“Our Nations are the wall
this pipeline will not break
through. Our lands and
waters are not for sale, not
at any price. What Enbridge is offering is the destruction of our lands to build their
project, and the risk of oil spills for decades
to come which could hurt everyone’s kids
and grandkids.”
Enbridge Inc., a Calgary, Alberta based company focused on three core businesses: crude oil and liquids pipelines, natural gas transportation and distribution, and green energy, has proposed an estimated $5.5-billion 1,172-kilometre twin pipeline running from Bruderhein, Alberta to Kitimat, BC.
Eastbound, the pipeline imports natural gas condensate to the Tar Sands.
Westbound it will export crude oil to new marine terminal in Kitimat where it will be transported to Asian markets by oil tankers.
The pipeline project brings about environmental, Aboriginal land claims, safety, energy security, and long-term economic concerns. Most prominently the pipeline
- Compromises the lifestyles of First Nations who depend on the region’s lands and waters for their livelihoods, culture, and health.
- Threatens the economic well-being of the communities of British Columbia that depend on fisheries and forests.
- Poses potential devastation from a major oil spill from the pipeline or an oil supertanker, which could destroy economically important salmon habitat, as well as the habitat of Spirit Bears and grizzlies, and whales, orcas, and other marine life that depend on these rich coastal waters.
Harm from an oil spill to the Great Bear Rainforest that the province and First Nations have worked hard to protect from unsustainable forestry practices and to shift to a conservation-based economy.
The case that this pipeline is needed is difficult to make based on the limited evidence presented by Enbridge. Instead of relying on the market to demonstrate demand for the project, in an unprecedented move, Enbridge is seeking regulatory approval for a pipeline without any proven commercial support from shippers and investors. Enbridge has failed to conduct a refinery-level demand analysis for the Northern Gateway pipeline, considered common practice in the industry. There is currently a glut of export pipeline capacity leaving western Canada. Current oil production in western Canada leaves 41 percent of existing export pipelines empty. Based on industry production estimates, no additional export pipelines are needed out of the tar sands for at least another 10 years.
In addition, Enbridge has not provided an adequate assessment of alternatives (as required under law), quantified the upstream environmental impacts from additional tar sands, or presented the full cost of the pipeline. As a result, it will be very difficult for Enbridge to make the case to government regulators that this pipeline is needed and in the interest of Canadians.
The Natural System Affected
Unlike other pipelines Enbridge has built, the route for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline crosses the rugged, mountainous terrain of the Northern Rockies and the Coast Mountains of British Columbia. The pipeline would crosses some 1,000 streams and rivers, including sensitive salmon spawning habitat in the upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds. Five important salmon rivers that would be impacted are the Stuart River, Morice River, Copper River, Kitimat River and Salmon River. Currently, the Northern Gateway Pipeline is opposed by the nine Coastal First Nations, as well as many of the inland First Nation along the pipeline route. The pipeline would pass through the unceded traditional territory (which means that it has not "relinquished title to its land to the government by treaty or otherwise." ) of dozens of BC First Nations and the Great Bear Rainforest – the last intact temperate rainforest in the world home to thousands of species of plants, birds and animals. The pipeline would also cross 1,000 streams and rivers, many of which are key habitat for salmon and other species.
Great Bear Rainforest:
The Northern Gateway pipeline would carry 500,000 barrels a day of the world’s dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands directly through the bear’s rainforest home.
A serious pipeline break could happen at any time as a river of toxic oil is pumped from the Alberta tar sands across the spectacular mountains and rivers of British Columbia. But it gets worse: When that oil reaches the Spirit Bear Coast, it will be loaded onto supertankers that will have to navigate treacherous reefs, hurricane-force winds and a channel six times narrower than the passage that sank the Exxon Valdez! Those oil-laden tankers will need to pass Princess Royal Island, the last stronghold of the Spirit Bear, as they churn through wildlife-filled waters that are home to orcas, humpbacks, fin whales and Steller sea lions.
Salmon:
The Enbridge oil sands pipelines would cross and in some places run parallel to major salmon rivers in British Columbia’s Upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds, which contain some of the highest quality habitat for wild salmon and steelhead trout in Canada. Chinook, sockeye, chum, coho and pink salmon, as well as steelhead trout and many other fish species, use the rivers and lakes in these watersheds for spawning, rearing and migrating. Pipeline construction, ruptures and leaks all pose serious risks to salmon, making the Enbridge oil sands pipelines a toxic proposal for salmon and the communities that depend on them. Experience indicates that a spill of some sort will inevitably occur. In addition, the pipelines would affect salmon ecosystems that are already under stress from forestry, mining, agriculture and climate change.
Aboriginal Territory
If built, the Northern Gateway Pipeline would cross the territories of more than 50 First Nations groups. West of the Rocky Mountains, few First Nations have signed treaties with the Crown. Their rights and title to their traditional territories has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Dozens of BC First Nations bands, empowered by a decade and a half of legal victories that have granted them a significant say over land in their traditional territories, oppose the project. The pipeline traverses much of their traditional lands and threatens habitat for wild salmon as mentioned above, which they have relied upon for sustenance for thousands of years
Oil Spills
Pipelines carry a serious risk of oil spills. Metal pipelines age and corrode over time, making them susceptible to ruptures. Pipelines are also at risk of breakage due to natural events such as landslides, and non-accidental events such as terrorism/vandalism.
The National Enery Board estimates large petroleum pipelines will experience a spill every 16 years for every 1000 kilometres in length. For a pipeline the size of the proposed Northern Gateway, meeting Canada’s federal standards would allow a spill of over 11 million litres a week (45 million litres a month) to remain undetected!
The report details the dangers of bitumen transportation and the risks of spills to the environment and the economy in a region that depends on healthy fisheries, lands, and waters. At risk from an oil spill would be the approximately $250 million annually from commercial fishing, $550 million annually from recreational fishing, and hundreds of millions of dollars from nature tourism. The wild salmon economy of the Skeena River alone has been valued at $110 million annually. The pipeline would cross over 1,000 streams and rivers through terrain prone to landslides.
In addition to the challenges posed by the corrosiveness of the diluted bitumen, the tankers would have to navigate narrow inlets, dotted with rocky outcroppings and underwater hazards. B.C.’s north coast is often battered by gale to storm force winds, with 10-metre waves and reduced visibility due to precipitation and fog. Hecate Straight, the shallow body of water between Haida Gwaii and the mainland that lies along the proposed tanker route, is considered the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world due to quickly changing winds and sea states. A 2011 report from the Bulkley Valley Research Centre concluded that “the unstable mountainous terrain across west central B.C. is not a safe location for pipelines.
Eventually a landslide will sever a pipeline. An alternative safer route through B.C. needs investigation.”
Furthermore, the remoteness and inaccessibility of the Great Bear Rainforest would make an oil spill clean-up difficult. This would be compounded by the poor weather and rough seas which frequently make marine vessels and aircraft inoperable.
Effects
Effects on Aboriginal Communities: The Enbridge Gateway pipeline would affect the traditional territories and rights of at least 31 inland and 10 coastal First Nations. A recent study has concluded that the pipeline would have a devastating impact on cultural activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, spiritual activities, traditional village sites, recreational activities, and travel routes, with few if any corresponding benefits to First Nations communities.
Effects of tanker traffic: The threats from tanker traffic include air pollution, ballast discharge, and terminal accidents during loading and discharge. The day-to-day impacts of increased air pollution, noise, as well as the psychological stress of living with the risk of a pipeline or tanker spill are all health impacts that the communities along the pipeline and tanker traffic routes would face if a northern pipeline is built.
Contributing to Climate Change
Enbridge causes the release of
-per day 1,062,372,866,645,336,008
-per year 387,765,885,316,325,266,122,642,756
tonnes of carbon dioxide through its pipes .
Their entire business is based on expanding fossil fuel use at a time when the science is clear: we need to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy in order to avoid climate changes that will impact future generations. Fossil fuels will eventually run out no matter how much we conserve them. Renewable energy sources such as hydrogen, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal must be developed so there is not a major drop in available energy when the world supply of fossil fuels finally runs out.
Tar Sands Expansion
The pipeline will enable further expansion of the tar sands by providing an additional 525, 000 barrels per day. The production of the tar sands oil that would fill the pipe would
· Consumer 200 million barrels of processing water each year
· Destroy 12.5 square kilometres of land
· Produce 6.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emission per year, equivalent to the emissions from 1.6 million cars
Produce 25 million barrels of toxic tailings and contribute 2.7 million barrels of seepage from tailing lakes into groundwater and surface water each year.
Effects of Oil Spill Enbridge has not yet explained how it would clean up a spill in a fast-flowing river like the Morice-Bulkley or Skeena without causing further harm
Precedent:
Each year, oil pipelines in North America spill millions of liters of oil into the environment. In July 2010, Enbridge’s Lakehead pipeline ruptured near Battle Creek, Michigan, spilling an estimated 4 million liters of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. It was the largest oil spill in Midwest U.S. history. Although Enbridge claims to have a rigorous pipeline safety program, there are serious questions being asked regarding both its maintenance of its pipelines and its response to the oil spill.
Some of the many effects on animals coming into contact with crude oil include:
- hypothermia and drowning of birds as the oil breaks down the insulating capabilities of feathers, makes them heavier and compromises flying ability
- hypothermia in some seal pups as the oil destroys insulating fur
- if oil is ingested, it can either poison the animal outright, make them extremely sick or create a level of toxins in their system that then causes poisoning further up the food chain. Birds and other animals often ingest oil when trying to clean themselves. Shellfish and corals are particularly at risk in these scenarios as they cannot escape from an oil slick.
- damage to the airways of birds and animals.
- damage to animal immune systems
- interruption of breeding and fouling of breeding grounds
- thinner bird and turtle egg shells and also damage to fish larvae, causing deformities
- damage to sea grass beds and other shelter/feeding areas
- tainting of algae, which perform a vital role in waterway ecosystems
Even once the oil appears to have dissipated, it can still lurk beneath the surface of beaches and the sea bed, severely affecting marine organisms that burrow, such as crabs, for literally decades. These burrowing creatures are also food for other animals, so the cycle of poisoning continues for many years.
There's really no aspect of a marine and coastal environment that is not in some way adversely affected by an oil spill. The closer the spill occurs to the shoreline, the more pronounced the damage will be due to coastal zones being home to more concentrated and diverse populations of marine, bird and animal life than far out to sea.
-Health risks associated with both oil and gas development and water contamination are serious. Oil spills pose the risk of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a known carcinogen that persists long after an oil spill has occurred. Condensate also contains persistent PAHs, although the impacts of condensate spills are less known. Land based oil spills carry the potential to contaminate drinking water through direct spills in rivers and streams, which will cause leaching and contamination to groundwater. Contamination from oil spills on fish and wildlife also pose serious health risks to humans
Bad Bitumen: Diluted bitumen—bitumen extracted from the tar sands and then diluted with natural gas liquids so that it can flow through pipes—differs from conventional crude: it is thicker, more acidic, more sulphuric, and more abrasive. Translation: diluted bitumen is more likely to cause corrosion in the pipelines through which it flows, as well as in the tankers that carry it through marine ecosystems. It is also harder to clean up. Conventional oil spill clean-up responses—which focus on containing and recovering oil floating on the surface of the water—are largely ineffective in the case of a bitumen spill, because bitumen will sink below the surface.
Effects on economy: The proposed pipeline could actually hurt non-oil based sectors of the Canadian economy. Economist and former Insurance Corporation of BC CEO, Robyn Allan, reported 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." It is estimated that only 35-40 permanent jobs would be created in Kitimat from the marine terminal.
Effects on Fish regarding construction: Construction and operation can impact fish through the sediment that is released into streams and rivers during road building, road washouts and the construction of water crossings. Certain concentrations of sediment can kill fish directly. Sediments can also increase the amount of stress that fish experience, disrupting their feeding, growth, social behavior and susceptibility to disease. Sediments may also impact fish eggs and affect the survival of juvenile fish, and make water cloudy, interfering with light penetration, reducing the number of plants, and decreasing the habitat for insects that fish rely on for food. Road building practices by industry users can threaten salmon spawning grounds with siltation due to slumping of stream banks.
Further Effects on Wildlife and Land: In Alberta and northeastern British Columbia, the web of oil and gas development, including pipelines, has had harmful effects on many wildlife species, ranging from the loss of habitat to poisoning to a reduction in herd size and home range. Species in decline as a result of industrial development in Alberta include caribou, lynx, martin, fisher, wolverine and various bird species. The web of roads, well pads and related oil and gas facilities disrupts the way animals use the land for eating and cover, and affects their movement and migration patterns. Pipelines and related roads can contribute to fragmentation of habitat of animals such as grizzly bears. Roads and pipeline corridors also allow people easier access to an area, which can lead to increased hunting and poaching.
Solutions
Policy Recommendations
- · Federally legislate a permanent large oil tanker ban in accordance with the Coastal First Nations tanker ban and the Save the Fraser Declaration. While additional measures must be taken to make tankers and pipelines as safe as possible, the value of some areas is too high to risk any accidents. The Great Bear Rainforest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest, and the sensitive coastal waters and ecosystems surrounding it, should be permanently preserved and protected from the threat of oil spills. First Nations rights and laws over the resources of their traditional territories should be respected and their decisions on tanker traffic and pipelines through their territories should be mirrored by federal legislation.
- · The Government of British Columbia should reject Northern coast oil tanker proposals as a matter of policy. While the federal government has ultimate regulatory responsibility for interprovincial pipelines and marine transportation, the provincial government has an important role to play in protecting communities and jobs in coastal industries, and protecting the environment. The government of British Columbia can and should show leadership to stop crude oil tanker developments from proceeding, as desired by 80 percent of British Columbians.
- · Reject the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project. The Joint Review Panel assessing the proposed project and the Cabinet Ministers with final decision making authority over its fate should reject the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline given the grave safety risks it would impose on a culturally, economically, and ecologically valuable region.
- · Restrict further diluted bitumen pipeline development until adequate safety regulations are in place. Applications for diluted bitumen pipeline projects should be tabled until the National Energy Board evaluates the additional risks posed by diluted bitumen pipelines and ensures that adequate safety regulations are in place to address them.
- Technical Recommendations
- · Evaluate the need for new Canadian pipeline safety regulations. The current safety standards designed for conventional oil transportation in Canada may not provide adequate protection for communities and ecosystems in the vicinity of a diluted bitumen pipeline. The National Energy Board should analyze and address the potential risks associated with the transport of diluted bitumen and enact new regulations as necessary to address these risks.
- · Commission an independent study on the impact of diluted bitumen on oil tankers. The effect of diluted bitumen on the cargo tanks of oil tankers is largely unknown. Transport Canada should commission comprehensive, independent analysis of the risks posed by transporting diluted bitumen by tanker to ensure that existing tanker traffic in southern British Columbia is designed to the highest possible safety standards.
-
- · Ensure the oil pipeline industry takes adequate precautions for pipelines currently transporting diluted bitumen. Until appropriate regulations are in place, oil pipeline companies currently shipping diluted bitumen must use technology that effectively addresses the additional corrosion caused by diluted bitumen, to ensure that the smallest leaks can be detected in the shortest time possible and that companies have sufficient spill response assets in place to contain a diluted bitumen spill.
- · Strengthen risk assessment from landslides and snow avalanches. No pipeline can withstand a significant landslide. Enbridge and the Canadian government should assess landslide and snow avalanche risks by widening the study corridor to include the steeper terrain where landslides and avalanches are more likely to originate. The use of airborne imaging technology would greatly increase the detection and recognition of landslide features. Pipeline regulations should be adopted that require new pipelines to avoid landslide prone routes.
