The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project is a proposal to construct twin pipeline running from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat, British Columbia. The eastbound pipeline would import natural gas condensate and the westbound pipeline would export bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands diluted with the condensate to the new marine terminal in Kitimat where it would be transported to Asian markets by oil tankers. The project was proposed in mid-2000s and has been postponed several times. The project would be developed by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian crude oil and liquids pipeline company.

Enbridge claims that the pipeline and terminal, if completed, would provide 104 permanent operating positions created within the company and 113 positions with the associated marine services.^[1] First Nations groups, environmentalists and oil sands opponents, among others, denounce the project because of the environmental, economic, social and cultural risks posed by the pipeline. Proponents argue the pipeline would instead provide aboriginal groups with equity ownership, training, employment, Community Trust and stewardship programs. The Douglas Channel that leads into Kitimat and surrounding northwest coast waters pose safety and weather hazards for oil tankers.

The proposal has been heavily criticized by native groups, as the pipeline would traverse much of their traditional lands and threaten habitat for wild salmon.^[2] Groups like the Yinka Dene Alliance have been organized to campaign against the project. In December 2010, 66 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed the Save The Fraser Declaration in opposition to the project, and 40 more have signed up in support since that time.^[3] The proposal is also opposed by numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citing not only Enbridge’s spotty history with pipeline installation and numerous spills ^[4] but also grave concerns over oil sands expansion and the associated risks in transportation.

[edit]History

The project was proposed in mid-2000s and has been postponed several times. It was announced in 2006. Enbridge signed a cooperation agreement with PetroChina in 2005 to ensure the utilization of pipeline capacity.^[5] PetroChina agreed to buy about 200 thousand barrels per day (32×10³ m³/d) transported through the pipeline. In 2007, however, PetroChina withdrew from the projects because of delays in starting the project.^[6]

On December 4, 2009, Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued the Joint Review Panel Agreement and the terms of referencefor the environmental and regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.^[7]

Enbridge Northern Gateway submitted its project application to the National Energy Board on May 27, 2010. The eight-volume regulatory application will be assessed by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) established by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the National Energy Board (NEB).^[8] On January 19, 2011, the JRP requested that Enbridge provide additional information on the design and risk assessment of the pipelines due to the difficult access and unique geographic location of the proposed project.^[9]

[edit]Technical description

The planned project consists of two parallel pipelines between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, each with a length of 1,177 kilometers (731 mi). Crude oil produced from oil sands would be transported from Bruderheim to Kitimat, while natural gas condensate would move in the opposite direction.^[7] Condensate would be used as a diluent in oil refining to decrease the viscosity of heavy crude oil from oil sands, and to make it easier to transport by pipelines.^[10][11] About 520 kilometers (320 mi) of pipeline would run in Alberta and 657 kilometers (408 mi) in British Columbia.^[7] The crude oil pipeline would have a diameter of 36 inches (910 mm) and a capacity of 525 thousand barrels per day (83.5×10³ m³/d). The condensate pipeline would have a diameter of 20 inches (510 mm) with a capacity of 193 thousand barrels per day (30.7×10³ m³/d). Enbridge expects these pipelines to be completed by 2015.^[12] The project, including a marine terminal in Kitimat, is expected to cost C$5.5 billion.^[13] The Kitimat terminal would comprise two tanker berth platforms, one serving Very Large Crude Carriers and another serving Suezmax-type condensate tankers. The terminal would include oil and condensate tanks and a pump station.^[11]

[edit]Environmental assessment

As an inter-provincial pipeline, the project requires a public regulatory review process conducted by JRP. The JRP will provide a joint environmental assessment and regulatory process that will contribute to decision making.^[7] The first session of JRP was held on January 10, 2012 in Kitamaat Village, British Columbia.^[13]

Other types of studies, such as socio-economic assessments, are also necessary prior to project approval. However, under the current regulations, the recommendations made in the assessments are non-binding and the project could be approved even if significant adverse environmental and socio-economic effects were found.^[14] At the provincial level, it may also be regulated by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO).^{[citation needed]}

[edit]Competing projects

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners is operating the 1,150-kilometre (710 mi) long Trans Mountain pipeline system from Edmonton, Alberta to terminals and refineries in central British Columbia, theVancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington.^[15] The company would like to increase the pipeline’s capacity by twelve times, up to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m³/d).^[16]According to Kinder Morgan, expanding the existing pipeline is cheaper than Northern Gateway and it avoids opposition as experienced by the Enbridge’s project.^[17]

Another competing projects is TransCanada‘s Keystone XL pipeline.^[18]

[edit]Opposition

[edit]BC NDP

BC NDP leader Adrian Dix has promised to pull B.C. out of the federal review process if he’s elected next spring, while also hiring retaining prominent constitutional lawyer Murray Rankin to consider a legal challenge on who has jurisdiction over pipelines. Rankin argues that British Columbia should withdraw from the federal government’s Pipelines review process and set up a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment.^[19][20] In an August 2012 NDP press conference Rankin argued that a made-in-B.C. review would ensure that B.C.’s economic, social and environmental interests are fully addressed, that B.C.’s powers and responsibilities are properly exercised and that First Nations’ interests are recognized within the new process.^[21] In response Dix said ““Within a week of taking office, we will serve the federal government with 30 days’ notice to terminate the 2010 deal in which the Liberals signed away B.C.’s interests.” ^[21]

[edit]Aboriginal groups

Opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal is virtually unanimous among First Nations. Several coalitions and alliances have produced formal declarations unequivocally rejecting the intrusion of an oil pipeline on aboriginal lands. These include:

- Yinka Dene Alliance - “The Dene Nation is made up of more than 30 bands spread across northern Alberta, B.C., and the Northwest Territories.” ^[22][23]

- Coastal First Nations - MarketWire: Coastal First Nations Reaffirm Opposition to Enbridge Pipeline and Continued Ban on Oil Tankers on the Coast ^[24][25]

- Save the Fraser - “The declaration has signatures from more than 100 northern and western First Nations group.” ^[22]

“The Save the Fraser Declaration is an Indigenous law ban on tar sands pipelines through First Nations traditional territories. It also bans tar sands oil tankers in the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon on the north and south coasts of British Columbia. To date, the Declaration has been signed by more than 100 First Nations, forming an unbroken chain from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean.” ^[26]

The Wet’suwet’en First Nation has adamantly opposed the pipeline,^[27] as well as many Dene First Nations including the Saik’uz First Nation.^[28]

West Coast Environmental Law has compiled a list of over 130 First Nations opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline.^[29]

[edit]Environmental Advocates

The Dogwood Initiative,^[30][31] ForestEthics,^[32] and Greenpeace Canada ^[33] are some of the organisations actively campaigning against the Enbridge pipeline proposal.

[edit]Issues

[edit]Impact on Aboriginal groups

The proposal has been heavily criticized by Aboriginal groups, as the pipeline would traverse much of their traditional lands and threaten habitat for wild salmon, which they have relied upon for sustenance for thousands of years.^[2] Groups like the Yinka Dene Alliance have been organized to campaign against the project. In December 2010, over 61 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed the Save The Fraser Declaration in opposition to the project.^[3]

Enbridge has announced that it is offering aboriginal groups within 80 kilometers of the line a 10% equity stake in the project to secure First Nations support for the project. This stake is to be equally divided between BC and Alberta bands.^[34][35] Refusing to name individual bands, Enbridge claims that 60% of the affected first nations of signed onto the deal. However, it has been revealed that not a single band whose land is being directly traversed by the pipeline has signed on.^[36] In late 2011, Enbridge announced that they struck a deal with the Gitxsan Treaty Society for a seven million dollar stake in the project. However, this deal was quickly overturned following the closure of the Gitxsan Treaty Society Office by opponents of the deal. The Enbridge deal was subsequently rejected in writing by 45 Gitxsan chiefs, who claimed that the office had misrepresented the Gitxsan people. Only one chief in BC has publicly supported the proposed pipeline, Chief Elmer Derrick. Derrick was the chief negotiator for the Gitxsan Treaty Society before its closure in 2011. Derrick has since been stripped of his post as chief negotiator for the GTS.^{[37][38][39][40][41]}

Several First Nations (including the Haisla, Gitga’at, Gitxaala, Wet’suwet’en, Nadleh Whut’en, Nak’azdli, and Takla Lake) have publicly stated (via the Joint Review Panel or in the media) that neither the Crown nor the established assessment process for Enbridge’s project have adequately met their duty to consult and accommodate, or respect their Aboriginal Rights and Title.^[42]

[edit]Impact on Economy

A report put forth by economist and former Insurance Corporation of BC CEO, Robyn Allan, in early 2012, states that this proposed pipeline could actually hurt non-oil based sectors of the Canadian economy. Allan stated in the report that the project’s success depends on continual yearly oil price increases, by about $3/barrel. She also stated that an increase in oil prices will lead to “a decrease in family purchasing power, higher prices for industries who use oil as an input into their production process, higher rates of unemployment in non-oil industry related sectors, a decline in real GDP, a decline in government revenues, an increase in inflation, an increase in interest rates and further appreciation of the Canadian dollar.”^[43][44]

Dutch Disease

A new report by the Pembina Institute argues that Alberta’s oil sands boom has given other parts of the country a dramatic case of the Dutch Disease or what it calls “oil sands fever.” After the Netherlands developed its offshore gas reserves in the 1970s, its manufacturing and agricultural sector temporarily struggled with a stronger guilder and the Economist magazine dubbed the malaise “the Dutch Disease.”

While Canada’s energy exports have thrived in recent years, the Pembina study shows that their profitability “has masked a considerable drop in exports from the machinery and equipment, automotive and consumer goods and forestry sectors.”

Between 2004 and 2010 Canada’s manufacturing sector, largely located in Ontario and Quebec, has lost more than 500,000 jobs for a variety of reasons.

But even an Industry Canada funded study attributes approximately a third of these job losses to Canada’s petro dollar and the rapid development of bitumen mining.^[45][46]

[edit]Tanker moratorium in British Columbia

Proposed oil tanker routes to service the Northern Gateway Pipelines, and the tanker prohibition zone proposed by the federal Liberal Party.

There has been an informal moratorium on large tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound since 1972.^[47] Since then, the federal and provincial governments have commissioned periodic studies to reassess whether to lift the tanker moratorium. Each study has concluded that the risk of tanker spills is too high. In 2003–2004, the federal government initiated a three-part review process, including a scientific review by the Royal Society of Canada (the RSC report), a First Nations engagement process (the Brooks Report), and a public review process (the Priddle Panel). The RSC report concluded that “the present restriction on tanker traffic along the West Coast of British Columbia should be maintained for the time being^[48]

In 2009, the Canadian government’s position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic in the coast waters of British Columbia.^[49] However, on December 7, 2010, Canada’s environmental watchdog (Scott Vaughan, commissioner of the environment and sustainable development) in a damning report stated “Canada’s government is not ready to handle a major oil spill from a tanker, in part because its emergency response plan is out of date”.^[50]

In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a non-binding motion to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.^{[51][52][53][54]}

[edit]Enbridge’s history of incidents

The pipeline has been criticized by several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citing Enbridge’s spotty history with pipeline installation and numerous spills. These NGOs point to numerous incidents.

• 2012 In July, 190,000 liters of crude oil spilled in Wisconsin.^[55] This follows a 230,000 litre leak near Red Deer, Alberta a month before.^[56]

• 2011 On the first day of the public hearings into the company’s planned Northern Gateway pipeline, U.S. pipeline regulators informed Enbridge of the leak from its Stingray pipeline. Enbridge claimed they can continue operations at the Stingray pipeline which carries up to 560-million cubic feet a day of natural gas from offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Bubbles from the pipeline leak were observed about 100 kilometres from the Louisiana coast.^[57]

• 2010 High-profile Kalamazoo spill of 2010, where over 3 megalitres (19,000 bbl) were spilled into the Kalamazoo river, and a spill in the Chicago area in 2010.

• 2008 Pipeline installation in Wisconsin, where over 500 regulatory violations were incurred in one year of construction. Enbridge has also had over 600 recorded leaks and breaks over the last 10 years.^[58][59]

The Pembina Institute has published a report saying that the pipeline will have adverse impacts on land, air, and water.^[60] Some of Enbridge’s shareholders have asked the company to investigate the unique risks and liabilities associated with the project.^[61][62]

• 1991 A Lakehead (now Enbridge) crude oil pipeline near Grand Rapids, Minnesota ruptured on March 2. More than 40,000 barrels of crude went into the Prairie River. About 4 million US gallons (15,000 m³) of oil had spilled from that pipeline from the early 1970s to 1991, per Minnesota records. A resident in the area noticed the smell of oil and alerted the local fire department. Approximately 300 people living in homes near the site were evacuated for safety, but were allowed to return to their homes later in the night.^{[63][64][65][66][67][68]}

• 1979 A 34 inch diameter Lakehead (now Enbridge) pipeline ruptured near Bemidji, Minnesota, leaking 10,700 barrels (1,700 m³) of crude oil on August 20. The pipeline company initially recovers 60 percent of the spilled oil. Later in 1988, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency required Lakehead to extract more oil using new technology; removal continued on, with studies still underway in the area.^{[63][69][70][71]}

[edit]Public opinion

Multiple public opinion surveys, sponsored by Enbridge, Ethical Oil and other oil interests, have been conducted on the Northern Gateway pipeline. An Abacus Data survey released in January for Sun Media found that 38% of Canadians were in support of building the pipeline, while 29% were opposed. Another 33% said they neither support nor oppose the pipeline.^[72]

Another survey conducted by Forum Research in mid-January found that the share of Canadians who opposed the pipeline had fallen to 43%, from 51% in a December survey. Support for the project remained stable (at 37%, up within margin of error from 35%). 20% were undecided (up from 15% in December).^[73]

In British Columbia, a March 2012 survey by Mustel Group reported increased opposition to the Enbridge proposal. In their B.C.-wide telephone survey sponsored by Kennedy Stewart (New Democrat MP), opposition had grown to 42%, from 32% in an Ipsos-Reid online survey sponsored by Enbridge in December 2011.^[74][75] However, because their methodologies and context differed, the reported growth in opposition is difficult to substantiate. Ipsos-Reid conducted an online custom survey for Enbridge. Mustel Group included a single question on a shared-cost omnibus telephone survey, the same survey used in their political polling.^[76]

Justason Market Intelligence released a poll in March 2012 that focused on the role of tankers in this pipeline proposal. The poll found 66% of B.C. residents opposed to Enbridge’s proposal to transport oil through British Columbia’s inside coastal waters, including 50% who registered strong disapproval.^[77]

An April survey by Forum Research claimed an increase in opposition among B.C. residents to 52% from 46% reported by Forum Research in January.^[78] In January, Forum polled 1,211 residents from across Canada; B.C. was a smaller subsample of that national poll.^[79] In April, Forum polled 1,069 British Columbians.^[80] The B.C. sample size for the January poll is not provided.

[edit]Political issues

The issue of the pipeline has been a subject of controversy between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia since 2011, when the Alberta government under Premier Alison Redford began pressuring BC to support the pipeline. In a March 8 speech to a “conservative family reunion” hosted by Preston Manning in Ottawa, BC, Premier Christy Clark stated that “we support pipelines in British Columbia” (referring to liquid natural gas) but that she was not yet convinced of the benefits of the Northern Gateway scheme.^[81]

Following a negative report of an Enbridge leak in the Kalamazoo River by the US government, the BC government stated five requirements to be addressed prior to supporting any heavy oil pipeline proposal:^[82]

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and,
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

BC premier Christy Clark recently boycotted a national energy strategy among the Canadian premiers ^[83] stating “until we see some progress in the discussions between British Columbia, Alberta and the federal government with respect to the Gateway pipeline through British Columbia, we will not be participating in the discussion of a national energy strategy.” This is likely over concerns that BC will receive a $6.1 billion share of a project that is expected to earn $81 billion in government revenues over 30 years, while footing a majority of the risk.^[84]

Christy Clark, premier of BC, recently was quoted as saying no to the proposed pipeline, unless BC got a more substantial—yet undisclosed—share of pipeline profits. This is in response to the disproportionate risk that BC would have to take on with this pipeline. [2]

[edit]References

[edit]External links