Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project: ‘Approved’

Joint Review Panel recommends approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Dec 19, 2013

CALGARY ― The Joint Review Panel (the Panel) for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project today recommended that the federal government approve the project, subject to 209 required conditions.

Based on a scientific and precautionary approach to this complex review, the Panel found that the project, if built and operated in compliance with the conditions set out in its report, would be in the public interest.

The Panel also recommended that the Governor in Council determine that the construction and routine operation of the project would cause no significant adverse environmental effects, with the exception of cumulative effects for certain populations of woodland caribou and grizzly bear.

In these two cases, the Panel found that cumulative effects as a result of this project and other projects, activities or actions are likely to be at the low end of the range of possible significance. The Panel recommended that these effects be found to be justified in the circumstances.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project

The Panel concluded that the environmental burdens associated with project construction and routine operation can generally be effectively mitigated and that continued monitoring, scientific research and adaptive management could further reduce adverse effects.

The Panel stated that “the environmental, societal and economic burdens of a large oil spill, while unlikely and not permanent, would be significant.” The Panel found that Northern Gateway had taken steps to minimize the likelihood of a large spill through its precautionary design approach and its commitments to use innovative and redundant safety systems.  The Panel also found that, after mitigation, the likelihood of significant adverse environmental effects resulting from project malfunctions or accidents is very low.

The Panel found that “opening Pacific Basin markets is important to the Canadian economy and society.”  The Panel also found that “the project would bring significant local, regional, and national economic and social benefits.”

After weighing all of the oral and written evidence, the Panel found that Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project than without it.

The Panel’s conditions, which would be enforced by the National Energy Board, include requirements for Enbridge Northern Gateway to:

  • Develop a Marine Mammal Protection Plan;
  • Implement the TERMPOL Review Committee Recommendations;
  • Prepare a Caribou Habitat Restoration Plan;
  • Develop a Training and Education Monitoring Plan;
  • Prepare an Enhanced Marine Spill Trajectory and Fate Modelling;
  • Develop a Research Program on the Behaviour and Cleanup of Heavy Oils;
  • Conduct Pre-operations Emergency Response Exercises and Develop an Emergency Preparedness and Response Exercise and Training Program.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is a proposal to build and operate two pipelines and a marine terminal. The pipelines would run 1,178 kilometres from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia, where the marine terminal would be built.

One 914 mm (36 inch) outside diameter line would carry an average of 83,400 cubic metres (525,000 barrels) per day of oil west to Kitimat. The other line, a 508 mm (20 inch) outside diameter pipeline, would carry an average of 30,700 cubic metres (193,000 barrels) of condensate per day east to Bruderheim. Condensate can be used to thin bitumen for pipeline transport. The Kitimat Marine Terminal would have two tanker berths, three condensate tanks and 16 oil storage tanks. Costs for the project are estimated at $7.9 billion.

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel assessed the environmental effects of the proposed project and reviewed the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the National Energy Board Act.

The report, this news release, a backgrounder on the hearing process and a list of frequently asked questions can be found on the Panel’s website at: www.gatewaypanel.review.gc.ca

“More Agreement than Not” — Canada’s Premiers in 2012

by John Brian Shannon

It was heartening to see Canada‘s Premiers working together today on the challenges facing Canada, it’s provinces and citizens. A provincially-led era of common-sense has appeared across the political spectrum in this country. How reassuringly Canadian.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall felt comfortable enough to make the statement that between the provinces, there is “more agreement, than not.” New Brunswick Premier Robert Ghiz standing beside him indicated his full agreement.

Why can’t politics always be like this?

And I was pleased to see a high level of cooperation between the provinces on the topic of health-care. The Premiers want to lower costs for patients, enhance health-care  and harmonize their somewhat disparate systems. As I said, heartening.

Downplaying Northern Gateway pipeline tensions

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark quite rightly states that BC will be taking all of the risk where the Northern Gateway pipeline is concerned, while so-far receiving little benefit under the present proposal.

In fact, the number of Canadians who will actually benefit from this pipeline over its proposed 30-year lifetime are surprisingly few.

It must be said that during the one-year pipeline construction period, a few thousand temporary jobs would be created. But no more than a handful of oil executives will benefit, but benefit they will — handsomely. And it’s not rocket science to do the math on oil and pipeline company stock market shares, as American citizens own far more of these stocks than any other national group. Less than 15% of the total stock in this market segment are owned by Canadians.

From the British Columbia standpoint, does it really matter to BC citizens if some Ontario or Texas oil executive can afford to buy yet another Bentley at Christmas?

Especially when the risk of damage to wildlife, citizens and to the economics of the region could be catastrophic. Tourism, fishing, forestry, farming and real estate values can dramatically change for the worse in the case of only one major spill. Taken together, these sectors represent billions of dollars per year for the people of BC.

It might interest you to know that under the Canadian Constitution, resources are owned by individual provinces on behalf of the citizens of those provinces. As the owners of these resources, citizens nowadays have precious little say in how they are accessed, developed or sold — and to which entity they are sold. Let alone have any say on the per-tonne selling price of those resources for decades of time.

Premier Christy Clark of British Columbia, acting with parallel support from the leader of BC’s official opposition party, the Honourable Adrian Dix, has questioned the present situation and both politicians have called for an examination of risk/net benefit for British Columbia’s citizens in this matter.

The next logical step is to hire the most reputable, global, petroleum-wise accounting firms available, to have them determine the cost to repair damage to the environment and to cover employment and profit losses resulting from the worst-case oil spill at sea — or wherever the pipeline route crosses the interior of this scenic province.

Whatever the full cost happens to be for a full clean-up and remediation along with the full compensation costs for affected individuals and businesses, that should be the minimum price of admission in order to receive the necessary permissions and permits to build and operate an oil pipeline route  through BC — or through any province for that matter.

A worst-case scenario security-deposit is what all British Columbian‘s should require of companies wishing to cross BC territory with oil pipelines or oil shipping terminals located in the province.

If the appropriate deposit is paid in full and in advance, at that point, even I will put up with an oil pipeline and trans-shipment terminal in BC. Especially if the highest standards and practices are put into place to ensure lower risk for British Columbia.

When a pipeline gets taken out of service (and removed) after years of successful operation (without a single spill) the security deposit — principal only — should be returned to the company.

You’d think that insurance companies would be all over this.

If these proposals were passed into law, it might encourage oil execs to direct their teams to build world-class pipelines which never leak and require the use of double-hulled supertankers as part of their corporate policy. Double-hulled tankers are the law in the EU (since 1996) and the U.S.A. (since 1990) and both have in place, severe penalties for non-compliance. In the GCC nations and Japan it is long-standing convention (but not law) that double-hulled tankers are required anywhere close to the coastline.

Canada, with the most scenic coastline on the planet located here in the province of British Columbia, has no such law nor convention. Pathetic.

IF the price formula outlined above seems too high for pipeline or shipping companies, that’s too bad. We don’t need it. We’re not getting anything from it except risking the wealth and beauty of our province, so take it somewhere else. No really, please. Take it somewhere else.

We can’t jeopardize British Columbia’s pristine coastline, wilderness, rivers, creeks, lakes, farmland and ranchlands. Nor can we risk BC’s entire multi-billion dollar tourism, fishery and forestry industries and the hundreds of thousands of jobs they provide, because comparatively small numbers of people in Alberta, Ontario and the U.S. want a shiny new car next year.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, the Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.


Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com
Check out his economics blog at:
https://jbsnews.wordpress.com
Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

David Suzuki: Screw the Environment! The Pipeline Will Hurt Our Economy | MY COMMENT

David Suzuki: Screw the Environment! The Pipeline Will Hurt Our Economy — The Huffington Post – Canada
By: Dr. David Suzuki  January 12, 2012

MY COMMENT — Dr. Suzuki easily destroys the house of cards arguments put up by some people and corporatio­ns supporting both the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline.

There are so many billions of dollars invested in the tar sands now and much of it has been invested by China, the U.S. and others, that there is no going back now. The tar-sands will be extracted every day for decades, unless the price of oil drops below the tar-sands extraction price.

My concern is a spill over pristine land or sea. For that reason, an oil pipeline with supertanke­rs is out of the question. If tar sands product is going to be exported to China (it will be, trust me on this) an oil pipeline and supertanke­rs are the absolute worst way to go. What makes way more sense is to highly upgrade the tar sand material to highly-ref­ined ethane and send it to Kitimat by high-press­ure gas pipeline. LNG tankers are innocuous compared to crude oil tankers! In case of accident, ethane evaporates (unless ignited) into the air instead of destroying thousands of miles of coastline and countless sea-life.

Even exporting the raw tar-sand itself — delivered by rail to the port and carried inside bulk carrier ships (the same way as coal is exported every day in BC) is light-year­s better than shipping crude oil!!

Exporting crude to China from Kitimat, really is the worst option of all the available choices.

———————————————————————————————————-

My second comment on this same article by Dr. Suzuki:

OPEC could care less about Canada’s tar sands oil, or any other oil, anywhere. Regular readers of Middle Eastern newspapers and Middle East oil industry periodical­s know that all the oil OPEC produces every day is already pre-sold — and a year-long waiting list is in place for any extra oil that may become available due to delivery cancellati­on or additions to supply from bulk oil stockpiles there.

Note­: Not all OPEC countries are based in the Middle East, but Saudi Arabia produces about half of OPEC’s total.

Middle Eastern oil costs less, requires much less refining and is of higher quality than any oil in the world — except West Texas sweet crude which is the creme-de-la-creme of petroleum. Saudi oil is rated at about the same ‘sweetness­’ as (North Sea) Brent intermedia­te crude oil which is tied with Saudi oil for 2nd place.

China buys 50% of all Saudi oil extracted and they would buy all of it — and a lot more if they could.

There is no competitio­n between Canada and Saudi or other OPEC countries. If a glut suddenly appears due to market conditions­, buyers always line up to purchase the ‘good’ crude as it is often cheaper especially when you factor in refining cost. ‘Sour’ crude sits until the market picks up again.

Here is a huge dump of informatio­n on the Saudi petrochemi­cal industry for you in PDF form;
http://www­.sabic.com­/corporate­/en/binari­es/SABICCo­rporateBro­chure_E_tc­m4-1610.pd­f