Northern Gateway Pipeline Project - JRP Report

Northern Gateway Pipeline Project - JRP Report


The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) issued their report on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline Project last week, just a few days before Christmas. 

To no one’s surprise, it was met with mixed reviews, generally dependent on which side of the fence the writer was sitting. 

We’ve listed a sampling of articles below, for your holiday reading enjoyment. :-) 

NOTE: The first article provides links to the actual JRP report.

'Scenic Photos the High Point of Panel's Report on Enbridge's Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline Proposal', By Chris Turner, DeSmog Canada, Dec 19 2013
Read here: http://bit.ly/1koQl0c

'First hurdle cleared', Editorial, Calgary Herald, Dec 20 2013
Read here: http://bit.ly/1egAE6y

'Ottawa likely to give stamp of approval', By Stephen Ewart, Calgary Herald, Dec 20, 2013
Read here: http://bit.ly/1cXkdK7

'Northern Gateway likely doomed', By Michael Den Tandt, Calgary Herald/Postmedia News, Dec 20, 2013
Read: http://bit.ly/1h2QHtv

'Harper needs to just say No to the Northern Gateway', By Terry Glavin, Ottawa Citizen December 25, 2013
Read here: http://bit.ly/1cXkrkl

Red Deer River Oil Spill: Living With Pipelines Part 3 of 3

Children playing in Red Deer River. Photo, Courtesy CanEnviroRock

Pipeline leak near Sundre takes toll on Gateway project

Opponents point to spill, warn of risks

By James Wood And Chris Varcoe, 

Calgary Herald 

June 17, 2012

An oil spill in central Alberta flowed into the Red Deer River system, but its ultimate effect may be felt thousands of kilometres away, over the Rocky Mountains.

Just over a week ago, a section of pipeline running under a tributary of the river near Sundre leaked up to 475,000 litres of oil, with much of it flushed into nearby Gleniffer Lake.

Today, the spill threatens to give Premier Alison Redford a major political headache as she touts pipeline expansion across the continent and a Canadian energy strategy aimed at boosting Alberta oil and gas exports.

With British Columbia in the midst of ongoing federal hearings - and a ferocious debate - over Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, the Alberta oil slick has provided a vivid image to fears of the project.

In Burns Lake, B.C., a community of more than 3,500 people along the proposed pipeline route, a tie vote of the village council last week meant the narrow defeat of a motion opposing the pipeline.

Mayor Luke Strimbold wants the village to stay officially neutral on Gateway until the end of a joint regulatory review process.

The Sundre leak won't be a deciding factor, he said, but is firmly on the community's radar.

"It's definitely something we are aware of and we take into consideration," Strimbold said.

"It's definitely a concern. (Gateway) would go right underneath, in-between the channel of Burns Lake and Decker Lake . . . where we collect our drinking water and that was one of the concerns of the residents."

For opponents of Gateway, such as Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, the spill has galvanized their concerns and public opinion.

"I don't think there's any question people quickly linked the spill in Alberta to the inherent risks of building

a pipeline across 1,100 kilometres of territory that has many, many significant rivers, streams and watersheds that are integral to the wild salmon fishery here in British Columbia," he said.

"It doesn't bode well . . . to convince people this is a riskfree project that we need not worry about."

Read more here

DFO, Enbridge disagreed over fish protection along pipeline route: documents

Federal fisheries officials had “troubling” disagreements with Enbridge Inc. over the company’s interpretation of it responsibility to protect fish habitat along the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline route before the company submitted its proposal in 2010, internal documents say.

Photograph by: Handout/Enbridge , Handout/Enbridge

DFO, Enbridge disagreed over fish protection along pipeline route: documents

By PETER O'NEIL and MIKE DE SOUZA,

Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News

June 14, 2012

OTTAWA — Federal fisheries officials were having "troubling" disagreements with Enbridge Inc. over the company's interpretation of its responsibility to protect fish habitat along the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline route before the company submitted its project proposal in 2010, according to internal documents.

Enbridge was concluding some of the crossings, over an estimated 1,000 waterways, were low risk when fisheries biologists felt the same were medium or high risk to fish and fish habitat, according to emails obtained through the Access to Information Act.

"There is not much movement (by Enbridge) for avoidance of sensitive areas," said one biologist at a February, 2010 meeting, according to a record of that gathering of four officials with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

"Sometimes the proponent is pushing for the cheapest option," said another meeting participant in his reply.

The clash between Enbridge and DFO took shape more than two years before the Harper government, which had been heavily lobbied by Enbridge over concerns about DFO demands, tabled Fisheries Act amendments in its budget implementation bill in April.

Those changes, which according to critics would "gut" DFO's ability to protect habitat, have become a flashpoint in the opposition's battle against bill C-38 during a marathon voting session Wednesday and Thursday in the House of Commons.

Enbridge said one of the biologists, during the 2010 meeting, was designating stream crossings as "low risk" of habitat damage "that should have been medium or high risk."

There were also concerns, cited in documents obtained by Postmedia News, about Enbridge's approach to streams known for having important spawning channels or for wildlife species listed under the federal government's Species at Risk Act (SARA) or under the B.C. government's endangered species list.

A third biologist at the same meeting "stated concern on how the proponent is proposing the crossing methods through streams with SARA-listed species, spawning channels, with no hesitation. This is a concern and was raised at the last meeting with Enbridge."

Read more here

Pipelines and Streamlined Environmental Reviews

Heiltsuk First Nation elders lead a rally, March 26th, against the Enbridge Pipeline through downtown Vancouver to the Art Gallery.  Ward Perrin / Postmedia News

In another pipeline related story last week, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said environmental reviews of energy and mining projects will be streamlined. He certainly had the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in mind. However, a former Enbridge executive warms that this many result in some unintended consequences.

New rules may hinder Enbridge pipeline, ex-official says

Jeffrey Jones,

Reuters

Financial Post

Apr 19, 2012

CALGARY – A government move to limit regulatory review of Enbridge Inc‘s Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast will only add to the company’s own missteps in dealing with aboriginal communities on the pipeline route and may raise more legal obstacles, a former Northern Gateway executive says.

Roger Harris, who was vice-president of aboriginal and community partnerships for Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines in 2008 and 2009, said the company has been inconsistent in its strategy as it tries to win over British Columbia native groups whose land the pipeline would cross. He said that has helped fuel some of the fierce opposition to the $5.5-billion project that has arisen.

Harris also said the company missed early opportunities to build business relationships in some communities, including investing in independent power projects they had planned.

Many native groups, often called first nations, say they fear that construction and operation of the pipeline will threaten traditional ways of life and leave their territories and coastal waters at risk of oil spills. Some have said court actions are a certainty if it is approved.

Read more here

Pipelines and West Coast Oil Tankers

Oil tanker Monterey anchored off Cates Park in North Vancouver, B.C. on Monday, July 5, 2010. Roland Priddle, an economist and former chairman of the National Energy Board, concluded in a report that banning oil tanker traffic from B.C.'s coastal waters would mean "forfeiting a nationally important opportunity."

Photograph by: Glenn Baglo , PNG

Last week, several stories related to pipelines made the news. One was an unexpected announcement by Kinder Morgan on their expansion plans for their TransMountain pipeline into B.C.'s Lower Mainland.

Oilsands debate shifts to west coast

By Stephen Ewart,

Calgary Herald

April 20, 2012

The focal point of the oilsands debate, which moved from the pastoral U.S. Midwest to the pristine B.C. wilderness, has now shifted to the decidedly troubled waters off Canada's West Coast in response to a plan to ship more oil through the port at Vancouver.

The contentious proposals to pipe oilsands bitumen to the B.C. coast are predicated on moving the oil on tankers to Pacific Rim energy markets.

Amid strident opposition to the 525,000-barrela-day Northern Gateway pipeline plan by Enbridge Inc., rival Kinder Morgan surprised people this month by announcing a similar-sized expansion to its 300,000-barrel-a-day TransMountain pipeline into B.C.'s Lower Mainland.

Retrofitting the TransMountain line could be complete by 2017.

Either way, the spectre of hundreds of super tankers - a.k.a. Very Large Crude Carriers, or VLCCs, to the industry - off the B.C. Coast at Vancouver or the Queen Charlotte Islands has made the prospect of oil spills the latest focus of oilsands opponents.

Admittedly, the stakes - both environmental and economic - are high.

Read more here

A Tanker Ban: Good or Bad for Canada?

Click directly on map for larger image

An important part of the debate over the Northern Gateway Pipeline revolves around the tanker traffic that would be required along our West Cost to move the oil to off shore markets.

Speaking to one side of the argument is the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, which produced a three essay report on March 16, 2012, titled “Making oil and water mix: Oil tanker traffic on Canada’s West Coast”.

They wrote an op-ed piece that appeared last week in the Calgary Herald. “Crowley, Clemens: A ban on tanker traffic would be bad for Canada”.

On the other side of the debate is the Dogwood Institute. They responded to that report in a blog post, saying in part: “All in all, John’s essay serves up little more than platitudes that do nothing for our marine environments or the communities and jobs that depend on them.”

Still with the Dogwood Institute: About a year ago, they produced a video “From Tar Sands to Tankers”, which is inserted below.

Yesterday, a related article appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist “May calls for tanker ban on oil-spill anniversary”.

NoTankers.ca

Radical Groups

We've noticed that there might be a few 'radicals' lurking in the local fly fishing community. :-)

Northern Gateway Pipeline, Pebble Mine/Bristol Bay and God

Charles Heit, a Gitxsan First Nation member opposed to the $5.5-billion Enbridge oil pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia port of Kitimat warms himself beside a fire at a camp outside the Gitxsan Treaty Office in Hazelton, B.C., on Thursday January 12, 2012. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck     (click on photo for larger image)

“Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?”

Clark, Harper, Enbridge Taking Suicidal Risks With BC's Future

By Rafe Mair

Jan 13, 2012

“Who are we to think we can play God with these places?”

Meandering Thoughts on A Problem: Hubris

By Headwaters: Fly Fishing History blog

Feb 10, 2012