complete
spokesman
biologist,
would
Environment workload” detailed
authorize
necessary
etc.
pollution
questions
prior to
in
I’m
said
was specific
officers.
eliminate
environmental
be
and
assessment
assessments
to
not environmental
regulations.”
in
additional
Office)
timelines. deposits
an already or
for
construction.
was
unfortunately,
since
sure
to
harm
Workers
internal
types
its
his
not more
scientists,
sent
yet
timelines,
the
facing department,
to
of
immediately of
of
back-and-forth
how
for
fish reviews
existing
than
presentation
deleterious
to
He
Enbridge
president
fisheries
review
other new
“staffing”
also
habitat,
this
is
100
engineers
but
limited
projects,
of
will
said
of
fisheries
jobs
which
will
able
Todd
the
and
do the
to
in
to (24/12 High turnover at DFO threatens environmental reviews: records tvvitter.comlmikedesouza
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
ww .vancouversun.com/story_pñnt.html?id6856339&SPOnSOr wvancouversun.com/story,prInt.htrnPU=6817337&sponsor= Act. warned Schedule Gateway list Endangered Internal Photograph The BY identified Enbridge Pipeline of boreul MIKE at the correspondence least DESOUZA. and pipefine I by: project is southern populations Ted 15 considered says as species Ithodes, threatens from POSTM could nountain at measures Alberta risk Ftast,rwdio tA beten affect of that to populations odIand be NEWS would to the the News British the populations, most JUNE of 15 be will Fdes, woodland caribou, Department threatened Columbia, 21, serious species: Ftastrradio be 2012 cartaou taken along listed of News of reveal by three ray wth Fisheries construction under to be Ottawa categories rare newly at protect risk Schedule types and because released of Oceans of under Enbridge’s animals above-ground I birds of government the Canada’s and and federal Environment proposed frogs, access and Species records. legislation. are birds corridors Northern among Canada at for Risk The the a pipelioe w S provide predators, such as wolves, 1/3 bet designation is issued for species followinga scientific evaluation by a committee of government and non-government experts.
NEWQUESTIONS
Lawyers for Ecojustice, a Canadian environmental law organization, said the correspondence, released through access-to-information legislation, raises new questions about the potential effects of the project and the risks of proposed changes to laws such as the Species at Risk Act that are in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget implementation legislation, BillC-38.
A spokesman for the Albertabased energy company that is proposing the 1,200kilometre pipeline to ship oil from Edmonton to Kitimatand send condensate, used to thin petroleum products for transport in pipelines, in the opposite direction, said it wasn’t disputing any species listed under the federal legislation.
But the company also told Postmedia News it was workingto reduce effects to species at risk through the $6.6-billion project’s design.
“The route selection process includes consideration for avoidance of protected, critical or sensitive habitats and further route refinements may be considered as new species of concern and their habitat are identified,” said Todd Nogier, the manager of corporate and western access communications for Enbridge. Northern Gateway willcontribute toward additional research to help mitigate the effects of the project on the marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.”
The notice about the species at risk was sent on July21, 2010 by Alastair Beattie, an environmental assessment analyst at the fisheries department, to Jeffrey Barry, the manager of environmental assessment and marine programs section of Environment Canada.
The Northern Gateway project and other proposed pipeline projects would allowCanadian oil companies operating in the oilsands region to expand production and exports to new markets in the United States and Asia.
Apart from the boreal and southern mountain populations of woodland caribou, the list also included Sprague’s pipit. the short-tailed albatross, the pink-footed shearwater, the marbled murrelet, the northern goshawi Queen Charlotte (laingii)subspecies, the western toad, the yellow rail, the rusty blackbird, the western screech-owl, the peregrine falcon pealei subspecies, the cryptic paw, the coast tailed frog and the long-billed curlew.
NO MARINEMAMMALS
The 15 species listed in the notice did not include marine mammals such as humpback and fin whales that could be killed or harmed by the increased traffic or unintentional collisions with supertankers transporting the oil from the pipeline.
But other internal correspondence, also released through access to information legislation, revealed federal scientists were raising concerns about gaps in information about risks of collisions because of a voluntary reporting system, combined withthe “inabilityfor many large vessels to feel the impact,” witha whale and subsequently report it.
An Enbridge spokesman told Postmedia News in March that it had consulted more than 200 environmental experts and scientists to analyze potential effects, and it incorporated its research into the pipeline project proposal.
Environment Canada was not able to comment on the documents, while the fisheries department has declined interview requests withits scientists since March, stating that it could interfere withthe continuing environmental review of the Enbridge project.
MITIGATIONPLANS
species at risk, including the ones highlighted by the government’s internal correspondence, but they also suggested Environment Canada has failed to enforce some of its own laws requiring the identification of critical habitat, making it difficultto prepare or evaluate potential measures to reduce impacts of proposed industrial projects.
They also expressed concerns about proposed changes under billC-38 that would no longer require project developers to renew special permits to operate on sites that disturb critical habitat.
Under the existing law, federal authorities would be required to review mitigation measures to protect species at risk before renewing permits.
The lawyers also said that above-ground access corridors to allowfor maintenance on the pipeline would disturb forest cover. vancouversun.com/story.prit.htmPi=6817337&sponsor= 2/3 That would give predators such as wolves new sight lines, leaving endangered populations of woodland caribou vulnerable and in need of constant protection.
Ecojustice staff law,er Sean Mxonadded he was concerned the government had additional plans to change its environmental protection laws in the fall.
First, they’re getting out of the business of habitat protection [withproposed changes in BillC-38] and second, they’re getting out of the business of anything that isn’tabsolutely, squarely, 100-per cent guaranteed to be in the federal jurisdiction, which means that suddenly you have a very timid federal government that isn’t doing much at all to protect species, said Nixon.
“Youend up witha patchwork of different [federal and provinciall regulatory processes.”
The boreal and southern Imuntain populations 01woodland caribou rroy be at risk because above-ground access corridors for the pipetne wit provide predators. Such as wolves, better sight lines. Photograph by: Ted ,odes. Postireds News FIleS. Postnedia NeWS
ww.vancouversun.com/stotyj,riot.html?th6817337&sponsor=r 3/3 U.S Department pin Ppehne Safety S khoide Cemmurucations of Tren:ortat)oc Pipeline Safety Connects Us Al! Significant Pipeline Incidents
This Signif9cant Incident data set is designed for historical trending and includes adjustments to account for commodity cost fluctuations and general inflation.
PHMSA defines Significant Incidents as those incidents reported by pipeline operators when any of the following specifically defined consequences occur:
fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars L highly volatile liquid releases of 5 barrels or more or other liquid releases of 50 barrels or more L liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or explosion
PHMSA established a cost reporting threshold of $50,000 for gas pipeline incidents in 1984. Since then, inflation and the rapid rise in the cost of natural gas have caused the cost of incidents to rise significantly along with an increase in the number of incidents reported. To account for the cost increases, PHMSA now considers incidents significant from a cost perspective if they exceed a total cost of $50,000 in 1984 dollars.
We have converted the cost of gas lost during a pipeline incident using the Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas City Gate Prices.(A) (1) For all other costs, we applied the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Government Printing Office inflation values.(A) > The costs shown in the tables are in adjusted dollars.
The tables below show the number of Significant Incidents in a year for each type of pipeline operator. Each year and selected column totals provide links to focused reports showing the causes of the corresponding incidents. The data source for this table is the PHMSA Filtered Incident 3Files. (4) (5) Where appropriate, the table columns can be sorted by clicking the corresponding column header.
There is also a designation for Serious Incident which counts only incidents involving a fatality or injury. See Serious Pipeline Incidents for information on this smaller subset of incidents.
More Pipeline Incidents and Mileage Reports are available.
AllPipeline Systems Hazardous Liquid Gas Transmission Gas Gathering Gas Distribution
National All Pipeline Systems: Significant Incidents Summary Statistics: 1992-2011
Number Pro Gross Barrels Net Barrels Year Fatalities Injuries e’ Spilled Lost Darna ge (A) (C) (Haz Uq) (Haz Liq) (°) 1992 284 15 118 $100,162,059 136,769 68,647 1993 293 17 111 $91,932,760 116,132 57,218 1994 326 22 (E) 120 $222,101,998 163,920 113,785 1995 259 21 64 $70,514,366 109,931 52,963 1996 301 53 127 $151,927,799 160,188 100,854 1997 267 10 77 $102,872,019 195,421 103,114 1998 295 21 81 $162,680,805 149,348 60,725 1999 275 22 108 $166,147,635 167,082 104,445 2000 290 38 81 $240,191,391 108,614 56,945 2001 233 7 61 $73,781,144 98,046 77,329 2002 258 12 49 $119,303,805 95,663 77,268 F’ 8? Totals (2007-2011) (2009-2011) 3 (2002-2011) 2012 (1992-2011) Year
III
:1111 YTD r r r Average ver ver v g g g 2008 2004 2010 2009 2006 2005 2003 2011 2007
Nflienat
Nzttional, 5,640 311 271 279 338 268 257 298 269 280 257 282 282 271 115
IIIIbiIHuIInL
All
All
Pipeline
iii
Pipeline 373 23 13 13 15 19 12 15 12 19 15 19 14
Systems, 9 8
Systems, 1,530 104
Significant .iiIiIisiIi 56 62 71 55 47 57 34 58 74 65 23 77
Significant (F) $1,428,775,414 $6,099,523,317 $1,361,731,788 $304,445,880 $157,245,212 $167,515,798 $544,128,743 $145,285,437 $149,650,637 $339,128,619 $622 $471 $304 $511
Sraufce 3&ce $80,204,071
Incidents: ‘ ‘ ‘ 721 792 976 558
Incidents:
PHMSA ‘ ‘ 068 077 134 166
Sg
Sgn
Fatalities
Count
fcatthc’dentFesU
(cant 2,504,195 101,056 137,052 136,499 138,216 174,100 122 109 125 112 88,211 80,032 94,082 53,829 19,354
Thcdents
1992-2011 049 874 210 257
1992-2011
FdesJiy Export 1,493,338 108,821 123,144 68,566 45,818 69,389 68,655 53,428 50,413 87 80 31,807 69 74 10,086 Table
31
3 925 731 667 364
2012
2012 3.
F. 7.
3. I, 4,
Notes Sources
The .
The Administration, Approximately applied damage incident resulted Gas Printing by Does For Gross Net property source PHMSA Natural File HISTORICAL PHMSA PHMSA
I
E
severe
years
Barrels
source
costs
$466.5
Distribution
not
Domestic
‘ I
date
Gas Hazardous
Gas Gas in
Office
report.
to
in
damage
include
for
2002
years
flooding -
public
date
million Lost
Transmission
Distribution
Wellhead,
may
but
TABLES: National,
incidents
inflation
94%
and
Natural
For
Product was applies prior incidents may
1,851
not
and
for
Liquid associated
near
years
later,
of
not
appear these
not
to
private
National,
City 1940-2014. the prior
values.
Gas
injuries
only
Houston, Flagged
2004 (Chained)
All
caused
appear Flagged
where property prior
Flagged
Property
years Gate,
City
to
Pipeline
to
in
property
due
with
2011
to
these
that
Liquid
by
fire/explosion Gate
Incidents
in
and Texas. Incidents
is AU
2002,
Incidents to
Index this
damage
Price
these -
the
required
Damage
are
difficulty
a
PpeIine reports
Imports
incidents Prices.
Systems,
caused incident
distribution
reported
accident
presented
Index.
verified
reports
File
File
is
File
for
medical
All due
estimated
in -
Prices.
by
was
represents -
and
Systems.
Table
July -
other Gas identifying
July total
report
on due
July to
the
Significant
line
in
the
is
the
07/31/2012.
31,
Distribution
treatment
31, flooding. 2011
to
Release
the
10.1--GROSS property
31,
costs
failure
primary
forms
30-day
the
2012 as
2012.
difference
2012.
lost
Significant
dollars.
these the
are 30-day
are .
did
date:
gas
sum damage Incidents:
Note:
Note:
cause reporting reported
adjusted
Note:
Incidents
types
excluded not
and
Cost
Source:
reporting
Source:
of DOMESTIC
07/31/2012,
between
Incidents
Incidents include
of
Incidents
all
operator
of
field
of
Incidents:
failure,
for
via
period
public
events
in Gas
from
PHMSA
PH’MS
Property
the
in
the
2005
a
Gross period
occurring
the breakdown
occurring lost 1.1.1.1.1
PRODUCT
and occurring
October,
allowed
such
property
2004 Bureau
verified
with
was
report.
is Sifcant
Spniftant
Barrels
private allowed
Injuries
as
indexed
the
onward.
Damage
caused
a of by
up
on
up
damage, 1994
older up
AND
house
of
Economic
PHMSA Spilled
costs
to
to 07/31/2012.
by
to
public
Thcdents
ncrae;t
via
30
This by 30
accidents
DEFLATORS
1992-2011
30 report PHMSA
fire
(mil
days reported
the
flooding
days
days
and
but
regulation.
exclusion
and
that
Analysis,
Energy
formats.
$3
does RIes
Res
prior
regulation.
Barrels
prior
private prior
that
subsequently
1982-2011 in
in
USED
uy
,jLfiy
not
the
the
New
Information were the
the has
Government
Recovered.
costs
include
Incident ..
31,
Incident
30-day
Incident
not Orleans.
IN
caused
2O2
2012
THE
so
been
File
File source date may not appear in these reports due to the 30-day reporting period allowed by PHMSA regulation,
See Pipeline Incidents and Mileage Reports for more pipeline safety reports. This as don’t with New what “I stretch it For His August bulldozers Sometime John When by want has the ELIZABETH East years, W. blinders pipelines, is happens really been nation RoIe!NPR not to of 16, Texas know what in conventional I knock Daniel know 2012 difficult OF SHOGREN This on, the gears - 9 when like exactly is property but next how.” down known has the for up it I Oil few want spills. tried one him what to his crude. as is get months, one to thick to coming to the CA Spills, I’m much get know avoid It of dealing Keystone forest is straight more David to so how more this Daniel’s thick, and with,” than to It’s fate Daniel of answars XL protect dig its sticky — system. 1,000 he property, oil ‘A up or probably says. from the my at and about Whole in least the family, streams “Maybe Canada’s full are the will path figure of spreading tar have and sand he of other sands New out deposits a without loves. to that new what folks stand out oil companies pipeline, knowing Monster’ the want risks of around by tar pipeline and will to sands the everything, go the watch have come southern through text will United in to with size as Alberta. carry, shoot A States it. life you A But and A
in
had
“I
writing
meander
He
alert
He
Daniel
Planning
opposed
David
didn’t
love
And
But
getting
politicians
Many
conventional
extraction
steam
rushed
learned
to
him
Daniel
pipeline
with,
be
that
on
lives
to
know
people
that
through
deep
the
pipeline,”
more
them,
stands
For
home
terrifies
a
and
about
pipeline,
including techniques
what
pipeline
surveyors
spills
A
underground
of
oil
are
on
this
right
and
Pipeline
what
our
his
‘K-X-L’
a
wells.
which
some
he
welcoming
are
pipeline
2
property
in
hurried
was
petroleum
President
1/2-hour
recalls.
looks
the
inevitable;
had
w
are
But
people
was;
ill
headed
carry
middle
in
expensive,
been to
would
high
like
down
Winnsboro,
“My
‘36-inch,’ the
liquefy
drive
oil
Obama
from
in
a
oil
from
on
jobs,
of
fairy-tale
his
heart
hundreds
tear
these
the
prices
his
from
his
such
Canada’s
way
it
shady
Texas,
all
and
money
or
and
just
I
20-acre
land.
pipelines’
understood
Dallas
this
four
scrape
a
are
forest.
they
where
sunk
friendly his
of
tar
path
up.”
finally
years
and
spills
sands.
Republican
property.
also
in
that
it
the
from
He
paths
East
friendly
out
neighbor.
happen
Keystone
ago,
what making
produce
found
this
of
his Texas.
—
sprawling
when
that
is
house
oil
rival
Daniel
surveyors’
XL
the
tar
each
that
a
is.
pipeline
a
sands
lot
piece
Mitt
to
That
neighbor
year
will
included.
more
surface
where
Romney
is
come
of
oil
meant slated
stakes,
in
greenhouse
the
profitable.
the
spring-fed
called
with
mines.
to
property
tout
U.S.
pretty
be
with
Katie
installed.
these
him
the
These
some
big.
Hayes
gases
streams
that
benefits
at
pipelines.
Daniel
And
work
Luke
cryptic
complex
we
than
is
‘P-V
for
fell
to
of
NPR And A few months after he saw the stakes, he got a letter from a corporation named TransCanada asking for permission to send out more surveyors.
The letter warned that TransCanada could take him to court if he didn’t comply. He called an attorney whose name was on the letter.
“Isaid, ‘Ihave questions. Idon’t know anything about this project,’ “ Daniel remembers.
According to Daniel, the lawyer said, “The only question I have for you is which pile to put you in, the cooperative pile or the f - - - ing uncooperative pile.”
The lawyer says that he doesn’t remember the conversation, and that he doesn’t use such language. But Daniel took notes at the time, and he says the conversation is seared into his memory.
Daniel usually doesn’t intimidate easily. He’s a carpenter and used to work infographic for circuses, riding motorcycles on the high wires. But he knew he didn’t How Tar Sands Oil have the money to take on a big corporation. Is Produced TransCanada kept threatening Daniel that if he didn’t give his permission, they’d get it from the courts through eminent domain, which forces people to give companies rights of way through private property for highways and other uses considered in the best interest of the general public.
What Daniel wants most from TransCanada is answers. He actually drew up a list of 54 questions.
“One of my many questions was: ifthere’s a spill and we have to leave, are you going to take care of us?” Daniel says.
He also wanted to know things like: What kind of damage could a spill cause? And what chemicals would flow in the pipeline?
TransCanada told Daniel in writing that questions about spills were hypothetical because their pipeline would be designed not to spill. But in a document for the State Department, TransCanada predicted two spills every 10 years over the entire length of its Keystone XL pipeline, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Some scientists argue that the company underestimates that risk. Another pipeline it put into service tw years ago has had 14 spills in the United States, although most were small, according to TransCanada.
The U.S. Pipeline Network Eistin t,ne ppen Propsd Keyton XL ppefre Other US, ‘l ppdines
4
4
o 150 3G. ., .. I I I . ..
• MILES.
Source: Petroleum Gee Graphics Corporation (US. Pipelines), Trans Canada (Keystone Pipelines) Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR
After two years of wrangling, Daniel finally gave in to TransCanada, because he felt he had no other choice. He signed a contract, and in March 2010 accepted $14,000, which was a lot more than the $2,400 TransCanada had first offered him.
But around that same time, something happened that would help get Daniel some answers.
In July 2010, a pipeline carrying tar sands oil burst in Marshall, Mich., inundating 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River with heavy crude.
When Daniel heard these reports, he got scared.
“We didn’t have to talk in hypotheticals anymore. We had a real-life example of what we thought could happen here,” he recalls.
Daniel went to Michigan in search of answers.
How Clean Is Clean?
In Michigan, a cleanup worker turned whistle-blower named John Bolenbaugh helped answer one of Daniel’s questions: Ifthere’s a spill, willthey clean up all the oil? Two years after the spill, Bolenbaugh takes an NPR reporter on a kind of treasure hunt for oil, crashing through jumbles of brush and chesthigh grasses.
On the bank of the Kalamazoo River, Bolenbaugh sets up a video camera, because he videotapes everything he does. And then he hurls himself into the river.
A couple of minutes later, he walks out of the river, holding up a blue latex glove covered withtarry black stuff.
“it’slike molasses but even a littlethicker,” Bolenbaugh says. HAndit smells like asphalt, kind of. When it was fresh, it was a horrible, horrible smell, like they just paved your road, but they paved it on all four sides of your house, and you had to stay there for months. Itwas that bad.”
Bolenbaugh is like a reality TV character. He talks a mile a minute, and he’s prone to exaggeration. He sees himself as the Erin Brockovich of this disaster.
Bolenbaugh grew up in Michigan, and after a stint in the Persian Gulf with the Navy, and several years in prison for a sex offense, he started working on pipelines. So when the spill happened, he was called in to help clean it up.
As Bolenbaugh tells it, he and other cleanup workers ware told to bury oil, which made him furious. So he started taking photos and videos with his cellphone on the sly.
Bolenbaugh was fired after he went to the Environmental Protection Agency and the media. But he sued the contractor he worked for and got a big settlement. Now he’s suing Enbridge, the company that runs the pipeline.
He carries around some of the photos and tons of documents in a huge binder, which was part of the evidence for his lawsuit.
“Ifyou notice in this picture, the oil is still there, but we’re raking dirt over the top of it,” Bolenbaugh says. “That’s what we’re ordered to do.”
Bolenbaugh credits himself with getting Enbridge to redo cleanups. They dug up a two-mile stretch of creek for a second time, after Bolenbaugh showed reporters that a lot of oil was still under the replanted vegetation.
“Igot ‘em good. And I’mproud of myself for what I’vedone,” he says.
Enbridge and the EPA dispute Bolenbaugh’s interpretation of the role he’s played, but they both confirm that it has taken far longer to clean up the oil than expected. Early on, the EPA gave the company a couple of months. Two years and $800 millionlater, the cleanup is still going on. The cost eclipses every other onshore oil cleanup in U.S. history.
What Is Tar Sands Oil?
A major reason the cleanup costs so much and is taking so long is that lots of the oil sank to the bottom of the Kalamazoo River — but no one realized this at first.
“If
The
Will
might of
Scientists
never “The
this
“And
EPA’s
That
from
But
and
Cleanup
behind.
Tar
back
practically.
“It’s anything
studied Hamilton
Professor
there’s conditions,”
Enlarge
submerged
about
Companies
most
sands
float
not
a
EPA
kicked
everywhere
wear out
encountered Midwestern
the
boat quite
Steve crews
cleanup
a
on in
important
that’s
says
say
staff
a
out oil
spill
Tarry
the
into
off
month water.
Hamilton
solid,
they’re
has
Hedman
a
this
that
a
didn’t
environment,
considered
and oil.
alono
the
pipeline.
Protect
search
they
is
to
chief
tar
into
So
worked
a
questions
and
another
we river. of
the
be
spill
only
know sands
Mchigan
looked,
they
the says.
Kalarrszoo
have
Susan
diluted
it’s
for
of
With
People
beginning
cleanup,
what
on
oil.
focused not
sunken
way
this
oil
to the
State
Daniel
this,
they
Hedman
each
to
quite
leave, sank
River.
type
they
to chemicals
John make
University
In
that
think
found
oil.
on
some
step
to
explored
liquid,”
Pipelines’
to
were of
W.
are
study
vacuuming
says
have
the
it
material, Poole/NPR
about
he
liquid it,”
has
you
fish
dealing
that
river
he
took,
they
Hamilton
responded
how
on
going
researchers
it.”
says.
enough
liquefied
Paths?
bottom
in
his
had
tar
little
oil with.
come
science
produced
“You
the
into and
this
In
public.
Kalamazoo Hamilton
Michigan
scouting
to
sands
“You
and
a
recalls.
to
globs
contamination
take
the
unprecedented to
shallow
They
two
because
to
develop
can
it
up
skimming
flow
could
evaporate.
For
oil
got
adviser
river
behave
miles
care
from
of
is
see
State
here,”
expected
trip
spills
through
nearly
a
paddling
that
black
section,
and
pick
surprise.
just
of new
it’s
this
were
of
University
for
over
had
us?”
it
after
says
creek
heavy
pokes
oil
it
a
from
two
as
from
techniques
That
the
about
up
a
it
little
volume,
just
Hamilton
popped
down
many,
I
to
pipeline.
Daniel
a
Hamilton,
years,
disturb
and
were
One
cleanup.
the
the spill,
—
leaves
act
the
bit
been
his
professor
a
heavier
surface.
shape
spill.
of
of like
many
bottom.
closed
says.
under
stretch
or
up.
37
family’s sticks
it.
to
sheen
them
opened
But
the
even
oil
an
miles
“It’s
remove
years,
it
once
usually
than
these
heavy independent
because
jumped
into
his of Steve
starting
whether being
safety.
of
the
to
paddle
almost
a
it’s
river
all
had
kinds
the
stuff
ball
does
of
to
of it On his Michigan trip, he got an earful on that one from Michelle BarlondSmith.
She and her husband lived in a riverfront trailer park, where trees still show oil rings about three feet up their trunks.
BarlondSmith says the sickening fumes from the oil lasted for months.
“Besides the splitting headaches and the dizziness — and we call it the crab walk, which is when you think you’re walking straight but you look like a drunk walking down the street — you couldn’t eat because you felt like you had two rocks in your stomach just pounding. And when you tried to eat, unpleasant things happened,” BarlondSmith says.
Authorities didn’t suggest they evacuate until 10 days after the spill; peak levels of toxic chemicals in the air had passed by then. Enbridge did pay for a couple of weeks at hotels for the couple. But after that, they had to go home.
The EPA measured high levels of benzene in the air after the spill. Benzene is a chemical in petroleum, and in high enough doses, it can wreak havoc on the nervous system.
The company did buy about 150 houses along the route of the spill, but not BarlondSmith’s mobile home. Her husband says they felt abandoned by the company and the government.
“We were pretty much alone. They did not help us at all,” says Michelle’s husband, Tracy Smith.
David Daniel says he’s haunted by their stories and what he saw in Michigan.
“Ilearned that this is a whole new monster than what folks in Texas are used to dealing with,” Daniel says. “This is not a regular crude oil pipeline. This is something completely different. It’snot being treated differently.”
The Canadian pipeline company involved in the Michigan spill is not the same company David Daniel is dealing with; he’s dealing with TransCanada.
TransCanada’s representatives say their company is trying to learn as much as it can from the Kalamazoo spill, but they also stress that their Keystone pipelines should not be compared with the 40-year-old one that busted.
“The new pipelines we want to build are going to be the newest and safest pipelines ever built in the U.S.,” says Grady Semmens, a spokesman for TransCanada. “They’ll be a lot newer than that line that Enbridge operates. And we’re quite confident that any incident even approaching that scale willbe very quickly identified and responded to by TransCanada.”
TransCanada studied the chance that its new Keystone pipeline system could rupture. It predicted, in a report to the U.S. State Department, that a big spill could come twice every 10 years somewhere along the length of the system, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
Still, Semmens says pipelines are safer than transporting oil on ships, trains or trucks. He also stresses the benefits of getting petroleum from a friendly country like Canada.
“It’soil that’s produced here in North America; it supports the millions of jobs in North America in the
Related
have
“For
project
months.
and
Daniel
He will
But
Texas
Last
he
energy
Infographic:
told
adds.
go
Daniel
bullying.
me,
week,
to
through
admits
is
Landowner
TransCanada
stand
industry;
as
they
NPR
recently
TransCanada
How
a
And
father,
in
he
can
about
Stories
Tar
front
and
still
he
break
Sands
decided
Prepares
expects
warned
I
it
of
1,000
in
have
can
a
a
laws
Oil
began
bulldozer,
letter
replace
a
private
that
Is
the
bulldozers
duty
and
Produced
To
that
given
construction
pipeline
put
Fight
and
properties,
a
I’ll he
lot
my
all
stand
responsibility
Aug.
considers
to
of
company
he’s
family
show
oil
16,
in
on
that’s
learned,
2012
including
front
at
up
the
his
risk.
to
in
currently
to
southern
of
stay
contract
his
he
protect
a
I’m
David
bulldozer.”
forest
off
can’t
not
being
his
section
void
OK
Daniel’s
my
sometime let
property.
family.
with
it
because
imported
happen
of
any
forest
the
What
in
of
of
the
Keystone
without
from
that.
in
what
I
East
next
knoW
other
If
he
a
that
couple
Texas.
about
fight.
pipeline.
calls
countries,’
means
of
its
this
lies
It I’ll
w.offshore-environment.com/accidents.html
3/2/12
Take
FREE
Internet
Interesting
Directory
Bookstore
Conferences Order
Reviews
Oit&Gas
Impact
Environmental
Environment)
(Oii&Gas
Everyday
Evronment ArIderon
Home
colleague
site
Recommend
environ
a
Newsletter
to
Offshare
Now
break
of
Resources
a
Industry
ano
and
Offshore
News menLcom
facts
Offshore
:)
this
to fields.
experts
high drilling
not
and
distinguished.
Broadly compete with
and
Drilling
Drilling
shallow
especially
compounds.
blowouts
hurricanes,
The
mistakes,
technological
in They
scale,
Accidents
of
Oil
find
and
storage
Below
based
by
Oil
drill
accordance
en4ronmental
Accidents
help.
prolonged
gaseous and
Stanislav
pressure
abnormally
most
The
depend
more lean
Gas
and
zone
accidents and
estimate gas
on
speaking,
waters,
Lean
with
you
accidents
of
probability typical
accidents
and
accidents holes seere,
“En4ronmental
inetably
serity
Industry
and
oil,
is
information
The
hydrocarbons
gas
is
drilling
will on
Patin,
One
factors.
hydrocarbon
holes
so
with
extreme
t Environmental
gas,
high
most aciated
or Patin
so
Highly
it
emerges,
a
environmental pollution
causes
are
high
find
two
during
sometimes
at
in
of
concrete
on).
its
of
accidents
have
translation
and
accidents -
pressure.
of
areas
accompany
them
1
click
usually
often
a
the
To
major
that
unique
during
incident
a
gas
unique
such
the
Their
natural
recomme
during
with
numerous
of
to
a
short
accidents’
at
offshore
Imoact
on
on
usual
coers
gushing.
encountered
with
from
certain
on
accidents
be
combination
categories
offshore
all
extreme
Imiact
associated
main
simmary
average,
scenario.
dramatic,
Environmental
No
the
the in
drilled
impacts
for
development
by
consequences
stages
slow
overview
the
technological
exploration
offshore
frequency
of
catastrophic
other
rided
Learn
Elena
10,000
extent,
hazard
of
links
offshore
other
oil
well
These
the
consequences
water
the
of
to
situations
and
the include
in
of
world-wide
of
more
situations
(seismic
during
Offshore
when
stop
Offshore
by
with
as
of Cascio
chemical
3%
at
oil
deielopment.
gas
wells
drilling
and
each
is
occur
circulation.
of
many
the
a
and
the
and
connected
exploration
the
of
unexpected
production
result
offshore
oil
equipment
they
drilling,
exploratory
methods
of
situations
accidental
[Sakhalin-1,
accidental
Offshore-Environme
Impact Oil
serity.
is
ORDER
studies
end
gas
acti’vity, Oil
accidents
blowout.
when
and
accidental
natural,
but
relatively
substances
and
happen
are
of
and
production.
of
tanker
encountering
gas
on
Gas
and
NOW!
the
transportation
They
with
extremely
of
of
the
Gas
failure,
the
ice
inohAng
technical,
blowouts
The
development
well
drilling
episodes. lndustrvbyStanislav
situation
pressure
near
the
should
activities.
low.
episodes
environmental
the
1994].
fields,
oil
page. are
Industry”
abnormally
muffling
and
oil
Offshore
spills
the
spills
personnel
Some
the
The
in
intense
‘variable.
be
of
The
zones
deelops
shore,
new and
in
sources
causes,
liquid
nt.com!
can are
and
and
the
oil
do
To
need
and
isaies
Oil
in 1I
‘w.offshore-environment.com/accidents.html
3/2/12
Exxon
of
One
oil
local development.
tanker
this
In ecological
the
and
developed
spilled),
was
shores
(1978,
spill
grounding
a
While
tanker
prepared
of
The
scientific
relatively
Significantly,
released
oil
and
amount
The
running terminals.
114,000
shuttle
by considerable
Tanker
Transportation
Oil
time,
impacts
considerable,
well
drilling
blowouts.
can The
hydrocarbon
Prince
sequence
some
fuel
such
pollution and
levels
tankers
in
mammals.
of
followed
of
history
population. explosions
main
other
be
with
Valdez
more
Esso speaking
spilled
the
their
220,000 gas
95,000
accidents
with
events tankers fluid.
cases,
and
aground
controlled
of
William
transportation.
and
to
in
on
rarely.
of
literature
accidents
the
of
disturbances in
causes
most
oil
group
Usually,
ecological
large
(the
of
serious deal
details.
oil
of
Bemica caused
Braer the
the
accordance
by
One 45,000
Accidents
into
ran
both
spilled
help
spills
part
tons
tanker
large
primarily
pollution
The indicates
tons
the
dramatic about
of
are
a
latter marine
The
tanker
with
Sound
and
of
spills
has
aground
during
the
of
number
of
the
(probably
(1993,
of
large
rather
and
tanker
of
consequences
and
accidental
ecological
and
they
the
supertanker
by
of
was
them
tons,
frequencies tanker
during
the
accidents
them
into
coastal been
oil
constitute
the
cargo. hazard
oil
the
differ
the
marine
Torrey
in enAronment.
main
near
due
reached
of
blowouts
drilling
that
caused storage
with
do
blowout
effectively
holed
situations
85,000
Oil
shore
spilled),
offshore
and
history
the
of
happened
accidents
this
respectively.
media.
in
declining
accidents
tanker
not
at
to
from
other
the
extracted
way
they According
the
zone
its
and
sea
spilled
Canyon
and situations
oil
their
kind
least
during
accidents
has
attract
reefs,
accidents over
exploration
lethal
heavy
Alaskan
unique tons
of
fUture.
preventers
of
year
transportation
during
of
associated
Exxon
can
and
tanker
Analyzing
accidents
included
accidents
fisheries
causing
such
(in
are
developed
tanker
regularity
been
delivering
50%)
in
occurred
over
over
1
of
the
that
collisions
in
to
several
hardly
on
limits
any
on
pollution
1978 billion
not
At
to
scenario.
oil
drilling
the
incidents
includes
Valdez
year.
accidents,
the
thoroughly and
southern
the
and
mooring,
40,000
the
of
the
lead
official
transportation,
starting
special
so
spilled).
serious
much
consequences.
and
in
for
annual
English
production
the
in
past
be
tons).
shore.
enAronmental
leading,
continental
right
large
hydrocarbons
hours
in same
impressive
the
to
operations.
1989
marine
was
of
with
avoided.
by
(1989,
statistics
1989
data
tons
In
large
regular,
more
two
the
as
Shetland
shore.
with attention.
in
and
tanker changing
damage
Each
olumes
On
all
including
or
time,
Chapter
described
Channel 500,000
other
and
the
well
ultimately,
in
decades,
French
[IMO,
of
days)
the
fauna,
40,000
oil
some
1,100
damage the
the
crude
Although
zone
in
shelf
of
as
we
The
routine
as
the
spills
catastrophes vessels,
and
situations,
These
catastrophic
This
1990
these
risk
to
basin.
to
shallow
of
rare
1990],
7
At
the
want the
tons
by
in
tons
fields,
Amoco
and
total
mainly
oil
of
will tons
nature
accounts
by the
circumstances
oil. oil
the
1967. we
than
can
include
shutting
accident
oil
tanker density
the were
to
catastrophic
episodes
accidents
both
transported
episodes
British
a
to
discuss
of
the
As
onshore
The
volume
and
the
should
same
of
chronic
volumes
year. the
waters
be
oil
just
heavy
for
mention
and
Cadiz
though,
The
the oil
rate
the
fires
rather
field
occur
birds
for
of
in
the
oil
of
be
of
of
the
the
a 2/1
vw.offshore-environment.com/accidents.html
3/2/12
releasing this
Of
near are
capacities
developments.
main Storage.
mixtures,
freight-carrying
dozens
cover Western
completely At
tanker
can
evaporation
ice tanker
can well
carriers
Very
accidents
exceed
catastrophic.
shelves
and
This
accidents
Arctic
are
considerably
region. general the
year.
and
to
‘vicinity
(including account Oil
grand This
have
causes
spread
resources)
Valdez
hundreds
course,
last,
anchored
and
be
and
purpose
destroy comparable
the
cause traffic
as
modeling,
supertankers.
means
primary
dangerous
the
relatively
already
This
transported
gas
that
accidents,
marine
projects
and
on
the
gas
We
everything
onshore are of
is catastrophe along
intense
an
Murman,
their
whole
that
and
Underwater
accidents
of
a
in
on
the
the
(about
going
the of
socalled
regular
is
soluble
tragic
of
alarming
hundreds going
must
clouds
into
as
risk everything
of
up
the
in
miles
background
transporting the
gas
increase
considerable
content,
Moreover,
been
the
White
ecosystems. the
They
eastern
ice
hydrocarbon
that
capacity
recent
well.
the
fisheries
of
to
to
shipping
situations
exists an
area
terminals.
to
Alaskan
2%
during
apotheosis
remember
although
to
the
liquefied
condensate)
the
types),
coastline,
by
50,000
transportation
that
the
in
semisubmerged
followed of
Each
be
the
started
area
are
be
flameless
happened
Sea).
association
the
water.
reservoirs
a
of
to
this
oil
episode
area
high.
shelf
especially
the
the
rich
alive
of
risk
has
year)
used
often
the
of
the
thousands
of
regions
and
of
tanker
and
information
damaging
offshore
m 3
large
area
methanol
shelf.
35,000
probability
gas can
The
ecological
of (the
less
amounts
resources
Sometimes,
of these
transportation.
happened
oil
of
The This
in environmental
by
In
the
it
gas
together allow
of
used
either
lethal
fishing
transportation
areas Sakhalin
in
covered
case
field
explosions.
are (unique
combustion
on emerge
approximately
association
tankers
shelves
for
possible
probable
fleet.
high
consequences
exploration
[Borisov
the
activity
region
in
during
developments
vessels
tons,
the
storing
when
a us
of
developments
the
impact
are position
-
the
of
of
of
history
in
necessary
and
productivity
a
of
This
of
disaster.
square
with to
before
sea
an
sea
for
hydrocarbons
up
this
rather
in
mind
with
built
of
contains
to
for
underwater
the the
accidental
tanker
is
conclude,
tankers
outcomes
than
et
and
general
ac6tient case
is
the
to
its
liquid
transport
damage
surface will
oil
example
Underwater going
to
It
animals,
and gets
Arctic
al., Alaskan
anchored
of
dead
accidents
going
in
near
400
in production
of
happens
cleanness
kilometers.
toxic
tankers
marine
at
Barents
the
include
the
the
such
loading
of
a
of
explosions.
1994]. on
element
hydrocarbons
even
the
unique
to
instead
and
km 2 .
Russian
the
statistics
a
weight
and
accidents
these
basin.
to
offshore
and
area
the
of
without situations
of
substance
is
take
storage
gas
liquefied
in
same birds,
shelf.
cases,
organisms make extracted
platform
such
high
possible
stronger
an
tankers
in
tanker
due
in
and
the
formation
occurring
storage
Russian
operations
of
tanker
and
natural
the
accidents
of addition
place
All
accident
of
up
In
developments
reader.
vulnerability
coastal
to
and
latitudes
any
Kara
oil
a
many
about
hundreds
pipelines fact,
tanks
Such
to
Barents
Of
including
with
biological
vessel
natural
the
shuttles
occurring
and
foundations
are
that
(oil,
accidents if
these
with
120,000
tanks accident.
plants.
calculations
here
Arctic
resources
will Seas
we
it
of on
rapid
oil
to
oil
large
The
explosions
used
and
and
involving gas
zone
could
oil-water
can
is
pieces
the
take
the
with the
where
tankers,
be
are
and gas.
Sea
are factors
with
of
the
in
Exxon
shelf
under industry
It
of
be tanker
from
for tons,
rest
in
Arctic
trips
of
going
turned
and
a
gas
the
into
Gas
can
the
as
Gas
the
or
that
the
the
of
a
of a
3/2/12
ks.google.ca/books?id=3tkefeGuY2oC&pg=PA96&Ipg=PA9B&dq=what+is’i-hazard+analysis÷with+o...
Shop
Android,
million
Go
Newt
r:fl
No
All
Books
Find
Amazon.ca
Chapters.indigo.ca +You
eBookstore
My
My
to
eBook
sellers
for
Shop
the
library
History
in
iir
eBooks
iPhone,
a
eBooks
Search
library
for aveilable
>>
to
iPad,
eBooks
now
read
Human
Sony
e
eBooks
images
on
tore
the
and
for
Web,
Reability
Nook.
over
Maps
what
Add
3
to
and
is
We
my
Related What
Systems
Human
YouTube hazard
iid
Human
i:.iiradon
Error
haven’t
brary
F.imrin
in
teIfabiht
people
Transportation
analysis
found
books
Sytrn
News
Reliability
any
rwrite
with
are
reiews
Gmaii
and
reviewl
supported
mathematical transportation
readers subject
Transportation
modes
significantly
are
Moreover,
approximately
annually
world.
aircraft,
Systems
manufacture,
Each 0
Balbir
Less
oil
saying
Re’Aews
test the
in
tankers
year
the During
0
S.
of
result
of
with
ships,
problems.
due Documents
-
transportation.
Dhillon
with
human
it
usual
Balbir
and
billions
may
to no
-
to
concepts of
their
and
system.
Systems
70
a
Write
most trains,
pre’4ous
verious
human
places.
foIl
Technology
S.
be
reliability
to
operate
of
operation
Error
Dhillon
explanation
added
90
transportation
dollars
and
The
together types
percent
error
a
is
knowledge
Calendar
Human
transportation
motor the
-
that
across
material
review
are
thousands
to
&
accidents.
in
first
Engineering
a
human
of
of
being
with
Reliability
vehicles
certain
transportation
Transportation
all
the
book
crashes
in
will
Books
numerous
types
the
More
spent
necessary
errors
of
be
to
systems
degree.
Needless
throughout
field,
lives
accessible
and
cover
across
of
to
contribute
develop,
are
and
Error
examples
crashes
the
such
to
lost
all
is
the
in
say,
to
as
Sign
in 1/• (24/12 PpeIine concerns due soon Pipeline concerns due soon BYCARLY O’ROURKE,TIlE TIMES AUGUST21. 2012 [
Dear Editor,
The deadline for letters of comment to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel is Aug. 31. Please consider sharing your concerns by writing to: Secretary to the Joint Review Panel Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, 444 Seventh Ave. S.W., Calgary, AB, T2P 0X8.
The Pitt Folder Preservation Society sent the following letter:
The Pitt Polder Preservation Society is a non-profit organization located in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, British Columbia. The society was formed in 1996 with broad goals to preserve parkland, rivers, fish, and wildlife,as well as support global environmental issues.
We weuld like to register our formal opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. There are numerous reasons for our decision, including First Nations’ opposition, environmental effects, foreign investment, economic results, and more.
iEjionseiy on healthy forests, rivers, and oceans for their livelihood and the continuity of their culture. BC First Nations have given Enbridge a clear message: they cannot be bought. They are not willingto subject their natural surroundings to an oil spill. According to th.nion of BC Indian Chie “Indigenous Peoples have the sacred duty and inherent obligation to defend the health and well being of their communities as well as the environmental integrity of their territories. The fleeting, —“ short-term economic gain promised by government and industry proponents of mega-projects like the Enbridge Pipeline.., are being vehemently opposed by Indigenous Peoples who are thinking of the detrimental long-term impacts on their territories and on their communities” (Jan. 10th, 2012). The Pitt Polder Preservation Society supports and respects First Nations’ rights to protect their traditional territories.
British Columbians believe that the pipeline steel willeventually corrode and burst open, resulting in a spill somewhere along the 1,170 kilometres of pristine wilderness and 1,000 rivers and streams crossed. Kelly Marsh’s calculations determined_that “the risk of one or more medium or large spills over 50 years is about 87 perce’ H’ancouver Sun, July 14, 2012)J-Ioijong willit a spill only pccessible by helicopter?jf spill occurs at sea, how many marine animals willbe killed and what willhapDen to the coastal communities that rely on them? Even before a devastating oil spill, marine life willbe negatively impacted by supertankers: a scientific study reveals commercial shipping lanes cause chronic stress in whal s (Vancouver Sun, eb. 9, 2012).
Considering that more than 4,000 speakers signed up to state their opinions to the joint review panel during the Northern Gateway public hearings, it is clear that this topic invokes passionate opinions in both Canadian citizens and the international community. Global warming has no borders, and every
VW.V ancouv ersun.com/story _print.htmI?id 7119910&sponsor=escapes.ca ‘24/12 Pipeline concerns due soon nation has a right be concerned about Canada’s activities. The Pitt Polder Preservation Society takes umbrage to the infamous quote by Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver: “Environmental and other radical groups... threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda... They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”Oliver’s statement is blatantly hypocritical because China has $20 billion invested in Canadian tar sands,.and Beijing’s Sinopec is funding part of Enbridge’s $100-million pipeline study. The growing reaches of China’s corporate tentacles are worth a shudder, especially given the potential impact of investor rights as part of the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement. A multinational corporation willhave the right to sue governments when policies, for example, environmental regulations, interfere with profits. Furthermore, it would be illegal to stop exporting to China once we begin, which means our own country’s needs willbecome secondary to China’s.
is brings us to the question of whether or not exoorting Canadian oil to ChinjJtbe hest
economic iritrest , former president and CEO of ICBC, concluded that oil willcost from $2 to $13 more per barrel once it is available on the international market, raising gasoline prices throughout Canada. The Canadian dollar willbe tied to rising oil prices, causing job losses in other exporting sectors. Allan also informed us that a separate company called Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership willlegally own and operate the pipeline. Its limited assets, including only the pipeline and marine terminal, essentially protect Enbridge from financial liabilityin the case of an oil spill.
[he Pitt Polder Preservation Society does not support the Northern Gateway Pipeline, nor does it i_nother company or alternate route that would export Albertan oil to Asia. Accord g to Bill f McKibben only way to ensure we do not go over 2 degrees global warming would “requir fliieeping most of the carbon the fossil-fuel industry wants to burn safely in the soil” (The Rolling Stone, Aug. 2012). The Alberta Tar Sands contain 240 gigatons of carbon, which is close to half the amount of carbon it would take globally to reach two degrees warming. Enbridge’s financial rationale for constructing this pipeline is based on the Alberta Tar Sands tripling production in 25 years (Dogwood Initiative, 2012). The Tar Sands are injurious enough at present: 130 km2 of tail ponds leak 11-million litres a day (ForestEthics, 2009), causing huge spikes in cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan downstream on the Athabasca River (Downstream, 2009). Ittakes between two and four tonnes of tar sand and two to four barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil, and two- to four- times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel compared to extracting conventional oil Wikipedia). Tripling Tar Sands production could be the tipping point for a climate change deathblow.
For the Pitt Polder Preservation Society, this is an economic issue, an envhonmental issue, and a moral issue. Canada must be accountable for global warming, and therefore we strongly recommend that the joint review panel does not approve the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Carly O’Rourke, per Diana Williams, President
Pitt Polder Preservation Society
© Copyright (c) Maple Ridge Times
W W.V anneuv ersun.corn/story _print.html?id =71199 1O&sponsor=escapes.ca 24/12 Pipeline concerns due soon
ww .v ancouv ersun.com/story_print.html?id=7119910&SpOnsOresCaPes.ca Leadnow Stop the Enbridge Pipeline Page 1 of3 I
(/ENJINDEX) (lEN/CAMPAIGNS) HOME CAMPAIGNS
OCALL FRAUD) 51300 ST 2012 (1STOP-THE-SELL.OiJTi
The federal government is using a misleading smear campaign to silence Canadians concerned by the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Let’sspeak out against these dirty PR tactics, and put the focus back where it belongs: stopping a reckless pipeline that will killjobs, destabilize our climate and threaten our coast and salmon, Tell Last week, the federal government launched a massive public relations offensive to silence Canadians opposed to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Minister Joe Oliver to put Canada’s best pipeline. They are trying to manufacture a myth that “foreign special interest? interests before oil industry profits and and radical groups” are “hijacking the National Energy Board hearings)’ Lrt i, zrtaetzi.l stop the pipeline.
The federal governments goal is to ram the pipeline through the public ENTER YOUR DETAIlS: review process despite the fact that it is strongly opposed by Canadians who First Name are concerned the pipeline will killjobs, destabilize our climate and threaten our coast and salmon rivers. Just yesterday Prime Minister Harper doubled- Last Name clownon the rhetoric, claiming foreigners’ were “hijacking”the process Email Address Postal because they want to make Canada “one giant national park,0c0t Code
The reality isthat there is broad opposition to a pipeline that would pump tar Would you liketo makeaformalsubmissiontothe Enbrldge sands crude from Alberta to British Columbia’s rugged coastal waters where Northern Gateway Project JointReview Panel? it would be loaded onto supertankers destined for overseas markets. Between 75 and 80% of British Columbians. including 2/3rds of BC’sfederal Yes,please send inmycommentsas a formal ‘submissionto the pipelinereview. Conservatives, oppose supertanker traffic along BC’scoast because of the risk of oil spills. tt1l More than 70 First Nations have joined together to 1 SEND TO: protect the- economic and ecological integrity of their land and waters by banningthe pipeline and supertankers from crossingtheirterritory)J0ri Slwib LeggeD.chairperson, Enbridge Narthert, Gateway Joint Review Panel Joe Oliver, ME,Minister of Natural Resources Their voices must be heard,
MESSAGE SUBJECT: This is a critical moment, the government smear campaign isdesigned to
distract the many Canadians who are learning about this issue for the first 1Put Canada’sbeat interests before oil industry profitt time. We need a massive public outcry to counter the smear campaign by MESSAGE IPLEASECUsroMtzE: talkingabout the real issues.
The stakes are high, and Canada needs a real debate about the future of our Dear MinisterOliverand the Joint ReviewPanel, energy. economy and environment. Here’s the real question: is it inCanada’s Iam gravelyconcernedaboutthe proposedEnbtidge best interests to build this pipeline and expand the tar sands? NorthernGatewaytar sands pipeline,and the government’srecent attempttosilencethe overwhelming Buildingthe Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline will run counter to localoppositionto the pipelineand interferewiththe (Canada’s national interest infour major ways: pipelinereviewprocess. 1. The pipeline would killjobs all across Canada. Regionally,the small Canadiansdeserve tobe heard, and the construction of number of jobs building and maintaining the pipeline are notworth the this pipelinewillhurt Canada’airitereats. oil spills in fisheries and tourism)” risk that pose to thousands of jobs 1.The NorthernGatewaypipelinewouldkillCanadian teoffol Just ask the residents of the Gulf Coast. jobs. The highdollardriven bytar sands expansionis hurtingCanada’smanufacturingsector,and tens of Nationally, the pipeline would close factories in Ontario and Quebec. thousandsot lobs infisheriesand coastal recreationare How? For the last ten years, the expansion of tar sands exports has directlythreatened by oil spills. driven up the Canadian dollar, making Canada’s manufacturing exports 2. The NorthernGatewaypipelinewouldthreaten more expensive and less competitive. This pattern is called the “Dutch Disease,” and in Canada it has contributed to the loss of 627,000 Ci,uructern Rnnraiving.2319/3950
manufacturing jobs in the last nine years. This pipeline willmake the SINCERELY, worseJzMnh2t situation much Yournameandcontactdetailswillbeaddedhere
2. The pipeline would destabilize our climate. We have to choose between c:c. expanding the tar sands and preventing runaway global warming. Yourlocal Merol,erof Parliament ’°’ ClaudeGravelinME,criticfor NatarulResources,NewOe,nocraticPartyof Canada DavidMc’ h,’.vMP,CriticforNatu,al Resoorces,Liber,ll’urlyofCanada 3. The pipeline would threaten our coast and salmon rivers.1The pipeline A,:drdtfellaoa,aa,ME,Critich,, NalnralRew,,,ces,tfl,,o(Joriliacois ElizabethMay ME,leader ofti,e Green Party Canada would bring 200÷ super-tankers a year to some of the most difficult f waters inthe world, the area that sank the Queen of the tNorth, a large
http ://www.leadnow. ca/canadas-interests 8/4/20 12 Leadnow Stop the Enbridge Pipeline Page 2 of 3 I
ferry.This creates an unacceptable threat of a major oil spill, and that’s Yes, would liketo receiveoccasionalemailupdates not the only risk. The pipeline will leak. The same day the review panel about thiscampaignfrom Leadnow,caand campaign hearings opened. Enbridge reported a leak in another one of their partner DogwoodInitiative pipelines.’ L..aU
4. Over 70 First Nations have banned the pipeline and supertankers from their territory. They have never given up their rightto refuse projects, and they are rejecting this project despite significant cash incentives Spread the Facebook Twitter Google+ because oil spills are such a major threat to their land and water. V’Iord.
We have a choice to make, and the stake are high. Inthe debate about the Enbridge pipeline,we can see two competing visions for Canada.
In one, the federal government and oil industry interests work together to exploit our natural resources as quickly as possible, maximizing short-term profits while trashing Canada’s ei,vironrnent, ruining our reputation, killing jobs, eroding our democracy and ensuring catastrophic climate change.
Inthe other, Canadians work together through democratic processes and an independent regulatory framework to use our oil resources to build a forward-looking renewable energy economy that ensures sustainable prosperity for generations to come while making Canada a leader inthe global struggle for climate security.
Right now, there are countless Canadians who are standing up for that positive vision and being smeared by their own government. Let’sstand up with them, and put the focus back on the real issue,
Sources:
1. jjHarper warns pipeline hearings could be “hilacked’ bttLwsckcsaLeswaLcanstta1ttibshglsmhsistoi2Q12j2.&fsLb.arner nQLtber.neatewa:egmLthtttzLL.e3bcc4LeeLc.gsateLt.tltl columbia/storv/2012/O1/O6/haroer-northern-satewav-hearines..,,,,,,, 2. flAn Open Letter from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver httpL.the.aipbeandrna6confn.ews/natona Eesoicesmin1ster.c-eiiyertaclZ?SS21 lhttg://www.thegiobeandmall.coin.’news/riationai/an-ooen-letter-frorn-natural resources.minister-ioe-oli’,er/article2295599/l 3. .QHarper says pipeline debate should he left to Canadians
interview.htmllhtto.Jiwww.cbc.ca/news/oolitics/storv/2012J01116/ool-haroer- mansbridee-interview.html) 4. ““-.‘“ to oil tankers on the rise tanners-on-the-rise- lhtto:f/foreatethics.org/opoosition-to-bc-oil-tankers’on-thw
5. ,QSavethe Fraser Declaration httD’J/savethefraser.c.ajhtto://savethefraser.cal 6. .jjPipeline project a gateway to disaster Thtto://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Pipeline-proiect-eateway dispster/59Baa2lJstory.html lhttp://w’w.ottawacitizen,co.nLnews’Pioeline+oroiect+gat.ewa±Jsaster/5988821,nwrv.sujei 7. ,QCanadianjobs lost to the tar sands htto:f/v,’ww.huffingtonoost.cairnatt poo02iiitinD.oricelcanadian-ollbllSO2SS.htmi ntt:i/www,huffinetonoost.ca/matt It. ijOil sands should be left in the ground: NASA scientist htto://wmw.theelobeafldrriail.com/news/nationalloil-sands-should-be-left-in’the eround-nasa-scientist/ai-ticlE, fhtte:f/www.thenlobeandmail.corn/new.sLiiationajLoil-sands-shouid*.eJeftdntbe:.
9. QEnbridge reports leak from U.S.pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin http://.thenlobeandsail.com/report-on-husir,ess/enbridge-reports-leak-frorn
-.. -
us-oioeline-as-northern-eatewpy-hearines’ ,.,_,. ICe real fweign interests in the oilsands htUw,ottaNjtizeac.ouLo&i.nioniLeaI :fQr.It!gfl:!OtItdIt5tIO i.si5.?.23.Ls.t.c.r.y.htlnJ. (ht;iJ..pttan.cecsippricwLrezi±tqrejge±iercsts±ollsrdst5.98i 23ptstoryhti.riJ) The Enbridge Pipeline: The Largest and Most Insidious Threat to Our Culture.” IGerald Amos, Former Chief Councilor, Haisla First Nation) h;ll4btiffo12CaLgItr.atcLsmostfloLthIti:fl:gatetstsY: oioline1199956.html lhttoj/www.[iuffinetonoost.caleerald-amos/northern eateway-oioellnell9995It.htmll
ta.c Us on ta ?r iva.cy Policy (1eipriv ac on (Len/c ct) poicy) http ://www.leadnow. ca/canadas-interests 8/4/2012 Yi
______
Save
Bbg
Pictures
nka
About
the
Yinka
Yinka
Fraser
the
DeneCAlliance
Dene
Dene
Freedom
00 MTR4 14
OuC
Train
bitumen)
Kitimat, would
The
Pipeline/tanker
project,
use
That’s
safety
offer.
very
is
Our
the
the
sustain
Our
and
ocean,
Along
Nations
to
defend
not the
ourselves,
Our
are
responsibility
self-governing
ourTitle,
us
as
Our
Why
one
enter
all
the
proposed to
entire
land
land communities
our
sure
permit
people
existence
laws
Indigenous
We
put
of
lawful
measures with
why
make
and
ourselves,
introduction
British
the
or
culture.
are
and
provides. People
by
the
our
to
simply
state
our
culture,
others Rights
we
our
our
‘9
the us
pipeline
living
united
result
health
any
means
water
central
shared
Enbridge
We
communities
to
to
can’t
Columbia,
as
ancestors,
on
that
Nations,
more
threat
plants,
that
will
other
laws
We
O&.
stand
rely
and
protect
separate
in
like
the
and
if
of
our
and
as
available
we
our
not
will
Fraser
this
from
parts
accept
of
than
Enbridge
say
on
Train
our
Legal
it
never
to
decision.
Northem
language,
animals
by
Say
oil
the
have
territories
in
we
allow
not
our
pipeline
where that
feed
everyone
the
lands
our
of
130 and
pipelines.
future,
authonty
peoples
River
at
creatures
have
any
before
put
to
lands
our
a
Alberta
grave
our
we
descendants,
First
our
promises,
allow
responsibility
and
Why
and
ensure
supertankers
risk
We
them watershed.
Enbridge
I
culture,
our
a
is
“NO”
must
communities
are and
selves,
and legal
depends
fish Nations
We
to waters.
from
built.
risk
have
of
these
over
They
way
around
tar
not
at protect
our
Say
an
that
protect
elsewhere
that
in
and
or
the
sands
risk.
our
never
of
our
oil
and
Gateway
‘NO
built
do
order
waters
oil
how
allies
Our
this
and
on
being
moral
we
spill
to
harms
families
us.
not
will
pipelines
lands.
to
against
with
to
our
in
this.
given
laws
tar
rely
to
much
to
Gathering across
keep
transport
permit
every
our
be to
It
in
all
transport
oil land
that
Schedule/Events
sands
As
doesn’t
on
the
do
the
placed
and
up
territories.
money threats
pipeline
ourselves
for
BC
and
single
Pacific
world,
our
pipeline
and
our
our
it
waters
at
matter
i
crude
they
community
to
to
day.
including
Indigenous streams
importance
over food,
territories
and
cross
western
this
foods
Enbridge’s
:172
coast
are
healthy,
overseas
our
and
are
We
tanker
oil
risk,
from
directly
what
1,000
km
fish-bearing
approxi
our
rivers,
and
port
willing
(diluted
tanker
continue
of
Get
pipeline
Canada,
including
the
and
threats
livelihoods
from
Life.
technical medicines
and
critical
rivers
markets.
peopLes,
proposed project
of
to
lnolved
our
tied
mately
we
to
Our
cross
what
apd
will
will
our
to such
to
News
*
tanker
petition
Over
the
Oer
tankers
law
banned
Over
lice
the
including:
solidarity
Sign
Enbiidge
Enbridge
freedom
100,000
130
100
the
26
on
Alliance
supporting
tar
using
Petition
First
the
First
Press
with
Contact
sands
pipeline/tanker
North
people
pipeline/tanker
their
Nations
Members others search..
Nations
and
pipelines
Kit
a
own
Coast
train
ban
that
who
stand
who
who
Indigenous
on
signed
of
oppose
oppose
and
hae
oil
in
project
BC
project
2012 a
Colwribians
Today,
area
In
A
success
There
several
>>
catastrophic
An
[1990]
the
includes persons
A
The
Exxon
The
The
greatest
119,000 would
Once
Learn
>
View
Pipe the
Learn
history
large
Environment
North
from
•
•
waters •
idea
•
•
•m2g
•
•
•
1972,
is
Exxon
the
the
more
Valdez,
Living
require
Act!
levels Join
Learn
by
marine
no PipeUpAgainstEnbridge
PipeUnAgainstEnbridge
Library
News
mere
Home
aboard,
commercial
risk
an
m3)
ofbringing
Coast’s
oil
issue
industry
way
are
Enbridge
the about
oil spill
of
decades.
to
Up
from
of
Ocean
of
about
some
oil
opposed
spill
an
Valdez
the
Trudeau
protecting
ofoll
to tanker
Canada
crude
(over
the
spill
oil
rich
the
recover
if
region’s
Queen
the
fisheries
oil
225
Society’s
Against tanker
15 would
tanker
Northern
on
oil
and
traffic, oiL
10,000
tanker
Exxon
percent
to
government
report
oil
B.C’s
revisited?
it
oil
diverse
crude
of
tankers
environment.
have
bound
tankers
traffic
is
based
from
Canada
our the
traffic
tonnes)
considered
Vaklez
interactive
in
Gateway
of
on
on
North
oil
oil
North
1990
in
marine
the
a
ibr
in
coast Twitter
per
tankers
tankers
to
established
major
B.C.
Prince
can
may
oil
oil Long
the
Coast
analyzed
Enbridge
year.
sailed
Pipeline
souL
is
oil
‘s
ecosystems
expect
to
North
tanker
occur
from
recovered.
travel
northern
on
Beach,
spill
Rupert
be
The
would
off
the
one
that
the
simulator
once
over Coast
reached
course,
spill
are oil
tankers
North
Calilbrnia,
and
of
crude
likelihood
devastate
waters
tanker
are the
or
100
every
the
Scientists
evokes
Kitimat,
to
Coast.
same
ran
inextricably
Kitimat,
to
most
oil
smell
keep
traffic
is
see
l5years.”
into
tankers
a
of
a
struck
waters
memories
devastating
hotly
marine
oil
estimate
sport
how
tanker
oil
Gil
Enbridge’s
it
spills,
would
spills
Island
Prince
tied
should
contested
an
that
angling
ecosystem
accidents
oil
that
to
about
from of
claimed
be
human-caused
near
spill
William
their
the
not
pipeline
the
lodges,
loaded
happening.
issue.
Exxon
10
aloug
travel
the
cultures
oil
occurring
that
the
moderate
from Sound’s
entrance
and onto
would
A
the
through
BC
supports
Valdez
Mustel
and
the
Enbridge
a
Even
environmental
Ferry
oil
wide
in
bring
Bligh
spills
Exxon
to
tankers
livelihoods.
Canadian
northern
disaster
noll
with Douglas
a
Queen
variety
vibrant
to
and
Reef
tanker
in
Valdez
B.C.
modern
lbr
May2010
just
at
B.C.’s
of
and
waters.
of
Channel, disasters
export
coastal
least
s
route
the
north
seulbod
will
pristine
spilled
technology,
North
one
inside
continue
The
would
to
in
way
Ibund
ever
and
major
ibreign
Alaska
260,000
North
related
report
in
coastal
of
sank.
spread
to
2006.
that
li1
to
industry
spill
occur
Coast
markets.
on
enterprises.
pollute
states
fbr
80
waters
to
ohore March
0
over
750,000
percent
thousands
in
represents
considers
that March
history.
Alaskan
time.
The
in
24,
“based
order
each
For
of
proposed
barrels
22,
1989,
ofpeople.
British
beaches
First
a
year. the
to
2006,
on
clean
protect
project’s
when
(41,000
Nations,
current
A
project
up
with
lbr
This
the
a
the
101 to
Record
Some
>
located
Enbridge
Learn
•
•
Read
Pipe •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
In
eventually
In
and
In
In term •
545 •
.
table. •
In
.
Wisconsin,
of •H
On
According reportable
On
In
smoke
In
On
Between
Enbridge
500
Enbridge
Enbridge
Enbridge
Act!
Join
July
April2010
January
2009,
April the
PipeUpAgainstEnbrklne
crude PpeUoAgamstEnbridge
in
Enbridge Library
2006,
an
widespread,
January
March
environmental
July
Inc.
of
site
Canada
list
attempt
Polaris
2010,
about
plume
Up 2007,
spills
4,
remediation
of
oil
U.S. (TSX:ENB;
there
connects
1999
Inc.
2009
Energy
employs
Inc.
spills
to
2002
the
spilling
18,
onto
1,
a
and
Institute’s
an
Enbridge,
to
affiliate a
roughly
trades
2007
leaking
United
was
were
2006,
and and
mile
Against
facts
an
totalling
Enbridge and
keep
Enbridge
rrnland
an
the
Partners
violations.
—476,961
to
Enbridge
6,065
ranked
2008,
Enbridge
an
high
67
resulted
is
NYSE:ENB)
U.S.
violations on
the approximately
Enbridge
the
Sates’
pipeline
990,013
being
and
Enbridge
corporate
roughly reportable
the
2,190,367
and
Assiniboine
oil
pipeline employees
and
It Enbridge
—
number
on
on
New
was
pipeline
from owners
stats:
Wisconsin’s
attempted
largest
in
litres
5
pipeline
into
spilled
Energy
miles
impacts
litres
half
pipeline
initially
York
profile
contaminating
ruptured
Enb
of
a
spills
is
18
the litres.
companies
lists
97,459
drainage
and
of
leaked
long.
crude. in
a
an River.
ruptured
on
Partners
Calgaiy,
Canada
to
crude
oil
to
Stock
totalling
estimated
610
incorporated
report,
operators
that
the
Department
bring
the
was
spilling
ridge
Some
about
litres
spills
Financial
ditch.
runs
oil
strean
Exchange
in
recovered,
by
agreed
the
and
Alberta
the
‘Out
900,345
spilled
a
of
from
revenue.
3,785,411 635,949
nxre that
of
marsh
of
site
The
Mississippi.
the
crude
the
on
as
Enbridge’s
of
and
Post’s
released
to
to
Superior,
into
United
same
based
than
and
Justice, Interprovincial
oil the
pay litres near
“as
oil
the
wetlands
ofoil
filled
a
tar
the
1500
were
2008
litres close
field pipeline
$1.1
remainder
the
pipeline
on
States
approximately
sands
the
Toronto
Attorney
a
U.S.
southeast
Wisconsin
Eubridge’s
town
downstream
hole
released
of
litres
million
as
list
Minnesota
throughout
crude
was mainline:
possible
liquids
of
company
Pipe
more
of
of
contributing
Stock
Canada’s
General
to
Cohasset,
struck
oil
of
when
oil
to
Line
settle
pipelines
than
energy
Fort
in
21
Department
into
to
near
Mapping
the
of
Exchange
Virden,
that
by
(IPL)
million
its a
an
20
J.B.
a
various
McMurray
Talmadge
pump
biggest
Whitewater,
original
lawsuit
construction
and
to
operates
Enbridge Minnesota
iet
including
Van
‘off-site’ in
Manitoba,
litres
Enbridge’s
transportation
deep
lisiled under
1949,
watersheds”
ofNatural
companies
Hollen
brought
condition”.
Creek
(132,000
the
at
pumping
and
at
the
in the
and
the
impacts.
Wisconsin
crews
world’s
Enbridge’s
Itasca
said”..,
which
Lakehead
was
symbol
web
against
leading company’s
became
Resources
by
and
station
barrels)
on
reported
County, ofpipelines”
revenue.
leaked
longest
February
the
the ENB
distribution
cracked
to
Enbridge
Wiliniar
system
the
near
incidents
company
Cheecham
of
set
into
spilling
to
crude
Kalamazoo
hydrocarbons.
Glenavon,
have
a
open
2, the
—
terminal
controlled
Pipelines
system,
2007,
was
oil
of
Boghill
by
1,000,000
contaminated
and
violation
and
Terminal
the
ranked
in
River
spilled
Saskatchewan.
in
in
liquids
state
Creek
in
Rusk
burn
Saskatchewan.
2007,
1998.
were
268
litres
in
tank
ofWisconsin
—189,270
that
pipeline
County,
southwest
which
the
there
on
numerous
of
farm.
created
local
the
crude
were
Long-
system,
Fortune
litres
water
a
oil.
for 65 Read the Carrier-SekaniTribalCouncil’sreport, ‘“‘Assessmentof the Impactsof the Proposed EnbridgeGateway Pipelineon the Carrier SekaniFirst Nations.”thttp://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge”
Risk of pipeline oil spills
Pipelinescarry a seriousrisk ofoil spills.Metal pipelinesage and corrode over time,makingthemsusceptibleto ruptures. Pipelinesare aLsoat riskof breakage due to naturaleventssuch as landslides,and non-accidentalevents such as terrorism
The National EneryBoard estimateslargepetroleum pipelineswillexperiencea spillevery 16 years thr every 1000 kilometresinlength.[NationalEnergy Board, Analysisof Rupturesand Trends on Major Canadian PipelineSystems,2004]
Each year, oilpipelinesinNorth Americaspillmillionsof litresofoil intothe environment.In July2010, Enbridge’sLakehead pipelinerupturednear Battle Creek, Michigan,spillingan estumted 4 millionlitresof crude oilcite] intothe KalamazooRiver.It was the largestoilspillinMidwestU.S. history.Although Enbridgeclaimsto have a rigorouspipelinesafety program, there are seriousquestionsbeingasked regardingboth its maintenanceof itspipelinesand its response to the oilspill.
a Read the Friendsof WildSaimonleafletabout the EnbridgeoilspillinMichigan
In the News
GITXSAN CHJEFS SAY“NO” TO ENBRIDGE
Dec 5,2011, GibcsanHereditaiyChietil
B.C. should reject Northern Gateway pipeline, ban oiler tanker traffic: report
Nov 29, 2011, Globeand Mail
First nations call for delay in environmental review
Nov 24, 2011, VancouverSun
Enbridge’s push to the Pacific ns support from China
Sep 7, 2011, Globe and Mail
Oil and gas opportunity knocks for British Columbia
Jul19, 2011, Alberta Oil Magazine
Campaign news archive Northern Other In >> Currently, Across signed If by Five The Rockies Unhilce Across tar Enbridge’s condensate One >> The north Transporting > Learn Pipe View To built, View March2010, the sands • • • pipeline • .2g Northern • • • important pipeline learn First of treaties Pembina other Act! Join Learn a the PipeUpAinstEnbridge PioeUoArainstEnbridee an and the iash Gateway oil First the 1,000 more Northern Nations interactive stated — about city would Up is pipelines the would Northern a animation with Gateway shipped salmon Institute. lighter the about of Coast Nations reasoning rivers Pipeline. Alberta the Edmonton) groups, crosses Coastal carry Against Gateway map Enbridge petroleum the rivers the Crown. south Mountains Gateway Pipeline showing 525,000 impact of and some including First behind territories that pipeline to the tar Pipeline and Their has U.S. on on is streams would Nations product j:,ioeline Pipeline First of 1,000 of a sands Kitimat Twitter barreLs Facebook its built, oil proposal the rights British markets. proposed Nations would pipelines Enbridge be streams Carrier-Sekani the route. used signed is per and impacted oil B.C. opposed Columbia. route cross by opposition day to title to and a on pipeline Enbridge dilute declaration tbr the ofAlberta to the wild rivers, are by their the territories bitumen B.C. Tribal the salmon, the is proposed to to traditional that including nine Stuart the construct tar [linkj Council Coast it — Northern read Coastal sands would of eastward River, stating more Northern sensitive territories ‘“Pipelines and twin crude itcilitate First Morice than Gateway that Wet’suwet’en thr petroleum oil salmon Gateway Nations, 50 “tar use has westward access River, and First in sands been Pipeline. spawning transporting Salmon product Nations as Pipeline Copper to affirmed oil Hereditary well new to will a in as pipelines habitat groups. markets new crosses northern River, not many by the be oil the Chiel, tar in Kitiniat tanker of allowed West the fbr 1,170 Supreme sands the British the Canadian rugged, upper have of inland port kiometres River crude Colunia”:httpi/bc.peniina.org’pub/1894” to the been Court transit Fraser, at mountainous Rocky First and oil. Kitimat. tar instrumental of sands Nation our Salmon between Skeena, Mountains, Canada. traditional The oil. terrain along River. other Currently, Brudenheim and in efforts the fw lands of Kitiniat would the pipeline First to and the Northern cany (located watersheds. stop Nations majority waters.” route. the just have of /2412 Hume: Citizen Marshcalculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oilspill Hume: Citizen Marsh calculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oil spill
BYSTH91 HUME,VANCOUVERSUN JULY 14. 2012 L’
I.,
Bibridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, which would carry biturrn and natural gas condensate betw een Alberta arid Kitirmt,has proved unpopular with rmny in B.C. Photograph by: ANDYcLARK, REJJrERS
Democracy works when citizens act.
Democracy is not simply government creating a frictionless environment for the transaction of corporate business or dispensing with the inconvenience of being accountable to critics.
It’s really about citizens embracing the messiness of debate, dissent, disagreement and the opportunity to object to policy and practice. This capacity is what makes the dishevelled and cumbersome and often frustrating process we call democratic government worth having.
Corporations are not democracies and generally don’t behave like they are. And corporations have only one allegiance — to their shareholders and investors, who expect returns, not red ink.
That is why, in a healthy democracy, it’s important for citizens to challenge the influence of elites who seek advantage and to keep nudging the process back to transparency and accountability.
And this is why v should all be grateful to Kelly Marsh.
Marsh is a 52-year-old millwright. He’s lived in Kitimat for 40 years. He’s a longtime volunteer with the local search and rescue organization. He’s by no stretch of the imagination a political militant.
N W.V ancouversun.com/stoy_pdnt.html?id’6933149&sponsorescapes.ca /24/12 Hume: Citizen Marsh calculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oil spill
“I’mjust a regular guy,” he says. “Idon’t belong to any environmental group. I’mjust a regular guy who cares about the environment and this beautiful place where we live.”
When Enbridge, the trans-national energy transportation company, announced plans for a pipeline to carry bitumen and natural gas condensate between Alberta’s oilsands complex and a marine terminal at Kitimat, Marsh took notice.
He was open-minded about the idea — who wouldn’t like an economic boost for their community? He read Enbridge’s submission to the panel evaluating the environmental, economic and resource implications of the proposed project.
“Something didn’t sit right with me,” he says.
As a search and rescue volunteer, he was particularly interested in the spill risk posed by a pipeline, terminal and tanker traffic in and out of a congested, constricted waterway, but found himself, as a lay citizen, swamped in arcane corporate rhetoric and “really big numbers” that sounded impressive but didn’t mean anything to him.
“Iwas trying to educate myself. Man, Ithought, there’s got to be a way to rationalize these numbers.”
So he set out to do so, enlisting a friend with mathematical training. Then he had his calculations
On June 25, he presented t relirle panel with,his calculations for the at t KitimatterminalHn the six geological regions traversed by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline route.
Here’s what he found, crunching Enbridge’s own data:
The mathematical chance of an oil spill at sea is 18.1 per cent. The mathematical chance of a spill of up to 10,000 litres at the Kitimat terminal is 47.8 per cent and of a spill of up to a million litres is 15.6 per cent.
There is a 30.8-per-cent chance of a spill of up to a millionlitres in the southern Alberta uplands section of the pipeline route and a 34.5-per-cent chance of a similar spill in B.C.’s Interior Plateau.
“Using the appropriate mathematical formula, the probability that at least one of the locations will experience a medium-sized [up to a million litres] leak or spill over the 50-year proposed project is 77.54 per cent. Combining everything, the risk of one or more medium or large spills over the 5.0 ars is aboi rCent’ Marsh observes.
Those are large margins of probability, yet Marsh thinks he’s been conservative in his calculations.
First, because the raw data he used was provided by Enbridge, the project proponent.
Second, because the proposal was made in 2009 before the full extent of plans for liquefied natural vw .vancouversun.com/storyprint.html?id=6933149&sponsor=escapes.ca /24/12 Hume: Citizen Marsh calculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oil spill
gas exports from Kitimat — ‘iMthlarge increases in tanker traffic — were fully known.
Third, because the pipeline design allows for carrying capacity of 60-per-cent more bitumen and 40- per-cent more natural gas condensate than cited in the initial proposal.
An 87-per-cent chance of a heavy oil spill into a pristine coastal or river environment when long-term jobs and economic benefits to the province willbe small is a prospect that should give every British Columbian pause.
We all owe thanks to Citizen Marsh for doing the math and drawing our attention to his calculations.
shume(ãisland net.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
ww .v ancouversun.com/stoiyjdnt.htrnl?id=6933149&sponsor=escapes.ca
Terry
Gerald
Art
Contact:
today’s
Enbridge.’
prominent
Also
oil
Nations
gas
which
To
support of
“Nothing Adam
The
joined
governments: Nations
unity
Coastal
where
alliance spill
“We
overseas amounts
EKxon VANCOUVER
First
Sterritt, tanker the
date
emissions
Athabasca
today,
Tegee.
Tel:
Suite
on
Amos,
today
First
would will
saying,
Globe
doing
by
Enbridge
around
no
Nations
Valdez
First the
-
waters. carrying
traffic,”
of
...in
GREAT
COASTAL
threatens
604-696-9889
Canadians
of
markets,
the
protect
Executive
whose
First
an
1051,
Nations
nine
Vice
to
coast
Tar
increase
Director.
business
and “From
than
Nations
unprecedented
vast
upholding
voice
Chipewyan
the
Nation
oil
First
hit.s
Sands
President,
409
said
territories
Say
(March
ourselves
of
conventional
majority
world
crude
spill
our
notably
not experience
—
their
British
Director,
a
with
Granville
Tar
Nations.
‘T’erry
from
Coastal
BEAR
including They
only wall.”
with
way
in
oil
to
oil
our
Canada
Sands
opposition.
to
Cree
Enbridge
Fax:
from 23,2010)
join
China.
Carrier
of Vancouver
jeopardizes
are
of
the and
Tegee,
Columbia
announce
from
grouping
Will
ancestral
First
First Coastal
life
Street,
I
First “This
604-696-9887
all
headline
oil,
us
c,il
the Alberta
FiRST
know
Dr. INITIATIVE
—
the
directly
more
in
Not
Sekani
now
Nations
production
Vice
Nations:
and
interests
Nation
David
-First
solidarity
bountiful
The
Vancouver,
that
“This
First of
Alberta their
would
Island
the
no
Allow
and
to
than
laws,
‘This
President,
150
Coastal
any
Tribal
British
impacted
municipality
Suzuki,
Nations
land,
located
Nations:
opposition
affected
in
250-632-1521
of
contaminated
wipe
is
First
to
rights
the
industrial
NATIONS was
by
Tar
and
Pipelines
future
where
in in
the
the
Council:
BC, future.”
30
Columbia,
First
our
Nations
Exxon’s near
us
British
Margaret
Carrier
globally
stood
Sands
people
along
by
604-868-91 BC/Alaska
and
per
out.”
generations
V6C
-30-
fight
to
Nations
the
Alberta’s
development Enbridge
—
cent.
a
as
responsibilities,
has
250-640-3256
and
the
will
Sekani
groups,
water
proposed proposed
said
or
and
1T2
gi
against Columbia
significani
a
Atwood
where
unified
publicly
604-696-9889
Tar
pipeline
not
to
wildlife Oil
issued
Gerald
border
10
Tar
and
Alaska.
with
Tribal
Sands
businesses,
be
or
hits
this
Tankers
the
and
Tar
Sands
Enbridge
and
destruction
block
604-696-9889
allowed
a
supported
route
everything
are
coastline
Amos,
oil
today,
pipeline
declaration
a
potential
oil
Sands
Council.
Neve
wall”
B.C we
would
unanimous
also
today
produces
from
but
declare
Carrying
Director,
Northern
environmental
to
pipeline
Campbell
ofFered
Gun
development
www.coastalfirstnations.ca
cannot
of
Enbridge’s
pollution
be
transit
for
Kitimaat we
-
on
wildlife.
from
£rpect
shipped
generations
three
have
in
that
the
their
Coastal
bear
that
Gateway
their
their our
—
Alberta’s
within
2l’
because
times
to
oil
ran
the
support
would
proposed
Today,
by
an
and
organizations,
lands
Alberta. opposition
First
anniversary
tankers
scmwJoni
a
oil
oil
First
traditional
to
full-page more
Pipeline
to
spill.
tankers bring
one
Nations
come...
with and
we
a
Nations,
Tar
put
pipeline.
These
greenhouse
major
invite
‘This
Chief
and expanded
a Sands
-
ad
of
territories
to
stop
I
stood
and
First
are
the
do
in
is
an
First
oil
Allan
to
not
Oil in
Backgrounder:
•
•
•
•
Tel:
•
Suite
•
•
•
•
An
•
sustainable.
and
BC
conservation-based Council
Heiltsuk,
and Enbridge
The Construction
Enbridge Clean
communities. Their
The Coastal
by
Enbridge
would 604-696-9889
The practices,
estimated
of
and
BC’s
1051,
coastal COASTAL
estimated
used
carry
from
Ferry,
the
resource
Central
the
Coastal
Enbridge
Enbridge
declaration
earthquake
and 409
Skeena
have
Exxon of near
to
west
525,000
First
Kitasoo/Xaixais,
recorded
Queen
pipeline
waters.
the
pipeline
thin
Grariville
renewable
spills
45
Coast
First
22
spilled
jobs
Edmonton
management
coast.
Nations
Haida
Valdez
pipelines
tar
Fax:
long-term
Northern
and orcas,
barrels
of can
Nations
includes
further
Enbridge sands and
and Street,
will
67
604-696-9887
the
economy,
318
upper
Nation.
FIRST
and
oil
spills
energy are
require avalanche-prone
250,000
Haida
North,
to
will
million
Vancouver, of spill.
Gateway bitumen)
jobs
entrenches
Gitga’at,
do
working
are
Fraser
Kitimat.
reference
approaches
oil
from
promises
cross
The
happen.
Gwaii.
sources an
and are
spilled
as
150
litres
sea
Coastal
pipelines
NATIONS
alliance
well
watersheds.
fewer
over
per with
BC, project
193000 oil
If
Haisla,
birds,
Communities
built,
to of
an 240,000
tankers
are
as V6C
exist day,
the
1,000
that oil.
reducing
than
landscapes
unsustainable
restoring
First
of
not
involves
the 2,800
1T2
Metlakatla,
in
BC
respectively.
barrels
around
First
are
2006
the
expected
streams
per
westbound
litres
Nations
The
government
ecologically sea
the
jobs
Nations
year
and
include
and
two
of
pipelines
the
of
before
carbon
otters,
condensate
created
Old
oil.
and
to
are implementing
fossil-fuel
65
world, 1,170-kilometre
until
move
on
and If
the spills
Massett,
working
rivers,
on
hitting
it
1.9 2012
www.coastalfirstnations.ca
footprint
and
British
will
had
including eastbound
Wuikinuxv
by
its
tar
billion
in
cross
economically
the
economy.
more
Green
at
been
(a
the
2007.
sands towards
Skidegate
Columbia’s
the
petroleum
average
new
of
fragile
herring
mountain
than
pipelines,
Asia.
a
First
earliest.
Energy
Even
Nation,
pipelines
supertanker
oil
land, creating
800 through
ecosystems
Nations Building
were Safeway.
and
with
water
product
North Strategy.
ranges of
The
stretching
the could
best them
killed
a
BC’s
the
it in pipeline BY through The controversial VICTORIA Palmer: the tanker B.C. opposing be The pipeline oil Minister saying Valdez ecosystem All communities Still But they still Sooner
Exxon
1989
VAUGHN over
met
this
case
the Government
being
the
announcement,
Enbridge
are
Alaskan
proposals
safety
is
all
is before
spill.
accompanying
an
or
report
to
B.C.
Mary
in
that
reported
in
fought along.
later
others,
environmentally --
this PALMER,
and
the
The
for
After
and project.
the
has
Polak,
project
spill the
responds
concedes
are
country,
Liberals’
and
context incur
seaborne
through
Liberals risk
other
improved Enbridge
considered the province as
months
while,
VANCOUVER
usually
led
was
enormous having would
would
B.C.
to
technical
sectors
of
an
by
Enbridge
the
the
more
framed
do
the
export.
of
Liberals
offending
Environment would
sensitive
sooner, in
and
be
mean
to
bloody
so
courts.
leaving
B
report’s
worth than
pay
C.
of
as costs the
SUN
F>ipeline
own
report,
as
the
“consider”
more
well
out
finally
every
obvious: incidence oil
two
an
JULY
landscape the
company it.
economy
on
telling
$3.4
proposal
outline
right
For running
tankers
decades
Minister
heavy
the
report
pipeline 23,
weighed
Enbridge
the
billion
there
2012 Enbridge
observation
responsible “It
of
of
Five
“may
most lifting and only
some and
and
serious
Terry
the
afterward,
on
damages
requirement
in
opponent
government.”
exceptionally
takes
bigger not
part,
“minimum
on
page
Monday
makes
52
or
Lake
have the
spills
any
that,
party,
pages,
it
one
11
tankers
confirmed
an
Enbridge
so and
that
other
gets
to
with
legal
has of
major
equal individuals,
far
requirements”
spend
didn’t
must their
Aboriginal
risky
declined.
to the
their
in
proposal
liability carrying
talking be
incident connection
number
report.
Northern
what
come
waters.
more
met
take
case
limits
local
before
Relations
critics
to heavy
about
close
on
than
to
of
that
pipe
Granted
Gateway
the
cripple
claims
being with
any
have
for the to need
and
heavy
heavy
making
its
Exxon
what
dirty
are an
been
to
oil
oil Not much, when it comes right down to it. The report says that in terms of economic and fiscal benefits, B.C. stands to reap about eight per cent of the projected increase in government revenues, and double that share in gross domestic product.
Those benefits would be spread over 30 years. On an annualized basis, figure maybe $200 million in additional revenues, $1.5 billion on the GDP.
All in exchange for assuming a significant share of the risk of a spill on land (58 per cent, based on the portion of the line that would run through B.C. territory) and fully 100 per cent of the risk of a spill in coastal waters.
For all that, the Liberals maintained that the province could be persuaded to “consider support” were there more resources to fight spills, a better deal for natives and more benefits to the provincial treasury.
But l doubt the Albertans, or the company, or the federal government will be inclined to put out to the degree necessary to satisfy the concerns raised in the report.
Realistically, the technical analysis amounts to a persuasive argument for opposing the
Northern Gateway project. Reading it, I expect many British Columbians will say to their government, “What took you so long?” vpa1mervancouversun.com
Read more: http://www.vancouversuri. com/news/PaImer+LiberaTs+report+makes+case+opposing+Enbridge+ppeIinef69 77909/story. html#ixzz23AeuA4rZ Harper gov’t playing ‘shell game’ on pipeline BY EDWARD WRAY, THE PROVINCE JUNE 10 202
CAPT. EDWARD WRAY Photograph by: Submthed The Province
I write this article from the perspective of an old-timer who has a few tidbits of wisdom from my time on this planet. These thoughts are to do with the fed’s and Enbridge’s so-called plan to run supertankers through the narrow passages out of Kitimat. One word sums this up: poppycock.
I have been capable and qualified to sail any ship this world had to offer - and in charge of some of the largest vessels used on the B.C. coastline.
I’vesailed every part of this coast, seen just about every kind of storm, squall or system, and
I’ve experienced every kind of tide, current or cycle imaginable. So, I believe I am qualified to ask: Why would any-one in their right mind ever consider running supertankers through the seascape around Kitimat?
Every skipper would describe the conditions in B.C. as “unpredictable.” There are simply too many variables at play to guarantee safety, and there have been only too many wrecks to prove it (U.S. warship M.S. Zalinski, currently leaking its 700 tons of fuel oil into the estuary, and the Queen of the North that sunk as recently as 2006).
When sailing these waters, even simple navigation presents difficulties. Given the size of these mammoth vessels, the distances for stop-ping would be measured in kilometres, not feet. Assisted by tugboats, they would need to proceed at a snail’s pace, which leads to the next challenge.
There is not a career captain on the coast who hasn’t seen a storm come out of nowhere. It would be simply impossible to avoid one. And when Mother Nature kicks up a fuss in those straits, hell hath no fury. .
Tides are another thing. The reason there is no standard depth along here is they shift so frequently. This wouldn’t pose as much of a threat if not compounded by currents and high winds that can blow several feet of water up and down the inlets.
I’msure that this is only scratching the surface of the variables that would make a disaster here more probable than possible. I could spend more time discussing the possibility r4r h
r ‘•l
m
0 n a. O.i: r w
‘ —
0
o0 ,
13
.-t t p i. 0
—. k t z 0
‘4 — ri o..1o I SU Kw*i,cci Cocks of Sands Ck.4 Pipelines We
Bosc,str, from (U plants, k depend
A are W Water Bnrlio
.Ri,,,i5co,, (Q,4 that
and lands inherent with treaty B.p.cccoJ c FR4SFR
n,,,
(L% it/ , PPcIRTIN(, threat Mode’
this Save our have 5€,, Rr,o, depend traditions, 55 a the and WE
within e ./ to is or people
great nocI- rcrsc,,rco, grave NoIccO on lO,d lifeline.
to have I,cds.cc Declared life, ISs Asia come watershed Title NATiONS: war.
‘rccic.C %LYL project. the waters its THE iR.c,,, tr,,,d’ river, on / threat: NATIONS;
for the
health. inhabited and Fraser througlt %--o— and ‘ e together since it. UNDERSIGNED our Fraser have ways 1’his at and The Rights We is — and the
T’exelc 7) peoples
time ) ancient our the of never project
Fraser
and will watershed, Enbridge to
its the life and federal irnniernorial. defend territories
headwaters riot governed °: T,ooicricc,oi cii,Sa.ce, Williams IonIc Lcc to SSL. -- soc,inn4rao . been and N,o,icfInd1lccB,.cc Nk0c’o 5.dtos MrslLw., River ‘Q.ccqw kr 1,icnko and legal
which , / allow he c5o.1cdcd,nnd.
Ifc*.Oprrni L. and for iNDiGENOUS process Northern these placed Whwr, profound, (Rod relinquished idi} I,,di.cn according authority Indor, and n and iof,c, our all would Ni,cioc,
affirmed our is ña
trial)
i2—
GatheringCof A Lake), d/ur.s,c ikccd ci, a B,,d Our lands
its living Fraser at fish, .rnd the threat territories to
—
C,.j\/ SaveTheFraser. Dk.ccc.cwn risk,
tributaries L Gateway link relationship approve and rcw headwasers animals. over to Secwepemc and L. by things to throtr2h our NATiONS the our Noicco all the waters these -..-- laws
Tar
who C ,-gHE following iccc Territory, Docco I; Dh
k,ci %4L tç UiIkh0
OF
•neRcoI1oos 0
Tic’q’oc 005 Sow s0oc We watersheds,
______
/ 4 j2 risk call us according We ocean cross Gateway SçIAo,’ Rights Therefore, We descendants and
these
7 4C rights it, F 5 40 4 Gh Nc ctl’ THE all 0 violate Indigenous are (,c,cio will — on are 8.nd cc responsibility rn
IX,’l Nations and
Irrn, ca our lands
we .too as migration all adanunt and and
FRASER Declaration united A iccu,. / not Pipelines,
Indigenous c. corn have cko to to who lands,
our 7 cionl in Vancouver. and and responsibilities, rccc,c, all Cnoo our allow arid IL,Od) upholding laws, nations: to suffered too would future we waters. arid Indigenous cwk) Lao territories routes RIVER exercise to - to the will the traditions, or resolved Peoples ourselvrs. place generations. proposed similar Coast enough, people Our not of WATERSHED our our Fraser mwcioJ ?Ic’Ro •,1A1LA. O’cpors our tolerate and laws
X,.,i
laws
X
1 Jc$L Cf;’ we under Salish in ancestral inherent - values of Th,c’ Tar C.cwco our we lands this watersheds, declare: cci require and Enbridge tIre River ISo Sands will international ancestors, Territories, this declaration, Fc,c Icth.,b,,c.c ido,,dcc.ry and world, authority. and Title, Lo’krnar’
DECLARE:
tw4l’ laws, ScOrn, protect great fl1@ salmon. that our waters projects, Northern to
Ri2hts, Srrn.ccrn,c.oc we or Title, threat inherent our delend our We the tirade do at law. to to this. A. • •:
NAtIQN, THI
VIIPACK EAC” VS)UN ‘ .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The federal government and oil lobby have been on an aggressive offensive to try to convince Canadians that the proposed Enbridge Gateway tar sands pipeline across Northern B.C. is in the “national interest’, while smearing those opposed to it-including citizens, environmental groups, First Nations and Municipalities.
All Canadians will be impacted by the proposed mega-project, and deserve to understand what is at stake. At the core, emerging are two diverging visions for the future of our country, One is based on the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production like tar sands, enshrining Canada’s position as a petro-state at the expense of ourforests, oceans and rivers and the future of our planet. The other is based on a transition away from oil, gas and coal to clean energy sources that don’t pollute and that create jobs across the country, making sure Canada does its share to prevent catastrophic climate change. When the argument is made that this project is in the “national interest’, It depends on what kind of nation we want, and on whose interests that nation serves.
THE PROJECT
Enbridge is seeking permission to build two 1.170 kilometre pipelines running between the tar sands deposits in northern Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. on the coast. One pipeline would carry 525,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen to the coast for transport to Asia via supertankers. and the other pipeline would carry condensate.
The impacts of it would span from the tar sands region, which would deal with more habitat destruction, toxic tailings and air pollution, across pristine boreal forests and nearly 800 rivers and streams, to the coast.
OUR NATION. THEIR INTEREST E’ Ecu: ‘E It would put at risk the survival of the threatened woodland caribou, the spawning grounds of all five species of wild salmon, and a unique and diverse marine ecosystem.
Enbridge’s project would introduce oil supertankers to the Great Bear Sea for the first time ever. The tankers, each carrying eight times more oil than spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster, would need to navigate the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world, a region prone to hurricane force winds and some of the largest recorded waves in history. A large marine oil spill on B.Cs North Coast would devastate the marine ecosystem that supports a vibrant coastal way of life for thousands of people.
THE CUMATE COST OF GATEWAY
Enbridges proposal assumes a tripling of tar sands production between 2010 and 2035 to nearly 6 million barrels each 2day, a scenario that would imply an utter failure to meet Canadas climate targets. Northern Gateway would mean:
• The pipeline would carry more than half a million barrels of diluted bitumen each day. The resulting increase in tar sands extraction would result in an extra 17 million tonnes of global warming emissions produced in Canada each year, equivalent to putting 3 million more cars on the 3road. • When the carbon pollution of the life cycle of the tar sands oil is considered, the pipeline would carry the equivalent of 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pollution each 4year. This is equivalent to 18 million more cars on the road each 5year. • Using Enbridge’s projections for tar sands production, emissions from tar sands production alone would rise from 45 million tonnes in 2009 to 111million tonnes by 2020, and 175 million tonnes by 2035.6
• This exploding amount of carbon pollution from the tar sands is inconsistent with Canada doing its fair share to tackle global warming. The rate of tar sands growth that Enbridge is banking on would mean that the tar sands’ share of national emissions would rise from 7 per cent in 2009 to 18 per cent by 2020. This means that the burden for reaching the federal government’s stated goal would fall largely on other sectors of the Canadian economy.
Northern Gateway would lock Canada into the FIGURE1:ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS wrong energy pathway. According to the PROM TAR SANDS GROWTH ESTIMATES International Energy Agency, if we are to limit global warming to 2 degrees, the amount scientists believe is needed to avert the more dangerous impacts of climate change, the world already has nearly all the coal, oil and gas infrastructure in place (eg. pipelines) that it can handle. Without policies in place to begin to 5 shift our energy from dramatically systems fossil fuels to clean energy, the world is on track for 6 degrees of warming.
23’ 2015 2O2 2O2 2530 2533
OUR NATION, THEIR INTEREST E)ECui 2 An MIT study looked at the demand for tar sands oil under different global scenarios for action on climate change. It found that the type of unfettered growth anticipated by Enbridge and the federal government only makes economic sense in a world that has utterly failed to act to curb global warming. According to the study. if countries put in place measures to cap carbon pollution, oil demand would drop significantly and tar sands expansion is not economically viable.
ECONOMICS OF NORTHERN GATEWAY
The environmental and climate costs of the proposed pipeline and tanker project are bad enough. Yet a closer look at the economic benefits and costs further reveal that it’s a bad deal for people living in northern B.C., and for Canadians ri general.
LOCAL JOBS According to the B.C. government, the seafood industry and ocean-based tourism together create 45.000 jobs, These are 45,000 jobs that depend on a clean and healthy ocean ecosystem. In addition. the Skeena wild salmon economy has been estimated to be worth over $110 million a yearY An oil spill could ruin these economies. In return for jeopardizing these estabiished jobs, Enbridge is offering local citizens 217 long-term jobs, 104 operating the pipeline and 113in associated marine services.’ That means that according to Enbridge’s own numbers, 200 coastal jobs would be at risk in the region for every one job created by the project.
Enbridge predicts that 2,000-3,000 people would be employed during peak construction, roughly equivalent to the number of construction jobs stemming from a proposed new renewable energy project near Hamilton, 0ntario. Those jobs are temporary, whereas, the impacts of an oil spill would last decades.
NATIONAL IMPACTS According to Enbridge’s own estimates, only 1,150 long-term jobs would be created across the country as a result of the 5project.’ That works out to roughly 100 jobs per province, and those jobs come at a price, Ninety per cent of the benefit Enbridge claims will accrue to Canada’s GDP is based on a projected $2-3 increase in the price oil companies would fetch for each barrel of tar sands oil as a result of the expanded market access. Yet, according to an analysis performed by Robyn Allan, economist and former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC).. Enbridge’s claims are highly flawed. She calculated that in just one year, oil companies would make an extra $2.9 billion as a result of the higher price of tar sands oil per barrel, but that would come at the expense of $2.3 billion lost from elsewhere in the Canadian econorny.’ The transfer of higher oil prices to Canadian consumers and non-oil producing businesses would continue every year of the project’s life, causing on overall negative impact to GDP.
Furthermore, the consequences for Canada’s economy of rapidly expanding tar sands production and export vary regionally. “Dutch Disease” is already hurting parts of Canada’s economy. A recent study from the University of Ottawa that examines the impact of resource exports (e.g. oil) on the dollar and manufacturing jobs estimates that almost forty per cent of manufacturing job loss in Canada due to rising currency has been a result of Dutch Disease stemming from growing oil exports. This translates into 196,000-.220,000 Canadian families that have been affected by job loss related5 to Dutch Disease. Seventy-five per cent of Canada’s manufacturing industry is located in Ontario and Quebec.’
ouR NA’nON, THEIR INTEREST ExFCL.T\’E sUMMAR’ 3 Northern Gateway would put 200 jobs at risk in 8.C. for every job it created and further entrench Dutch Disease and the accompanying job loss in central Canada. The basis of claims that it would add significantly to Canada’s GDP is shaky at best. The project isnt in the economic interests of people living in the region, nor the rest of Canada.
TRAMPLING FIRST NATIONS RIGHTS
Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project has received significant opposition from First Nations who would be most impacted in the event of a spill, including the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit, nine Coastal First Nations, and over 100 First Nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration banning oil pipelines in their territories! These declarations are based on First Nations Rights and Title, protected in Canada’s Constitution, First Nations whose territories make up more than fifty percent of the combined pipeline and tanker route have stated their resolute opposition to this project. and banned oil tankers and pipelines using their Indigenous laws and authority, recognized under Canadian and international law.
Despite this degree of First Nations opposition, Prime Minister Harper and other members of the federal government have been promoting the pipeline before the regulatory process has even come to a deci 2sion. A failure on the part of the Crown to meet its obligations regarding First Nations impacts Canada’s reputation abroad and risks lengthy legal battles. Former Environment Minister Jim Prentice, as well as legal experts. have highlighted that the future of big projects like Northern Gateway hinges on more than just regulatory approvals and that First Nations support is essential.s’
W!T’SL)WETEN HREOiTAY CWEF N4MOX spEtONC AT uY pINC p.w s’ 2(’1. ‘r.’:. . j;T N. N.ViE
OUR NATION, THEIR INTEREST EXECUTi\:F SUMTIAR” 4 UNDERMINING DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The day before the opening of Joint Review Panel (JRP) hearings on Northern Gateway, federal Natural Resources Minister issued an unerecedented open letter attacking opponents of the project as “radical groups” who use “jet setting celebrities” to promote a “radical ideological agenda.” Later that month, documents obtained under access to information laws revealed that the federal 2government considers First Nations and environmental groups as “adversaries” when it comes to lobbying on behalf of the tar sands, whereas the oil industry and even the supposedly independent National Energy Board (NEB) were listed as allies.zs The following month, the federal government unveiled its new anti-terrorism strategy that lists environmentalism alongside white supremacy as a possible source of extremism Federal ministers have repeatedly questioned the motivations of those that do not agree with them about the pipeline, suggesting that competing foreign economic interests are really behind environmental concerns.
They have repeatedly given indications that they are going to revise the Environmental Assessment process to help speed up approvals, including Prime Minister Harper’s high-level speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos where he stated that “we will soon take action to ensure that major energy and mining projects are not subject to unnecessary regulatory delays--that is, delay merely for the sake of delay.”
The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project is really only in the interests of a narrow group of international oil companies end shareholders. This high risk project is going to have significant consequences across Canada. As this report shows, Enbridge’s project is not in the national interest - and those who oppose it should have the right to be heard.
For more information, please contact:
Gillian McEachern Nikki Scuce ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE FORESTETHICS grnceachernenvironmentaldefence.ce [email protected]
FOREST ETHCS
OUR NAflON, THEIR INTEREST F>ECU Ti’.’E SUMMAP” FOOTNOTES
.;r’” ‘C .. ‘‘...‘:‘ c’. - . --C” “‘.‘..‘
‘-C’-’..•’-.’-;’:,’.-’ ... -,‘:‘, .:r’t’7....’- .9/..,. •3.-...,;’’.c’ ,; cr’ “,(.“ ‘-:9.’.., ):/‘‘... —)..,. ‘rr’’c.’,’’.’’d).!.c,,”.,r: ‘Pfl”,4’: -C’’ :2 ‘ ;‘A’:.,.uU 5’.2/’<,_:’,,;:’, ‘i’’ .,-/i,,?.’’’./’’’,’’’’/,;’,.’’,’’:’i ‘‘. - —— C,
Cu’,-,,- ‘‘/. ,..vi;fl,’4t :v-sv “‘,‘; (-‘1: ;.-.‘‘.;‘- :-;s-:. “ç .“,.‘.,, :cr...:y.:.[: , ‘f ‘.fl., ;-_:u.,C’’R_ c.’,..: C.’C,v”’’_’ :,.‘‘ .‘ ,.-‘.9,,,’C -/.‘,-, C’:-.,. / ..‘2 ‘:,u’ .: in , ....-‘ ‘.c’uçt;.’:’jç’f’.9-..., ,acuv’
;. 4’ ‘ AC?!
--‘-- N’:ri’’ ,_‘• “‘‘‘-: ::‘;.u,’._ ‘-:‘ \:...,.r.,,,9. ‘,-‘.? . ‘‘9;’ v’4’’
/44.?. 44 ‘‘A.. 9’ ,-,‘‘‘,‘C ‘,‘.-‘ ,,,‘., ‘, ,..JC. ..., .. . ..r—2.9.. CC. C’ . 3:..‘‘-.C4Cd’.: ,‘./‘.C;’./ ,.‘.. C’? :‘4,.’A.’
Cu..r “A, ‘:‘ ,.E 4’ 4..XIi-j? F’.t-”o’-/3..’½- -,“ ?.,‘‘! ‘.‘Z4’.: •. :‘“, ‘-..-‘‘,: :9..,’ A .;.:r ‘.‘‘[,‘.“iX -c. 994 .&,‘C.?,’. 99.-‘.‘./.-,’E7.’C’’”’,. .‘-‘:... ‘.‘ .‘ ‘.)I,. ‘‘j-’D..’ . ‘‘“:‘-.‘ —.
‘—A.. 5” ‘
14:’ C- ‘-- i’-±’’ ‘‘4’ ‘--- :.,.:: -As -:. -‘--- C’’’ -‘C_ ‘-‘, ‘-“‘‘: A. ‘:‘-‘:,.: ‘CA ‘‘‘V,. 44, , A-. ‘.-- -‘ ‘ -t ‘S.:.! _-s:’’-:A..vto’’,--4”C J$r.:fl5-. -1-, \.3’.’ci1’..ALC4,l.;.’3-’’ A? . ‘‘..,.4’-
fl,fl,’A:?’ Ac :2. :21t22.3/.
-‘.‘ / . - N6u:-.: ‘,:r-n’,St ‘c” .0CC. ‘ .‘ c’’,’ . : -. ,. ‘:
-AA 4’..’. ‘‘. :‘-.‘ ,, ., . - ;.) A--- ‘-,.“:-?v”.’r-n-.’..’C
:A I. ‘.-‘- , c . ,‘ . - . . . : ,., ,/-. Sha ‘v’:C-.r:: , “C.. .w:,c, At ‘. 9 ‘14(’-A.,,4 ‘-:< -. ,-- _ . , - -j - q’ ‘-‘ 3 . U’2’ C.? oh:’ ‘.‘/: -‘, :-- .-‘ .‘,4’i ?,v’. ‘ --‘-.-‘‘: .jj’’’.-1:’,’ ‘‘V’—’- ‘“.4:’-:’ —--:-‘‘--‘‘:—---/-- ,‘-.‘ ,‘-‘‘ A-,,:j’-j’t-i’,,3-:’:’,’(’.J:.i” -- .,-..‘9.’%. ;.. ‘3- : ‘
‘‘- ‘ -‘v, : 3--h’ 9,””:J,,’4 ,,‘.,/,. 9’ .fl4A’<’’’ .‘‘.C,:l.. 2t,t,- r’ to’?.’ :1.’.’)t
OUR NATION, ThEIR INTEREST , : --‘“ >;-- 6 The Canadian government is considering a proposal to build a pipeline under mountains and across rivers “Our Nations are the wall that could carry more than half a million barrels of raw this pipeline willnot break tar sands crude oil (known as bitumen) daily across through. Our lands important salmon-bearing rivers, coastal rainforests, and and sensitive marine waters. The Northern Gateway pipeline, waters are not for sale, not proposed by energy company Enbridge, would stretch any price. What Enbridge is over 1,000 kilometres to connect the tar sands of Alberta offering is the with the Pacific coast of British Columbia. From that destruction of point, the extracted bitumen would be transported by our lands to build their supertanker to refineries in Asia, California, or elsewhere. project, and the risk of oil spills for decades Both the extraction and transportation of oil tar sands to come which could hurt everyone’s kids are a destructive business. The substance is extracted by and either strip-mining or by a process that would heat the grandkids.” ground beneath Alberta’s Boreal forests and wetlands, —Chief Larry Nooski, Nadleh Whut’en First Nation, polluting the air, damaging the climate, creating lakes member Nation of the Yinka Dene Alliance, 2011 of toxic waste, destroying habitat, and threatening community health.
Formore AnthonySwift Nathan Lemphers nforniatnn, [email protected] [email protected] please contact: Susan Casey-Lefkowitz KatieTerhune NRDC SlATE?, FAELIT0,s,B5 H,,Ah, THE LASTS, BEST 05FEB55 [email protected] [email protected]
water.
not
diluted
booms hydrocarbons.
challenging found
of than
are
and
transporting
oil. There
potential
production vessels,
that
past:
waters,
Charlotte
ocean that
tar
landslides
Skeena. through
important which
In
cross
activities
dollars generate
million. 4
in.
QOlumbia
with
The
While
diluted
British
especially
address
Diluted
sands
direOt
viscous
large
would
conventional
the
And
more
in
are
in
commercial
and
are
bitumen.
a
including
even
The
the
bitumen,
the
route
the
harm
total
bitumen
oil
unique
to
oil
Sound
Columbia,
critical
current
are
watersheds—the
skimmers
then
bitumen
the
than
are
Collectively,
expenditure,
using
nature. 3
potentially
headwaters
contribute geology
would
approximately
diluted
unpredictably
supertankers
under
the
harvests
hazardous
common.
Further,
poses
well
unique
from
value
traverse
785
and
challenges
conventional
the
B.C.
fish-bearing
like
pipeline
oil
and
be
ideal
documented,
When
bitumen
may
transporting
rivers
of
the
many
Dixon
because
Douglas
due
salmon
benzene
transferred
challenges
of
cleaning
the
this
devastating
economy
At
due
of
Northern
around
conditions. 2
185
weaken
to
hundreds
approximately
have
tar
and
concentration
three
recreational
Kitimat
navigational
safety
dangerous
area
Entrance)
and
Mackenzie,
its
and
to kilo
compared
sands
heavy
Channel,
habitat,
CAD$550
acidic, streams,
cleanup
the
and
not
fishery
up
is
metres
of
risks
nature
pipelines
regulations bitumen
the
to
associated
28
complex,
Gateway
explosive
on
the
a
impacts
used
polycyclic
pipelines
each
large
bitumen
bitumen
increased
associated
million
the
sulphuric,
of Hecate
There
and
continent’s
before
technologies
of
the
including
challenges
to
in
these
of
millions
oil
Pacific
tourism
fishers inner
conventional
is
year. 5 °
it
at
pipeline
million
Fraser,
British of
toxins
and
CAD$250
is
properties less
with supertankers will
in
a
can
spill,
Strait,
spill
aromatic
tar
waters
reaching
salmon
a
faster
risk
Canada
coastal
destructive
reason
with
abrasive
known. coast,
cross
sands
sink
shipping
many
most
is
and
the
for
and
of
Queen
will
very
like
rate
in
in
large
spills
the
the
open
do
the
snowpack,
be
areas;
Gateway
still
of
a
benzene
neurological
nearby
study
A
Kalamazoo
more
be
carrying
year
An
A
Columbia
central
Eventually
unstable
Research
major
water
hampered
catastrophic.
contaminated
2071
alternative
than
found
discovery
after
experienced
and
spifi
pipeline
tar
and
flooding,
three
B.C.
the
report
River
sands
that
sediment,
symptoms
mountainous
from
other
by
needs
Centre
spill
a
and
factors
On
million
is
nearly
watershed
landslide
would
diluted
with
the
petroleum
safer
not
from occurred,
July
respiratory
and
cleanup
Northern
investigation.
and
concluded tar
such
60
consistent
litres
25,
cross
a
potential
bitumen
the
route
percent
safe
sands
80
2010,
in
as
of
will
of
approximately
significantly
related
terrain
hectares
Michigan.
Bulkley
a
the
gastrointestinal,
Gateway
tar
location
crude.
spill
an
through
sever
avalanches
with
of
ruptured,
remoteness,
sands
Enbridge
that,
individuals
chemicals. 7
in
across
of
“8
The
acute
these
A
Valley Pipeline
a
wetlands, crude
more
government
for
pipeline.
“the
Northern
British
60
spilling
exposure
and
areas
pipeline
pipelines.
kilometres
west
heavy
into
remote
and
living
More
could
rockslides.
would were
the
winter
than to The social, economic, and environmental costs to British The Government of British Columbia should reject Columbia of a tar sands pipeline and the associated oil northern coast oil tanker proposals as a matter of policy. supertanker traffic would be enormous, including: The Joint Review Panel should reject the proposed Compromising the lifestyles of First Nations who depend Northern Gateway pipeline project. on the region’s lands and waters for their livelihoods, K Canada should restrict further diluted bitumen pipeline culture, and health. development until adequate safety regulations are in Threatening the economic well-being of the place and should evaluate the need for new Canadian communities of British Columbia that depend on pipeline safety regulations. fisheries and forests. Transport Canada should commission an independent Potential devastation from a major oil spill from the study on the impact of diluted bitumen on oil tankers. pipeline or an oil supertanker, which could destroy The oil pipeline industry should take adequate economically important salmon habitat, as well as the precautions for pipelines habitat currently transporting diluted of Spirit Bears and grizzlies, arid whales, orcas, and bitumen. other marine life that depend on these rich coastal waters. • Canada should strengthen the assessment of risk to — Harm from an oil spifi to the Great Bear Rainfo rest that pipelines from landslides and snow avalanches. the province and First Nations have worked hard to protect from unsustainable forestry practices and to shift to a conservation-based economy.
The Northern Gateway pipeline faces considerable hurdles given the opposition from First Nations and the substantial public support for a permanent ban on crude oil tankers on the B.C. North Coast. The tankers would take crude oil from the pipeline and then transport it overseas. More than 130 First Nations groups in Western Canada have publicly stated their opposition to tankers and tar sands pipelines. Of these Nations, 70 have declared a 9outright bans on the transport of tar sands crude 0 through their traditional territories, whether by tanker or pipeline. Allfederal opposition parties in The Great Bear Rainforest is a sanctuary for Canada— including Liberals, New Democrats, and thousand-year-o’d western red cedar trees and Bloc Quebecois—have signalled their support for home to black bears, grizzlies, wolves and countless a permanent tanker ban. Four out of five British other species. But even as long-term protections are Columbians support a ban, as do more than 40 being put in place the Northern Gateway pipeline businesses and nearly 50 citizen organizations and associated tanker traffic poses a new threat. representing tens of thousands of Canadians. The pipeline will faci’itate over 400 oiltanker transits back and forth through the heart of the Great Bear. Rainforest and the core habitat of the Spirit bear. The globally rare Spirit Bear has become a worthy PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND WATERS ambassador of the mystery and magnificence of this Canada and British Columbia must take several steps rainforest for a good reason. If an oil spill occurs, in order to prevent a future diluted bitumen spill from they will be among the first terrestrial mammals to devastating First Nation and non-First Nation ways of life be threatened. and the rivers, lands, and coastal waters of British Columbia. These steps are essential for protecting salmon fisheries, wildlife habitat, critical water resources, and ecosystems unlike anywhere else on Earth. The Federal Government should legislate a permanent large oil tanker ban in accordance with the Coastal First Nations tanker ban and the Save the Fraser Declaration. Li
Eadnotes
1 Departmentof Canada, FisheriesandOceans.OceanographyoftheBritishColumbiaCoast,CanadianSpecialPublicationofFisheriesandAquaticSciences.Ottawa,Ontario.199t.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/487-l9. f. Covendfo-mpo.gc.ca/Ubrary/487-01.pdf. 2 RaincoastConservationFoundation.What’sat Stake?TheC’ostof OilonBritishColumbia’sPricelessCoast,2010. 3 AnthonySwift.SusanCasey-Lefkowitz,andElizabethShope.TarSandsPipelinesSafetyRisks.NRDC,NationalWildlifeFederation,PipelineSafetyTrust,andSierraClub.2011.http//mww.nidc.org/eneigy/ fllesftarsandssefelyrisks.pdf. 4 FisheriesendOceansCanada.UnderwaterWorld:PacificSalmon.2002.dfo-mps.gc.ca/science/publicaniono/uww-msm/articles/pacificsalmon-saumonpaciflcque-ung.trtm. 5 FisheriesandOceansCanada,FisherienRenewal,A VisionforRecreationalFisheriesinBritishColumbia2008-2012:DraftDocumentforDiscussion,May2008irttp:!/www.dfo-mpu.gc.ca/Library/337005.pdl. B WildernessTourismAssociatiortofBC.TheValueofWildSainrontoBCsNatureBasedTourismIndustryaridtireImpactsofOpenNutCageSalmonFaroririg.April30,2008.www.wildernesstourism.bc.ca/docs/ WTApositionpaper-salmon_farms-wild.pdf. 7 Stanbury,Martha,at al.AcuteHealthEffectsoftireEnbridgeOilSpill.Lansing.Ml:MichiganOepartmerrtofCommurotyHealth;November2010 nrichirjair.gov/dscunrents/rndclr/eribridge_oil_spill_epi_report.,.. with,,,cover_11_22_1O_339101,j.pdf.
8 Schwab,J. HillshspeandFluvialProcessesAlongtheProposedPipelnreCorridor,BurnsLakelv KihirnuLWestCentralBr:tisbColumbia.psi. Smithers.BC,BulkleyValleyHesearc[iCentre,2011. 9 WestCoastEnvironmentalLaw.FirstNationsThatHaveDeclaredOppositiontoEnhnidge.201t. Availableonrequestfromwwwwcelorg.
Full report can be found at: http://www.nrdc.org/internationaI/pipeIinetroubIe NOVEMBER2011 /27/12 Enbridge cleanup plan does not take bitumen into amount - The Globe and Mail
TilE GLOBEAN])MAIL
The Haisla First Nation’s Kitimaat Village is seen in an aerial view along the Douglas Channel near Kitimat, B.C.,Jan. 10, 2012. CP Enbridge cleanup plan does not take bitumen into account
WILL CAMPBELLAnd VIVIAN LTJK Published Sunday, Aug. 26, 2012 07 :36PM EDT Last updated Sunday, Aug. 26, 2012 o8;09PM EDT
Enbridge Inc.’s response plan for a potential spill of Northern Gateway oil into the pristine waters off British Columbia doesn’t take into account the unique oil mixture the pipeline would actually carry, documents show.
Enbridge officials confirm the spill-response plan they have filed with the federal review panel studying the pipeline proposal deals with conventional crude, not specifically the diluted bitumen the pipeline will carry.
Enbridge says the two react the same way once spilled.
However, documents obtained under access to information show a scientist at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans argued vigorously for a chance to do more research.
Kenneth Lee submitted a research proposal last December saying the matter requires further study because Enbridge’s plan had “strong limitations due to inaccurate inputs.”
ice=pnnt 1/3 8/27/12 Enbndge cleanup plan does not take bitumen into account - The Globe and Mail “The Northern Gateway pipeline proposal lacks key information on the chemical composition of the reference oils used in the hypothetical spill models,” wrote Dr. Lee, head of DFO’sCentre for Offshore OilGas and Energy Research, or COOGER.
Dr. Lee sought approval to conduct a series of studies through to 2015, when final tests on the “toxic effects of reference oils to marine species” would be completed.
That deadline suggests the results would come too late for the Northern Gateway review panel as it reviews the environmental impact of the pipeline. Its hearings end next April and the panel reports back to government by the end of next year.
The Fisheries Department did not respond to questions about whether Dr. Lee’sgroup was given the go-ahead to do the research.
Dr. Lee was informed this spring that his job and the research centre he runs is at risk of being eliminated as a result of federal budget cuts.
Reached by phone, Dr. Lee said he was not authorized to comment on the proposal but confirmed that he and his staff have been notified their positions are on a list of positions that could be cut. “We were on an affected [position] list at one point. And we’restill on that affected list, but COOGERwillstill exist.”
Dr. Lee is an internationally renowned expert on oil spills and was tapped last year to join a U.S. scientific committee studying the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Northern Gateway’stwin pipelines would carry natural gas condensate to Alberta and diluted oilsands bitumen to Kitimat, B.C.,where it would be transferred to tankers for export.
Opinions differ on whether a spill of diluted bitumen would react so dramatically differently from spills of other crudes.
Bitumen is oil extracted from oil sands. It’s thick and heavy like molasses, though a diluted version is what would be moved through the Enbridge pipeline if the $6-billion project gets approved.
That’s about all everyone — including Calgary-based Enbridge, the B.C.government, pipeline engineers, spill response experts and environmentalists — can agree on.
What they cannot agree on is whether characteristics believed to be associated with diluted bitumen — also known as dilbit — lead to higher risks of pipeline fractures and consequently, oil spills.
There is also no agreement on whether diluted bitumen behaves differently in water than conventional crude oil once it is spilled.
Ray Doering, manager of engineering with the Northern Gateway project, and Elliott Taylor, one of the company’s oil-spill experts, said a combination of factors, over time, will prompt diluted bitumen to get denser.
For example, when the lighter properties evaporate, the heavier stuff remains, so it may sink. Or turbulent water or wave action could cause it to sink. Or if the oil gets mixed with sand or sediment — like it probably would in a river or a stream, or close to a shoreline — then it would sink.
But both say that’s true of all crude.
“The toolbox that is going to be put together for this project will start with the same type of
ice= print 2/3 8/27/12 Enbridge cleanup plan does not take bitumen into account - The Globe and Mail equipment that you use for any type of oil spill because we know that initially, that behaviour is going to be just like any other crude oil,” said Dr. Taylor, a marine geologist and oil spill response expert with Polaris Applied Sciences.
“If it gets into water it’s going to float, so you would use the same techniques as long as those techniques are effective and address the behaviour of the oil at that stage.
“If it does get heavier, as it weathers and picks up some of those sediments, whether that’s at the shoreline or in the river, we would still go after that.”
But the Natural Resource Defence Council, a U.S environmental group, argues dilbit has a higher acid concentration than conventional crude oil.
It also maintains that even when diluted, dilbit is still more viscous than conventional crude. To keep the crude fluid, the pipeline transporting the product willthen have to operate at a higher temperature, said policy analyst Anthony Swift.
“In general, higher temperatures increase the rate of chemical reactions,” he said in an interview. “In addition to internal corrosion, a pipeline operating at higher temperature is also going to increase the rate of external corrosion.”
Mr. Swiftpoints to the July, 2010 spill where an Enbridge pipeline rupture caused millions of litres of crude to spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board concluded the rupture was caused by cracks in the pipeline due to corrosion that wore away the pipeline’sprotective coating.
But what exactly caused the corrosion still needs to be thoroughly examined and until it is known, due diligence is needed, Mr. Swift said.
“The real question is — and it’s a question that hasn’t been clearly evaluated by regulators — does the combination of higher acid content and higher pipeline operating temperature pose a long-term risk to pipelines due to internal corrosion?” he said.
Enbridge rejects all of the Natural Resource Defence Council’sclaims.
“Weknow from our own data that there are no higher levels of internal corrosion associated with diluted bitumen than there would be for any other type of conventional oil that we move,” Mr. Doering said.
“There are no differences to external corrosion either because those conditions don’t change.”
Mr. Doering added that all products that move through a pipeline must be of a certain viscosity in order for it to be “pipelineable.”
As a result, the temperature set for transporting diluted bitumen would be the same as for moving all other types of crude.
“It operates at normal temperatures because it has been diluted with condensate or diluant [light hydrocarbon product], so it has the same properties as conventional oil,” he said.
“It doesn’t need to operate at higher temperature and higher pressures.”
A study done for Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions, a government-funded research and development agency, in 2011 appears to support Enbridge’s claims.
Jenny Been, a corrosion engineer, compared data for four types of dilbit crude with heavy, medium theglobeandmail.com/news/bntish-columbia/.../article4500233/?serv ice=print 8/27/12 Enbridge cleanup plan does not take bitumen into account - The Globe and Mail and light conventional Alberta crude oils.
Still, the B.C.government maintains that if a marine spill were to happen along the West Coast, diluted bitumen is more likely to sink than conventional crude oil.
“Agreater degree of difficulty is involved in recovering bitumen and more remediation is required should an unintended release occur, particularly once bitumen sinks into the water column or into soils,” a technical analysis released by the government last month says.
The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the 2010 Michigan spill also found that two days after the spill, the denser oil fractions had sunk to the bottom of the river bed, prompting Enbridge to clean it up by gathering up the bottom sediments and disposing them.
In the spring of 2011, a reassessment still found a “moderate-to-heavy contamination of 200 acres [80 hectares] of the river bottom,” the report said.
Enbridge acknowledged that some properties in spified diluted bitumen could eventually sink.
“Initially, it willhave the same behaviour as conventional crude oil,” Mr. Doering said.
“Over time, the condensate — the diluant used to blend — can begin to evaporate and the property of the diluted bitumen becomes denser.”
© 2012 The Globe and Mail Inc. All Rights Reserved.
theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/.../article4500233/?serv ice= print
+
nale not for
doing
it,”
Bloom
when pipeline
companies
rarely
its
entirety
after
rejecting
it
study.
Canadian
Press
they’ll
and try
use
it
a as
ratio
Bloom
said gone are
days the
Texas
Keystone
proposal
impacts, i
and
the
scope of
the
energy of
development,
and
going
to be
prominent.”
$7.6-billion
US
Alberta-to-
tal issues,
ways
to
lessen
those
focused
on,”
said
Bloom. are
going
to oppose
any kind
ter how
large
or
how
small,
it’s
reviewing
TransCanada’s
ment
on
possible
environmen
benefit
here
we
to need be
to picked
stay up
by
those
who
any kind
of
an
incident
no mat
The
U.S.
government
is
until
the
end
of
July
to com
ners
that
there’s
a
no much matter
greater. how
small, is
going tory
review.
Any
time
there’s
reasons.”
members
of
the public
have
Canada
and
our
trading “I
think
part any
kind
of
incident,
projects
going
through
regula
and
in some
cases
for the
wrong
Agencies,
organizations
and
to
market
is so
dent
compelling
of Spectra
for
Energy
with
Keystone
XL
and
other
selves
prominent
in
the
news Nebraska
route.
infrastructure
needed Pipeline
to Association get it
and
presi
a
focus
now with
Gateway
and
it
or not,
we
seem
to
find
our
time
to
properly
weigh
a new
for
developing
the man of pipeline
the Canadian
Energy
be
to
bad
timing.
There’s
such
“Over
the last
year
or
two,
like
process
didn’t
allow
enough
developing
the
to, research
suggests
and Doug
Bloom,
chair
“Any
spill right
now
is
going
“under
the
radar.”
can
manoeuvring
speed to
the
“Frankly
the
reasons
for
latch
on
said
Thursday
in
an
interview.
made
the news
and
operated
in
January
because
Republi tion from first nation environmental groups. groups
is encountering
a That
of lot
is
opposi likely
something
t
Gleniffer
Reservior
as
a
resuLt
a pipeline of
Leak 50 about
km
west
of Red
Deer,
Alta.,
in
early
June.
the
midst
of public
since
hearings
2005.
and
rea
resident
Marcy
BLoss
takes
a
looks
at
some of the
oiL collected
at the
boat
launch
at the
Northern. Gateway
lines project in the in is province every year
DEAN
BICKNELLIPOSTMEDIA sands oil NEWS to Asian bons markets. have leaked The from pipe
3.4 Columbia coast to million transport oil- litres of hydrocar
from Alberta’ to Industry the figures British show at least
a pipeline that 7. in would central stretch Alberta on June /
Enbridge is proposing ,&ude the into to build Red Deer River
security, she said. t945,ooo litres of light sotu
tive effect Midstre]akedup on American energy
percentage would And have a a pipeline posi owned by Plains
oil imports. Increasing east of Edmonton week. that this
provides per crude 24 cent near U.S. of Elk Point north
Lochman noted spilled Canada 230,000 now litres of heavy
pipeline,” she An said. Enbridge pumping station
plication the for ern Gateway Keystone projects. XL
brought to bear of on the that Keystone reap XL and North
previous
file and vide ammunition
that will •‘.‘‘,:r be opponents to
,;‘•
project. We already recent have leaks in Alberta the will pro
looking juèt
at line that boss specific says he expects two
“, L1 “The
Keystone CALGARY
decision is
Canada’s
pipe —
‘j’.
“
‘;,; ‘- -
when
it • comes ‘ to Keystone XL.
c’
review ‘t- will look at outside BY BILL factors GRAVELAND
Lochman doesn’t
believe the
U.S. consul-general
Laura
With both
Keystone
XL and
NorthernGateway
projects under review, the spills come at a difficult
time
Recent
leaks piovide
anti-pipeline ammunition ALBERTA