LandKeepers News Archive
Enbridge Defines Pipeline Processes
December 23 2009 | News Articles
By Cameron Orr
An oil pipeline stretching 1,170 kilometres across the west, from the Alberta oilsands to the Pacific Ocean in Kitimat, is another step closer to becoming reality. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board (NEB) teamed up this month to create a joint review panel (JRP) with which to consider the environmental and regulatory issues surrounding the Northern Gateway Project proposed by Enbridge.
The twin pipeline being proposed would transport oil to, and condensate from, Kitimat with the intention of opening up the oilsand market via tankers to Asia. A 36-inch pipeline would transport an average 525,000 barrels of oil to Kitimat per day to be loaded in oil tankers heading to California and Asia – about 225 tankers per year. A 20-inch pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of condensate east.
Enbridge offered a public session to Kitimat residents Tuesday, Dec. 8 and Smithers residents Dec. 9, allowing interested parties to hear former NEB chair and international energy consultant Roland Priddle outline the differences between a public inquiry and joint review panel. “There are some groups that believe the Enbridge project should go through an inquiry prior to entering into the National Energy Board,” district development manager Diane Hewlett explained at a council meeting Dec. 7. She added that the Enbridge website has been updated recently, detailing how to get a job building a pipeline as well as offering detailed information on safe shipping.
Councillor Mario Feldhoff said that the meeting would concern only the types of processes and would not get into the “nuts and bolts” of the Northern Gateway Project. Crowds in Kitimat and Smithers found out that a public inquiry and joint review panel are fairly similar. In a public inquiry, a commission is appointed by a government and terms of reference are set. “The appointment of a commission signifies a decision by the government that the issues in the particular case are so complex and significant, that assessment and review under the normal government procedures are inadequate,” Priddle explained.
Under the JRP, matters addressed are prescribed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act, which are essentially matters of the public interest. “The public inquiry really, in every case that I’ve looked at, the commissioner is completely constrained by his terms of reference … and doesn’t have that same scope the NEB would have.” There is no definition that sets out what “public interest” is, Priddle said. “It’s really for each project in the mind of the board members. It is not given any guidance at all in its Act [to what public interest is].”
In Smithers, a curious resident asked if there is room for people to argue on a moral basis, rather than factual, as the JRP hearings are established in a similar fashion to court. “They tend to be open minded to ideas,” said Priddle. “I think the board’s strong preference is to make fact-based decisions.” He did say that JRPs have turned down projects in the past. Specifically he cited the Canadian Arctic pipeline project that was rejected in 1977. That project was “the biggest single project that ever came before the board.” A cross-border pipeline from Ontario to New York was also rejected.
Priddle never outwardly expressed any preference towards either the JRP or a public inquiry, and merely put down the facts. Community Advisory Board meetings were held prior to both public meetings.
© Copyright Black Press. All rights reserved.
This Entry is Not Tagged. Click here to Add Tags