Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Northern Gateway West Line
Location
Country	Canada
General direction	east–west
From	Bruderheim, Alberta
To	Kitimat, British Columbia
General information
Type	crude oil
Owner	Enbridge
Expected	2015
Technical information
Length	1,177 km (731 mi)
Maximum discharge	0.525 Mbbl/d (~2.62×10^7 t/a)
Diameter	36 in (914 mm)

Northern Gateway East Line
Location
Country	Canada
General direction	west–east
From	Kitimat, British Columbia
To	Bruderheim, Alberta
General information
Type	natural gas condensate
Owner	Enbridge
Expected	2015
Technical information
Length	1,177 km (731 mi)
Maximum discharge	193,000 barrels (30,700 m3) of condensate per day
Diameter	20 in (508 mm)

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 crude oil to the new marine terminal in Kitimat where it will be transported to Asian markets by oil tankers. The project is developed by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian crude oil and liquids pipeline company.

The pipeline and terminal, if completed, would provide 104 permanent jobs in Alberta and British Columbia and 3,000 temporary jobs during construction. First Nations and oil sands opponents among others, denounce the project on environmental, social and cultural grounds. Historically in Canada, First Nations who will be most affected by the risks benefit the least financially. The Douglas Channel that leads into Kitimat and surrounding northwest coast waters pose safety and weather hazards for oil tankers.

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. PetroChina agreed to buy about 200 thousand barrels per day (32×10^³ m³/d) transported through the pipeline. In 2007, however, PetroChina withdrew from the projects because of delays in starting the project.

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 reference for the environmental and regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.

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). 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.

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. 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. About 520 kilometers (320 mi) of pipeline would run in Alberta and 657 kilometers (408 mi) in British Columbia. The crude oil pipeline would have a diameter of 36 inches (910 mm) and a capacity of 525 thousand barrels per day (83.5×10^³ m³/d). The condensate pipeline would have a diameter of 20 inches (510 mm) with a capacity of 193 thousand barrels per day (30.7×10^³ m³/d). Enbridge expects these pipelines to be completed by 2015. The project, including a marine terminal in Kitimat, is expected to cost C$5.5 billion. 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.

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. The first session of JRP was held on January 10, 2012 in Kitamaat Village, British Columbia.

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. At the provincial level, it may also be regulated by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO).^{[citation needed]}

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, the Vancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington. The company is planning to double the pipeline's capacity up to 600,000 barrels per day (95,000 m³/d). According to Kinder Morgan, expanding the existing pipeline is cheaper than Northern Gateway and it avoids opposition as experienced by the Enbridge's project.

Another competing projects is TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.

Issues

Impact on native groups

The pipeline has been heavily criticized by native groups, as the pipeline traverses much of their traditional lands and threatens habitat for wild salmon, which they have relied upon for sustenance for thousands of years. In December 2010, over 61 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed a declaration in opposition to the project.

Dozens of native bands rely upon healthy waters for sustenance, specifically from the Skeena, Kitimat, Morice, Fraser, and Bulkley river systems, and from the coastal waters of British Columbia: the Haisla, Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Gitxsan, Carrier, Sekane, and other tribes. Polluting the rivers or coastal waters of BC would effectively poison the waters, fish, and other animals that these people need to survive.[2]

Enbridge has announced that it is considering offering aboriginal groups an equity stake in the project to secure First Nations support for the project. In late 2011, Enbridge announced that they struck a deal with the Gitxsan Treaty Society for a seven million dollar stake in the project.[3] However, this deal was quickly overturned following the announcement of the closure of the Gitxsan Treaty Society Office amid allegations of corruption and misrepresentation of the Gitxsan people.[4] The Enbridge deal was subsequently overturned in a vote by the Gitxsan chiefs. [5][6] Only one chief in BC has publicly supported the proposed pipeline, Chief Elmer Derrick. [7] 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.[8][9][10]

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.

First nations consent is required for this project to proceed. [11][12][13]

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. 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

In 2009, the Canadian government's position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia. However, on December 7, 2010, Canada's environmental watchdog said that "Canada isn't ready to respond to a major oil spill emanating from a tanker or other vessel."

In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a motion to ban bulk oil tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound.

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, including the 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. Other concerns include the 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.

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

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.

Public Opinion on the Pipeline

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 for Sun Media found that 38% of Canadians support building the pipeline while 29% were opposed. Another 33% said they neither support nor oppose the pipeline.

Another survey conducted by Forum Research in mid-January found that support for the pipeline had increased since its last poll. The share of Canadians who oppose the pipeline has fallen to 43 percent, down from 51 percent in a December survey. Support for the project increased to 37 percent from 35 percent. The percentage of those who say they are unsure rose to 20 percent from 15 percent.

Globally Open Panel

Sheila Leggett, chairwoman of the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway pipeline, received criticism when opened the review panel to hear testimony not just from Canadians, but globally. The panel had over 4500 signees, including Citgo (the petroleum company owned by Hugo Chávez's Venezuelan government), "Cave Man", "Captain Jack Sparrow" and 20 supposedly different people with the same e-mail address.

Pipeline Could Hurt Canadian 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."

External links

• Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline