NEB Conditional approval for Kinder Morgan Pipeline is met with Determined Opposition

KMpipeline_Tanker_Route_Salish_Sea_Map_small

Enter a caption

On May 19, a National Energy Board press release stated,  “Taking into account all the evidence, considering all relevant factors, and given that there are considerable benefits nationally, regionally and to some degree locally, the Board found that the benefits of the Project would outweigh the residual burdens.”  The Kinder Morgan TransMountain Pipeline NEB approval, with 157 conditions , is subject to review by a three-member federal panel, announced on May 17    , which has until  November to report to  the Minister of Natural Resources.  The final decision will then be made by the federal Cabinet. See “ Trudeau Declares Resource Promotion a PM’s ‘Fundamental Responsibility’” , and “McKenna won’t give a straight answer about Enbridge pipeline” (May 17)  , summarizing the mixed messages and political manoeuvering over pipeline development.  Also of interest, from DeSmog blog: “Enbridge and Kinder Morgan lobby hard as Feds change tune on Pipelines”  .

The Kinder Morgan decision had been the focus of Canada’s Break Free divestment protests on May 14, and Canada’s 350.org states that the NEB decision doesn’t change “the simple fact that the Kinder Morgan pipeline will never be built.” EcoJustice reacted with: “Ready to continue fight against Kinder Morgan”  in the courts, and citizens , local governments, and environmental groups also oppose Kinder Morgan: see  “Local Governments deeply disappointed”   , and “NEB sides with Texas-based pipeline company against B.C. citizens, First Nations”  .   Chances that First Nations will approve the pipelines are non-existent, according to a National Observer report (May 19)   in which  Rueben George, spokesperson for the local Tsleil-Waututh Nation, states ” First Nations have won 170 legal cases around resource extraction, that’s a 97 per cent victory rate. It’s pretty clear to me that we have veto power over this company.”  The  interactive map  (above) by the Wilderness Committee shows the Kinder Morgan route and summarizes the opposition by First Nations throughout the NEB consultations .

The Alberta Government  calls the NEB decision “a responsible national approach to energy infrastructure. Canada is balancing the need for much stronger action on climate change with the need to pay for that action, by sustainably developing our natural resources – including our energy resources.”  From the British Columbia government: “ We will only support new heavy-oil pipelines in British Columbia if our five conditions can be met. These conditions include the successful completion of the environmental review process, ensuring world-leading marine and land-based spill response, prevention and recovery systems are in place, ensuring legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed and First Nations are provided with the opportunities to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project, and, finally, that British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits from any proposed heavy-oil projects.… “The responsibility for meeting the five conditions is complex and will take a great deal of effort from both industry and governments….we will continue to work with the proponent and all stakeholders to address B.C.’s needs.”  And indeed, the B.C. government passed legislation  to alter the boundaries of Finn Creek Provincial Park in May, after a Kinder Morgan submission that requested changes to four park boundaries .

Unnoticed amidst the Kinder Morgan debate was a report released on April 28 by the Council of Canadian Academies(CCA). Commercial Marine Shipping Accidents: Understanding the Risks in Canada , explores the likelihood of commercial marine shipping accidents, including oil spills,  and considers their potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. Noting significant gaps in the available data, and that there have been few such accidents, the report concludes that the Pacific Region has the highest level of shipping activity, but has a relatively low risk profile. The report concludes that Canada has a well-developed oil spill response regime overall, but identifies areas for improvement as “ the need for a hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) preparedness and response regime across Canada, as well as further research into how substances classified as HNS behave in a marine environment.” The report was commissioned by the Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Marine Shipping,  a not-for-profit  based in Vancouver since 2014.  Its goal is to provide unbiased, independent research; its funding comes from the governments of Canada, Alberta, and “industry groups represented by CAPP” (the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers).

 

 

 

 

 

Enbridge Line 9 Given Green Light

According to a brief Enbridge press release on September 30, 2015 ,  the National Energy Board (NEB) has approved the results of required hydro-static tests on Line 9, removing the last safety test required before the pipeline can begin transporting crude oil from Sarnia to Montreal. The Globe and Mail reported the decision, “Canadian Regulators give Enbridge’s Line 9 the Green Light” (Sept. 30), yet the official NEB website for Line 9 did not post a press release . As reported by the Globe and Mail, “Approval of Enbridge’s Line 9 applauded by Quebec Refineries” (Oct. 1), but CBC reports that “Montreal protesters denounce Energy East, Enbridge Line 9 pipelines”.

Unifor joins First Nations and Environmental Groups in Court against the Northern Gateway Pipeline decision

Eighteen lawsuits were consolidated and heard in a Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver, from October 1 to 8, as eight First Nations, four environmental groups and Unifor challenged the decision of the Federal Joint Review Panel on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline. Lawyers representing Unifor argued that the Joint Review Panel erred by focusing on the economic benefits of oil sands development and refusing to consider greenhouse gas emissions produced by upstream development (see Unifor’s detailed Memorandum of Fact and Law here). West Coast Environmental Law provides a Legal Backgrounder with official documents, a day by day summary of proceedings and will cover the decision when it is announced in the coming months. “How Harper triggered a First Nations legal war over Northern Gateway” in the National Observer (Oct. 1) provides background.

Pipeline News: Kitimat, First Nations Reject Northern Gateway; the Government Downgrades Protection for Humpback Whales

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline has encountered new road blocks as communities voice renewed opposition to the project. In Kitimat, residents voted against the pipeline by 60% in a non-binding plebiscite on April 19th. Kitimat might stand to gain the most if the project proceeds, with a promise from Enbridge to bring 180 permanent jobs to the community in addition to indirect opportunities for local contractors and suppliers. The day before the vote, four First Nations from the Yinka Dene, just west of Kitimat, expressed their official opposition to Northern Gateway in a meeting with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Yinka Dene have already gathered 160 B.C. First Nations behind a petition against the project. Other communities that have previously stated their opposition include Terrace, Prince Rupert, and Smithers.

See “Kitimat Residents Vote ‘No’ in Pipeline Plebiscite” from The Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/kitimat-residents-vote-in-northern-gateway-oil-pipeline-plebiscite/article17949815/, “Does Kitimat’s Vote Matter?” In The Tyee at: http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/04/12/Kitimat-Northern-Gateway-Vote/, and “Four Dene clans officially reject Northern Gateway pipeline” from The Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/four-dene-clans-officially-reject-northern-gateway-pipeline/article17948468/.

See https://workandclimatechangereport.org/2014/01/28/northern-gateway-headed-to-court-as-neb-approval-provokes-criticism-of-review-process/ for background on the current lawsuits against the Northern Gateway project by First Nations and environmental groups.

Meanwhile, on April 22nd, Environment Canada has recommended that the humpback whale be reclassified, from “threatened” to “species of special concern” under the Species At Risk Act. This would remove legal protection for humpback habitat (which happens to include the British Columbia coast where oil tanker traffic would increase if Northern Gateway is approved, and is part of the basis of a lawsuit launched by EcoJustice and others). See the CBC report at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/humpback-whale-losing-threatened-status-amid-northern-gateway-concerns-1.2617633.

Keystone Decision Delayed Again

U.S. President Obama announced on April 18th that he will extend the government comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline until at least the end of May, frustrating Canadian boosters of the project. Read the CBC report at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-to-delay-keystone-xl-decision-1.2615062. Protests against KXL continue in the U.S., the latest including U.S. First Nations – see “Keystone Protesters mark Final Roundup – For Now” in Politico at: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/keystone-protesters-mark-final-roundup-for-now-106053.html?ml=la.

Northern Gateway Headed to Court as NEB Approval Provokes Criticism of Review Process

On December 19th, the National Energy Board granted conditional approval to the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, citing 209 conditions.The federal NDP and Green parties criticized the decision, while some opponents of the pipeline allege the joint review panel itself has been “undemocratic” and has undermined the integrity of the environmental review process in general, echoing an August 2013 lawsuit in which NGO ForestEthics claimed NEB public participation rules were unconstitutional. A series of at least 10 lawsuits has been launched in response to the NEB approval, notably one by B.C. Nature and one by a coalition of NGOs including EcoJustice, ForestEthics, Living Oceans Society, and Rainforest Conservation Foundation. The environmental groups allege the Joint Review Panel (JRP) final report contains serious legal and scientific gaps, such as uncertainty regarding geohazards along the pipeline route and the behaviour of spilled bitumen in marine environments. They claim the JRP also failed to address legal obligations to the humpback whale and caribou populations whose habitats lie in the pipeline path, both of which are protected under the Species at Risk Act.

Three First Nations, Gitxaala, Git’gat, and Haisla, have launched lawsuits of their own calling for federal review of the NEB decision. They claim their unique constitutional rights regarding development on their lands were also neglected during the review process.

Read the press release from EcoJustice on their lawsuit at: http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/environmental-groups-launch-lawsuit-over-flawed-northern-gateway-report. CBC coverage of lawsuits from environmental groups is available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/northern-gateway-pipeline-report-draws-lawsuit-1.2501051; coverage of First Nations lawsuits is available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/gitga-at-northern-gateway-lawsuit-joins-9-other-challenges-1.2507155.

According to West Coast Environmental Law, Enbridge may be experiencing difficulty attracting investment to the project in light of persistent opposition. See: NEB’s Thumbs Up Ignores Wall of Opposition that will Stop Enbridge (Jan. 16) is at: http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/neb%E2%80%99s-thumbs-ignores-wall-opposition-will-stop-enbridge.

Quebec Government gives Conditional Support to Enbridge Line 9B

In the first week of December, a Quebec parliamentary committee came out in favour of Enbridge’s proposal to reverse the flow of the Line 9B pipeline, allowing crude oil and bitumen to flow across Quebec to refineries in Montreal. The committee stipulated 18 conditions, including: the creation of an oversight committee composed of federal, provincial and Enbridge representatives; Enbridge must provide Quebec’s environment department with its inspection data and its inspection and maintenance practices, so that an independent expert can evaluate the integrity of the pipeline; Enbridge must conduct hydrostatic studies on the integrity of the pipeline; Enbridge must provide a sufficient financial guarantee to pay for any damage in the event of a disaster, including after the pipeline is no longer in operation; and Enbridge must develop an emergency plan for drinking water. See the summary at Equiterre website at: http://www.equiterre.org/en/news/quebec-parliamentary-committee-approves-line-9b-reversal, with a link to the full report of the Committee (French only). For background to the controversy, see “6 Reasons why some Labour is Rallying against Line 9” at Rabble.ca at: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/jesse/2013/11/six-reasons-why-some-labour-rallying-against-line-9

CBC Provides First Public Access to Pipeline Safety Data

Through an access-to-information request, CBC News obtained a data set of every pipeline safety incident reported to the National Energy Board between 2000 and 2012. The NEB only oversees 71,000 pipelines that cross provincial or international borders (about a tenth of the overall network. The remaining 760,000 kilometres are monitored by the provinces). The NEB data is based on the requirement that companies must report safety issues including the death or serious injury of a worker, fires, explosions, liquid product spills over 1,500 litres and every gas leak, but it is clear from the discussion of the data that Canada lacks a transparent and accurate reporting system, despite the recommendation for improvements from a Senate committee. The data provided to the CBC show that there were 142 pipelines safety incidents in 2011, and that the rate of pipeline incidents has doubled in the past decade. Most incidents have occurred in B.C., followed by Alberta, followed by Ontario.

The interactive map at: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/pipeline-incidents/ and allows you to specify the category of “serious accidents” or “fatalities” to see brief summaries of incidents, usually relating to worker safety.  

For an explanation of the limitations of Canadian data see:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/pipeline-safety-canada-lags-u-s-on-making-data-public-1.2254793 and http://www.cbc.ca/news/pipeline-safety-incidents-how-we-organized-the-data-1.2251835.

Pipeline Politics from Ontario’s Point of View

The Politics of Pipelines: Ontario’s Stake in Canada’s Pipeline Debate, was released on November 12 by University of Toronto-based Mowat Centre, taking a climate change policy perspective on the issue of pipeline development and its impact on Ontario. It says that provinces who don’t necessarily receive adequate economic benefit from the oil sands are obligated to contribute to the nationwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases, and recommends either a national carbon tax or a cap and trade policy to satisfy the “polluter pays” principle. The report does note that local and First Nations communities across Canada will likely benefit from an increase in construction, maintenance, and management jobs, as well spin-off projects near pipeline routes. However, manufacturing sectors may suffer from inflated exchange rates and Dutch Disease. In Ontario, the conversion of the Line 9 gas pipeline to oil sands bitumen would decrease the capacity of the natural gas sector and may increase the consumer cost, while taxpayers would be forced to fund equalization payments.

LINK

The Politics of Pipelines: Ontario’s Stake in Canada’s Pipeline Debate is at: http://mowatcentre.ca/research-topic-mowat.php?mowatResearchID=96

Safety for Pipeline Workers Raised as Part of the Pipeline Debate

The recent oil spills in Alberta and Lac Megantic have raised the public profile of rail transport of oil and gas products in Canada.  The Fraser Institute, apparently in response to the worsening prospects of U.S. approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, released a report on Intermodal Safety in the Transport of Oil on October 15. Although the paper cites summary data from the National Energy Board about oil spills and injuries in Canada, the conclusions are based on data from the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for the period 2005-2009. The paper compares injury statistics amongst workers in the pipeline, rail, and road modes of transport and finds that the rate of injury requiring hospitalization among oil pipeline workers was 30 times lower than that of rail workers, and 37 times lower than trucking workers. The paper concludes, “The evidence is clear: transporting oil by pipeline is safe and environmentally friendly. Furthermore, pipeline transportation is safer than transportation by road, rail, or barge, as measured by incidents, injuries, and fatalities- even though more road and rail incidents go unreported.”  The paper does NOT address the environmental damage caused by spills, or injury to citizens.

LINKS

Intermodal Safety in the Transport of Oil is available at the Fraser Institute at:http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/intermodal-safety-in-the-transport-of-oil.pdf

U.S. Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) website provides data and statistics at: http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats

Canada’s National Energy Board Pipeline Spills information is available at:http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/pplnncdntgrprtng/pplnncdntshydrcrbnsplls/pplnncdntshydrcrbnsplls-eng.html

Unifor Founding Convention Hears a Call for a Green Labour Revolution

Canada’s newest and biggest private sector union, Unifor, held its founding convention on August 31 and September 1, making official the merger of the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) and the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union (CEP). These two unions together represent approximately 300,000 workers, in almost all sectors of the economy, including auto and aerospace manufacturing, rail, energy, communications, forestry, fisheries, and mining – sectors which are on the front lines of climate change.

In her speech to the convention, Naomi Klein stated that the labour movement is needed to take the lead in the fight against climate change – environmentalists and political parties cannot do it alone. In outlining her own “genuine climate action plan”, she called for a democratically-controlled energy system and massive investment in public infrastructure. “I am not suggesting some half-assed token ‘green jobs’ program. This is a green labour revolution I’m talking about. An epic vision of healing our country from the ravages of the last 30 years of neoliberalism and healing the planet in the process.”… “Climate change – when its full economic and moral implications are understood – is the most powerful weapon progressives have ever had in the fight for equality and social justice.”

Environmental goals figure in some of the important official documents of the new union. Note Article 2.10 of the new Unifor Consitution: “Our goal is transformative. To reassert common interest over private interest. Our goal is to change our workplaces and our world. Our vision is compelling. It is to fundamentally change the economy, with equality and social justice, restore and strengthen our democracy and achieve an environmentally sustainable future. This is the basis of social unionism -a strong and progressive union culture and a commitment to work in common cause with other progressives in Canada and around the world.”

The Unifor Vision and Plan document strikes a more pragmatic note. The union promises to oppose the export of raw bitumen and the construction of massive pipelines, advocating for more “made in Canada” inputs and processing. It pledges to work with environmental allies to advocate for a Canadian energy policy which reduces GHG emissions, ensures a sustainable development of the oil sands and promotes value-added jobs in upgrading and refining petroleum products.

LINKS

Why Unions Need to Join the Climate Fight, Naomi Klein’s speech is at her website at: http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2013/09/why-unions-need-join-climate-fight

Unifor website is at: http://www.unifor.org/en (English) and http://www.unifor.org/fr (French), including the Constitution at:http://www.unifor.org/en/about-unifor/constitution  (English version) and http://www.unifor.org/fr/a-propos-unifor/statuts (French version).

A New Union for a Challenging World: Unifor’s Vision and Plan is available at: the convention website at: http://www.newunionconvention.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/682-New-Union-Vision-web-ENG.pdf (English version) and http://www.nouveausyndicatendirect.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/682-New-Union-Vision-FR-web.pdf (French version).