Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

OTTAWA—A biologist, an energy lawyer and an aboriginal geologist will sit down Tuesday in a recreation centre in the wilderness of northern British Columbia to initiate what could be the fiercest environmental standoff ever seen in Canada.

Before the hearings in B.C. and Alberta are completed next year, more than 4,000 people are expected to appear before the three-member panel vetting the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta through the Rockies to the B.C. coast.

Like the now-stalled Keystone XL project in the United States, the planned pipeline to carry tarsands-derived crude oil across the mountains to a new supertanker port in northern B.C. is shaping up as a titanic clash of economic and environmental imperatives.

Fear of pipeline leaks or a tanker spill that would foul some of the world’s most pristine forests and coastal areas has already galvanized unprecedented concern in the green movement, with some groups calling it the “defining environmental battle” of modern times. The army of opponents includes environmentalists from around North America, more than 100 aboriginal groups and thousands of other B.C. citizens. Star power will also be brought into play from the likes of Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio.

On the other side of the issue stand powerful oil interests touting such a pipeline as a crucial nation-building project that will enable Canada to cash in on its tarsands reserves by gaining access to energy-hungry China. Among its supporters, the industry counts none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has staked much of his government’s energy strategy on finding new markets for oilsands crude.

Beginning Tuesday in the Haisla First Nation of Kitamaat village near the B.C. coast, the independent federal review panel — biologist Sheila Legget, energy lawyer Kenneth Bateman and aboriginal geologist Hans Matthews — will amass evidence to give a yes or no verdict on the pipeline. The review will decide if the $5.5 billion project is in Canada’s public interest and whether it meets federal environmental safety regulations, with a report expected in late 2013.

That’s a year later than the Harper government would have liked, but the panel had to make time to hear from the thousands of people who asked to present their views.

This outpouring of interest in the hearings was partly facilitated by green activists, who used social media to help sign up people to testify. The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative alone takes credit for facilitating testimony by 1,600 of the 4,000-plus people who are stepping forward to comment on the proposed pipeline.

“It’s all kinds of people,” explains Eric Swanson, who heads the Dogwood Initiative’s campaign to keep oil supertankers away from B.C.’s northern coast. “Ever since we started on this campaign, we’ve had people of all political stripes and backgrounds supporting our proposals to protect the coast from oil tankers.”

“For most British Columbians, this is about the coast, about oil tankers and about spills, emotionally and politically,” he said in an interview. More than 68,000 people have signed a petition to ban tankers from the province’s northern ports, Swanson added. “How big a fight does Stephen Harper want to pick?”

The 1,172-kilometre line, which would cross hundreds of rivers and streams and pass through a region renowned for its salmon, wolves, bears and other wildlife, is seen as a threat to the environment and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. It has sparked an eruption of opposition among aboriginals, who maintain the project must be stopped at almost any cost.

"The Enbridge pipeline would risk an oil spill into our rivers and lands that would destroy our food supply, our livelihoods and our cultures,” said Chief Larry Nooski of Nadleh Whut’en First Nation in B.C. “Our laws do not permit crude oil pipelines into our territories. This project isn’t going anywhere.”

A long and bitter fight lies ahead before a decision is reached by the joint review panel on whether Enbridge’s proposed pipeline should go ahead. Canadians got a taste of the controversy to come when Harper accused environmentalists supported by “foreign money” of trying to hijack the regulatory hearings on Northern Gateway.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver reinforced the message Sunday. Asked on CTV’s Question Period about the use of Hollywood star power to challenge pipeline proposals, Oliver said the government is concerned “that people from the U.S. are coming here with very large environmental footprints to lecture Canadians on what we should do with our resources.”

Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema responded, “No one should be fooled by this well-orchestrated campaign by multinational oil companies, their phony front group and the Harper government to silence the opposition to these pipelines and the expansion of the tarsands that they enable.

“The oil industry’s own polling shows that there are millions of Canadians opposed to this new tarsands pipeline,” Hudema said, “and they have a right to be heard, not disenfranchised by some kind of U.S. Republican-style smear campaign.”


Canada News: Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
What are the estimates that is will add to the GDP? The ability to export the oil.

I don't have an inkling! I have a feeling the clash is almost 100% over environmental concerns. Maybe if sane heads sat around a table, some answers could emerge so that the environment would be a moot issue. And maybe if some sane people who are concerned about the environment would take the time to find out what the entire procedure will be some fears could be allayed.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The hearings take place on Jan. 10th..

What is the JRP assessing?

The Panel must consider, “measures…that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects,” as well as, “alternative means of carrying out the project,” as long as these are deemed to be technically and economically feasible. They must also consider any, “measures to enhance any beneficial environmental effects,” as well as emergency response plans.

It’s important to note that the project doesn’t end with the pipeline. The Panel will consider as part of the project a tank farm and marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C., and the tanker traffic within Canada’s territorial waters.

What the project does not include, at least according to the Panel, are the environmental impacts of oil sands development or the eventual use of the exported oil. As such, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from oil sands production and downstream uses have been ruled beyond the scope of the Panel’s mandate and will not be considered when rendering a decision. The decision to exclude these impacts continues to face significant opposition from environmental groups.

The commercial case, termed the need for the project, must be made by the proponent and consideration must be given by the Panel to whether alternatives to the project exist to satisfy the same commercial demand. In other words, Enbridge needs to demonstrate not only that the pipeline would be utilized, but that the use of their pipeline would not diminish the viability of other, existing pipelines. After showing that there is a demand for more oil transportation capacity to the West Coast, they have to make the case that the Northern Gateway project is the preferable option to accomplish that.

Finally, the Panel is charged with considering concerns raised by Aboriginal groups. The Panel is authorized to recommend “appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts or infringements on Aboriginal and treaty rights and interests.”


What are the key issues likely to be?

There are five key issues in this controversy. First, the well-documented first nations opposition to the pipeline will play a prominent role. Second, despite its formal exclusion by the Panel, the environmental impacts of oil sands production will be a constant theme, with significant attention likely to be focused on greenhouse gas emissions. Third, the risk of a pipeline spill will be mentioned frequently, and if you don’t know where Kalamazoo is or why it matters, you’ll soon find out. Fourth, the risk of a tanker accident at sea is of great concern to project opponents. Enbridge will have to make the case for the environmental safeguards associated with both the pipeline and marine transportation.

Finally, the economic benefits of the pipeline, both during construction and in the long term will be emphasized by pipeline proponents and called into question by oppoments. In particular, there will likely be extensive discussion of the benefits of diversification of markets for Alberta oil sands products, and access to world oil prices which are higher than those in the U.S. Midwest.

Enbridge will need to make the commercial case for the pipeline, relying on forecast growth in oil sands production to do so. The National Energy Board has forecast a near-doubling of oil sands production between now and the potential in-service date of the pipeline and this, along with similar forecasts from industry, will likely be cited often. Project opponents are likely to call the commercial case for the pipeline into question.


Northern Gateway: Your guide to the hearings - The Globe and Mail
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The hearings take place on Jan. 10th..

What is the JRP assessing?

[/URL]
27 Billion in revenue for three levels of Govt - Ontario - Quebec benefit as suppliers of equipment - manufacturing etc.
131 Billion to Canada's GDP - That is just to start

The 1st nations cannot override the decision. Required by Law to be consulted but they do not have any legal right to refuse. They can disagree as much as they want to.

How many oil tankers presently deliver product to the Eastern and Western seabord of USA / Canada.

And the Fed Govt will push it thru - may lose some BC seats but the extra jobs created in Central Canada will add seats.

But we should be upgrading the product in Canada. Billions more added to the GDP and tax revenue.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I actually agree with you on this one, Goober. Upgrade here.

We are fools if we do not. Also hold the Oil Sands companies feet to the fire to improve their records on water usage, chemical releases, Ggas, land reclamation. Newer tech is on the market now.

Prov Govt to impose limits on raw exports of bitumen. Take a percentage in the pipeline, upgraders, refineries.
Lots of long term revenues streams from a varity of sources. That second pipeline for distallate from the west coast can easily be reversed to East - West.

During the next 20-30 years with the boomers, of which i am one, costs for health care, long term care, along with all the other services will place a high burden on the tax payer.

And oil will be around in one form or another for at least a few hundred years.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Do you walk on a sidewalk, use a highway, go to a hospitial - recieve a pension. Money paid for that.
Do you think I'm stupid?

Trashing your environment for money is. Logic is trumped by greed, health is compromised by greed, life dies because of greed. How much money do we need? Cut back on all the waste in government. Cut back on buying crap we don't need. We might survive without trashing our life support system.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Do you think I'm stupid?

Trashing your environment for money is. Logic is trumped by greed, health is compromised by greed, life dies because of greed. How much money do we need? Cut back on all the waste in government. Cut back on buying crap we don't need. We might survive without trashing our life support system.

Do I think you are stupid, No. As you stated before you live in a different matrix than I do.

I replied with reasonable commentary based upon a dumb post about money.

Is their risk in a pipeline – Yes – will it be mitigated as much as possible Yes.

Will a pipeline spill occur – Yes – It then depends upon size, location and containment.
Do I want people who are upset about seeing a pipeline in the bush stop economic development.
Oil Tankers – People do not want them yet how many dock every day in North America?
Oil usage will not disappear.
I already outlined what I believe the Prov Govt and Oil industry should do.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I replied with reasonable commentary based upon a dumb post about money.

Is their risk in a pipeline – Yes – will it be mitigated as much as possible Yes.

There's risks in everything.

At present, BC has a track record of clear cutting vast tracts of land, dumping 10's of thousands of litres of raw sewage daily into the oceans, highly active port facilities that transport chemicals and other toxic substances like sulphur, development of all kinds of hydro projects throughout the province, etc, etc, etc..

With all of the above in mind, I find it nothing short of a bunch of hypocrites bell-aching about something that will be essential in providing all of the monies that they demand in services and gvt.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Fresh from the economy lab.. they use graduated flasks..

Northern Gateway: the unheard argument

Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the sea would open Asian markets for Canadian oil that up till now has been captive to the United States, and it would do so with some probabilities of environmental damage and some certainty of insult to aboriginal land titles. All three arguments have been advanced in the media by their proponents and will soon be exposed in public hearings. But one argument has been rather muted so far.

On the environmental side, the media coverage has been almost entirely about the risks of the pipeline itself. Leaks or bursts could seriously damage any of the 600-odd streams it must cross, many of which are key parts of salmon ecosystems. But what about the saltwater side of this transport system?

Enbridge chose Kitimat as its port. This means some 200 tankers a year would cross the shallow and stormy waters of Hecate Sound, duck behind Banks Island, follow the narrow Principe Channel for 120 km, turn east through Otter Channel, cross the track of many Alaska cruise ships at the south end of Granville Channel, and ascend Douglas Channel, another narrow fiord, a further 100 km to Kitimat. Altogether, this is about 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents. Whole volumes have been written about shipwrecks on the B.C. coast, end even with today’s modern navigation systems, ships run aground and sink.

Something for the hearings to consider is what minimum investments would be required by the federal government -- a strong proponent of the pipeline -- to reduce navigational risks to an acceptable minimum. At the least these would include a whole new regulatory scheme, as we have never seen a project of this sort before. Ships and their crews would have to be certified to high standards, which have not yet been set for this environment. The pilotage system would have to be expanded, with new stations at Kitimat and perhaps Banks Island, and stout new boats to service the tankers. (The new pilot boat at Victoria cost $4.5-million, which at least made local yachtsmen fell they weren’t the most extravagant folks afloat.) There would have to be new Coast Guard ships to supervise the transits, and to respond to emergencies. Novel technologies for containing spills and cleaning up in the aftermath would have to be devised and built for the proposed scale of operations in these cold northern waters. New Coast Guard doctrine would need to be prepared, and hundreds of new sailors hired and trained. At least there is time -- five to seven years -- to do this before pipeline operations begin, but only if the feds start now. The cost? Who knows, but $500-million would be a good starting point.

No preparations for all this are yet visible. If provision is not made in February’s budget, the sincerity of Ottawa’s support for Alberta’s pipeline should be questioned.

There is an alternative to the perilous journey to Kitimat, and that is the established industrial port at Prince Rupert. The pipeline would be about 200 km longer, but the sea journey would be comparably shorter. The western end of the route would travel down the Skeena valley, where existing road and rail facilities would lower the costs of construction. Since Enbridge swears its pipeline will be safe, there would presumably be little threat to the huge Skeena salmon run. Most importantly, Prince Rupert gives fairly directly onto Dixon Entrance and the great world ocean, which would considerably lessen the probability of a tanker disaster. New investment by the Coast Guard and the Pilotage Authority would be a lot less, though not zero.

As you follow the unfolding controversy, ask yourself why Enbridge chose the less safe route, and whether we as taxpayers have to pay the premium for the risks the company has created.

THE ECONOMY LAB: Northern Gateway: the unheard argument - The Globe and Mail
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Fresh from the economy lab.. they use graduated flasks..

Northern Gateway: the unheard argument

[/URL]

Regarding the problems navigating the narrows. Each Tanker will be towed by 4 Tugs. Yes there have been accidents, wrecks but have any been the result of Bulk Carriers being guided / towed by tugs.
The cruise ship – No standards was the problem.
The Exxon Valdez – Capt drunk.
As to below water pinnacles, they can be removed.
But when all is said and done it may be the other port.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Feds play risky game with pro-pipeline talk
Remarks about 'radical' groups hijacking regulatory process raises thorny questions about impartiality of Northern Gateway Project review

Pro-pipeline statements by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on the eve of formal hearings into the Northern Gateway Project are a risky business.

Clearly Harper and Oliver are playing to the Conservatives' political base, reinforcing a message the Harper team is all about protecting the economy and creating jobs. But remarks about "environmental and other radical groups [that would] hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda" threaten to damage the credibility of the review process.

Some Canadians legitimately worry about environmental issues associated with a pipeline that would burrow through B.C.'s midsection, traversing pristine watersheds and salmon-bearing streams.

They want to have confidence that any regulatory process will impartially consider the environmental factors associated with a pipeline.

Remarks that describe groups working to safeguard salmon habitat as being radical just days before the hearings - starting today in Kitimaat Village - will lead some to conclude the Harper government already has made up its mind about any obstacles that might thwart Northern Gateway, and that the panel's recommendations in 2013 will be a foregone conclusion.

Environmental activists understand that these hearings are not going to change Harper's view that Northern Gateway must be built to access Asian oil markets. They understand the review panel is a federal body mandated by the environment minister and National Energy Board.

While a government website states the three-member panel is assigned to "assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application" under federal legislation, how likely is it that the review panel would ever impede the project when the PM and his natural resources minister are so gung-ho for the pipeline?

Knowing this, the strategy of opponents is to use the hearings as a platform from which to mobilize public opinion.

They'll pull out all stops, already having joined forces with aboriginals poised to object to the pipeline route across territory never ceded by treaty, enlisting high-profile help from any public figures they can lasso, all in an effort to make Northern Gateway a ballot-box issue.

Such a strategy certainly worked last fall in the U.S. when deployed against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Following a highly effective campaign against that pipeline (to carry oilsands crude to Texas refineries), Barack Obama last fall delayed approval until at least 2013.

Federal Conservatives won't face re-election for another four years but activists point out the timeline for Christy Clark's B.C. government is more problematic, with a vote scheduled for 2013. Pipeline opponents plan to lie low until late March, giving the spotlight until then to aboriginal groups, who are scheduled to testify against the project in the hearing's early stages.

Protesters will accelerate their activities during the third week of March to coincide with the anniversary of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

The New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council served notice Monday that Americans won't be shy about weighing in on the Canadian pipeline project.

An NRDC blog states the 1.3-million-member organization is "proud to have been invited to partner with Canadians in a campaign to oppose the Northern Gateway tarsands pipeline."

In view of climate change, "wanting to preserve our homes, rivers, communities and coasts is something that people across Canada and the U.S. agree on."

http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20120110...ronmental-approval-hearings-begin-120110.html