By Nadine Moedt (The Cascade) – Email
Print Edition: July 18, 2012
Enbridge’s Plans for BC
Enbridge, a Calgary-based energy company, is proposing a twin pipeline. One will flow westerly, transporting petroleum from near Edmonton to Kitimat. 1177 kilometers in length and 36 inches in diameter, this pipe would carry an average of 525,000 barrels of petroleum daily.
The second proposed pipeline, 20 inches in diameter, would carry 193,000 barrels of condensate (used to thin petroleum products for pipeline transport) the other way, from Kitimat to Edmonton.
Benefits
The benefits listed on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines website includes 5000 jobs during the peak stages of construction, dropping to 560 for long-term employment. Tax revenues are projected at $1.2 billion.
But do these benefits outweigh the environmental concerns? It seems shortsighted. Surely we should be looking to a more environmentally-sustainable approach. In some ways, this is the same mentality as that evident in the current widening of the Trans-Canada Highway instead of expanding rapid transit and bringing commuter rail to the valley. We’ve had an insatiable appetite so far, and look where it’s brought us. Environmentally speaking, we’re fast approaching the point of no return.
Government’s Response
Prime Minister Steven Harper has made the oil sands and stronger ties with Asia a key economic focus. It seems his government will do whatever necessary to ensure that the Northern Gateway pipeline is built.
This comes as no surprise. Harper’s government is as anti-environment as they come. The recent passing of Bill C-38 is enough evidence of that. The bill removed the habitat protection embedded in the Fisheries Act, one of Canada’s most important conservational laws, giving the government more options for permitting industry to pollute fish habitats. Up to 5000 environmental assessments of economic projects were eliminated with the passing of C-38.
Bill C-38 gives the government all the power to propel the Northern Gateway pipeline forward. They can muzzle scientists and skim over environmental concerns.
Environmental Concerns
According to the Enbridge website, the pipelines will cross 773 identified watercourses with defined beds and banks. Of these, 669 are fish-bearing and 127 of them are home to wild salmon. Not to fear, however – Enbridge says on their website that they will conduct “detailed site surveys at difficult crossings” to lessen the environmental impact.
The pipeline will knife through streams and rivers, over the Rockies and through the Great Bear rainforest, a home to wolves, wild salmon, grizzlies and the spirit bear. Half a million barrels per day of unrefined bitumen, a throbbing vein of poison, will run through pristine wilderness. Our northern BC is pure, virgin, magnificent, yet the Canadian government wants to defile it for its own gain – but certainly not for the benefit of British Columbians. They are taking what isn’t theirs without our consent. In a word, it’s environmental rape.
In an internal correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, at least 15 endangered species are listed as those that will be most affected by the intruding pipeline. Many types of rare birds, frogs and the Woodland Caribou will be further threatened by the pipeline. These species are already listed under the Canada Species at Risk Act.
Enbridge is not disputing any of these claims. Todd Nogier, manager of corporate and western communications for Enbridge said that “Northern Gateway will contribute toward additional research to help mitigate the effects of the project on the marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems.”
However, more concerns arose after Harper and his cronies forced through Bill C-38. As a result the law no longer requires project developers to renew special permits to operate on sites that disturb critical habitats. Ecojustice staff lawyer Sean Nixon phrases it quite succinctly: “First, they’re getting out of the business of habitat protection and second they’re getting out of the business of anything that isn’t absolutely, squarely, 100 per cent guaranteed to be in the federal jurisdiction, which means that suddenly you have a very timid federal government that isn’t doing much at all to protect species.”
The greatest concern, however, is not that the pipeline would cross through the heartland of BC, but that it would introduce supertankers to a part of BC where they’ve never been. 220 tankers would travel up treacherous waters to Kitimat; each tanker would carry over eight times the amount spilled from the Exxon Valdez. One accident, one miscalculation, and a fragile, delicately-balanced ecosystem could be destroyed.
Countless marine animals including humpback whales, orca, sea otters, as well as creatures dependent on shore life to survive, would be slicked in oil because of it. The 15 endangered species under threat from the proposed pipeline did not include marine animals such as humpback and fin whales. As well, it is acknowledged that whales could be killed in collisions with the supertankers or harmed by the increased traffic. Federal scientists are raising concerns about the lack of consideration of these risks because of a weak voluntary reporting system.
Part of the government’s interest in promoting the project is that the pipeline would facilitate the expansion of the tar sands.
But oil produced by the tar sands has been dubbed as the world’s dirtiest oil. Its extraction leaves behind pools of toxic tailings, creates three to five times the green house gases that conventional oil extraction creates, destroys the boreal forest—which, incidentally, is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon storehouse and home to the largest forest wetland ecosystems left on the planet—as well as increases human exposure to heavy metals.
Finally, the Northern gateway pipeline would allow Canadian oil companies the freedom to expand production and exports to new markets in the U.S. and Asia. None of these so-called advantages outweigh the risks. The advantages to the few cannot be determined to outweigh the real risks to the many.
Enbridge’s History
The phrase “environmental responsibility” is plastered all over the Enbridge Northern Gateway website. Their track record suggests otherwise.
In 2010, Enbridge’s pipeline in Michigan spilled more than 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Michigan wetlands and the Kalamazoo River, resulting in more than $800 million in damage. The head of a U.S. environmental agency has made it clear to Canadian authorities that the spill was “tragic and needless,” and that we should be careful of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman commented in an article by The Vancouver Sun that Enbridge officials acted like the “Keystone Kops” in the face of the disaster. The company was aware of the potential for a spill for five years; when the pipe finally ruptured, it took officials 17 hours to shut down the oil flow.
“This accident was the result of multiple mistakes and missteps made by Enbridge,” Hersman is quoted in the article, who went on to say that the company failed to learn its lessons from major U.S. spills in 1991 and 2002 in the U.S., and in 2007 in Canada, as many of the mistakes from those spills were repeated in 2010.
Enbridge faced a $3.7 million fine for 22 alleged violations related to the spill. Overall, the spill affected the health of 320 people and nearly 4000 animals, and it permanently displaced a number of residents in the Kalamazoo River area.
Solutions
Other than trying to cut down on our usage and turn to more environmentally friendly energy sources, what are our options? Maybe the question we have to ask first is why is Ottawa suddenly so interested in exporting overseas? It’s a fairly recent phenomenon. Currently, 99 per cent of Canada’s oil exports go down to the states through a network of pipelines to refineries in the states. So why did this have to change?
According to an article in Macleans, the trouble is that there is a bottleneck in the system; the U.S. has their own crude oil which refineries buy at discounted prices. This depresses prices of Canadian crude oil. But by piping the oil to the coast and shipping it to an Asian country, there is a guaranteed access to world market prices. This translates to an extra $8 to $10 on every barrel of oil. Simply put, Harper wants to turn Canada into a big, dirty, energy super power.
In the perfect world, we would restrict the growth of the Alberta tar sands, and turn to cleaner, renewable energy sources. In the meantime, however, while oil companies essentially control the world, we need another method. We have around 25 oil refineries in Canada. The U.S. has almost that many in California alone. Why can’t we build more eco-friendly oil refineries right here in Canada? That could then eliminate the environmentally risky transport of billions of barrels of oil. It could also benefit our own economy and make us less dependent on the United States.
