Northwest Institute

Working towards social and ecological sustainability in Northwest British Columbia since 1996

Northwest Institute Evidence

In its role as intervenor in the review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal, the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research submitted the following three reports as evidence to be considered by the Joint Review Panel.

Final technical hearing summaries

The Hearings, Transcripts, and these Hearing Notes

The Final hearing phase with cross examination is organized such that "panels" of witnesses with expertise in issues relating to the Northern Gateway project are brought together to field questions about evidence that has been filed by them. If you wish to listen to the hearings live you can go to http://www.meetview.com/neb/.  Transcripts are posted on a daily basis, as much as possible, and are available on the NEB website.  Northwest Institute will review the transcripts and prepare notes for interested readers. The notes are available on this website and will be posted shortly after each hearing day.

Each session of the hearings begin with the chair’s opening remarks, registration of appearances, and administrative matters. Transcripts then list the panels of witnesses who will be presented that day, and the list of intervenors' representatives, usually lawyers, who will be examining or questioning the respective panels.

The Panel is composed of Sheila Leggett (Chair), Kenneth Bateman, Hans Matthews.

The Applicant is Northern Gateway Pipelines.  Their lead counsel is Richard Neufeld.

Intervenors and their legal counsel will be introduced as they appear.

References to locations in the transcripts are by paragraph number. 1 is the first paragraph of the first transcript from Whitecourt AB on October 10, 2010. The first paragraph of the Questioning Phase of the hearing, on September 4, 2012, is 14343.

The schedule for the Final Technical Hearings was as follows.  The hearings finished on June 24, 2013.

Community Hearings

Between April and July 2012 community hearings were held across northern B.C. from Haida Gwaii to Prince George. In these hearings members of the public could make 10 minute Oral Statements to the Panel. These Oral Statements were not subject to cross-examination and allowed community members to provide the Panel with their knowledge, views and concerns on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

Northwest Institute attended these hearings and compiled excerpts from each hearing, which can be viewed below.  Community Hearings in southern B.C. took place in January and February 2013.

Enbridge Joint Review Panel

Northern Gateway Pipelines

Northern Gateway Pipelines  is a proposal by Enbridge to build a pair of pipelines from Bruderheim, just outside of Edmonton, 1170 km to Kitimat, on BC's west coast. The larger pipeline would carry 525,000 barrels per day of diluted Alberta tar sands bitumen (hence, "dilbit") to Kitimat, where it would be loaded on tankers destined for Asia, California and other markets. The smaller pipeline would carry 200,000 barrels per day of imported "condensate", a liquid byproduct of natural gas processing, from Kitimat to Alberta, where it is used to dilute bitumen, so it will flow in a pipeline.
 

Joint Review Panel

The project is undergoing an environmental assessment (EA) and permitting process conducted by a Joint Review Panel. "Joint" refers to the fact that the Panel is charged with conducting an EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and a permitting review under the National Energy Board Act. In its review and decisions, the Panel will consider comments filed by the public, evidence filed orally and in writing by intervenors, governments, as well as the applicant.

The panel began hearing from witnesses in January 2012 with a round of oral evidence hearings where intervenors were able to give evidence orally that could not be provided in written form. This evidence is subject to cross examination in the final hearings.

In late April 2012 the community hearing phase began and hearings were held across northern B.C. In these hearings community members could make 10 minutes presentations and these were not subject to cross examination. Northwest Institute attended these hearings and compiled excerpts from each hearing, which can be viewed on our Community Hearing Summaries. Community hearings will continued in southern B.C. in January and February 2013.

The technical hearings, known as the “final hearings” began in September 2012.  These hearings allow intervenors to cross examine expert witnesses put forward by the proponent, and similarly allow the applicant and other intervenors to question witnesses of the intervenors. The hearings began in Edmonton with economic issues, then moved to Prince George where the evidence focused on the construction and impacts of the pipeline, and finished in June 2013 in Prince Rupert looking at marine and First Nation issues.  Northwest Institute compiled short summaries and notes from each day of hearings which can be viewed here.

In legislation enacted following the 2012 Federal Budget and Bill C-38, the government required the Panel to complete its review and submit its report by the end of 2013, and has clearly stated that it will be the "Governor in Council' (that is, the federal cabinet), which will make the final decision on the Northern Gateway project.  The Panel reviewed the evidence from the hearings between June 2013 and December 2013 and arrived at its decision on December 16.  The JRP recommended that the Northern Gateway project be approved with 209 conditions.  The federal Cabinet must make their final decision by the end of June 2014.

Rio Tinto Alcan Environmental Appeal Board Hearing Summaries April - June 2015

Two outdoors-loving Kitimat teachers, Lis Stannus and Emily Towes, have launched a case with the Environmental Appeal Board against the Ministry of Environment (MOE). The two appellants are challenging MOE’s decision to allow Rio Tinto Alcan to increase its sulphur dioxide emissions from its Kitimat aluminum smelter by 55 percent above current permit levels. Even more, MOE is allowing this without the any scrubbers installed at the smelter. Emily and Lis both suffer from asthma, and both teachers are concerned about their students’ health and worried about the effects of the increased emissions on the forests and waterways of the Kitimat-Terrace valley.

The hearings are expected to take four weeks. The first two weeks of hearings will be held in Victoria from April 27 -May 1 and from May 11-15.  Then there will be two weeks of hearings in Kitimat from June 1-5 and June 8-12.


Hearing Summaries

Victoria, April 27 2015, Day 1

Victoria, April 28-29 2015, Day 2 and 3

Victoria, April 30 2015, Day 4

Victoria, May 1 2015, Day 5

Victoria, May 11-12 2015, Day 6 and 7

Victoria, May 13, 2015, Day 8

Victoria, May 14-15 2015, Day 9 and 10

Kitimat, June 1 2015, Day 11

Kitimat, June 2-4, Day 12-14

Kitimat, June 4-5, Day 14-15

Kitimat, June 8, Day 16

Kitimat, June 10, Day 17-18

Kitimat, June 11-12, Day 19-20

Victoria, June 29-30, Final Argument

A Clear Look at BC LNG: Energy security, environmental implications and economic potential

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the west coast of Canada have been heralded as economic salvation for the province of British Columbia.This report by David Hughes undertakes a reality check that reveals several major problems with this narrative, both in the stewardship of finite non-renewable resources by provincial and federal governments, and in the environmental implications of large-scale development.

David Hughes toured Northwest BC in April 2015 and discussed the content of this report with local governments and the public.

View the report below or download the PDF (811 KB).

BC LNG Myths and Realities Tour with Geoscientist David Hughes

From April 13-17 2015, geoscientist David Hughes travelled from Prince Rupert to Prince George, meeting with local governments and offering public presentations. He shared his analysis of BC's gas supply and what he sees of the province's energy future.

His presentation warned that meeting the BC government's plans for LNG development will require 37,000 new gas wells to be drilled in northeastern BC and is unrealistic given that proven, recoverable resources are much lower than what the government is projecting.


View his presentation slides below or download a PDF (19.4 MB).
 





Watch David Hughes' presentation on YouTube.

 

Table of LNG Projects in Northwest BC

A table providing details on the 18 proposed Liquified Natural Gas projects in Northwest British Columbia. Last updated May 14, 2017.

Download the PDF (336 KB)

LNG Community Dialogue Sessions

The Northwest Institute, in collaboration with West Coast Environmental Law, is pleased to co-host LNG Community Dialogue Sessions throughout Northern BC from December 2014 to March 2015. The dialogue sessions are an opportunity to identify shared values that must be protected when considering LNG projects in Northern BC.

Our not-for-profit organizations, alongside many local governments and First Nations, have been encouraging the provincial government to undertake a big picture “regional strategic environmental assessment” that would consider the combined impacts of LNG proposals on the things we all value.

The dialogue sessions will bring concerned citizens and organizations together with neighbouring First Nations to share information and begin to tackle the tough questions ourselves: What range of development scenarios are really plausible? What are the core values that must be protected when considering industrial development, such as pipelines across BC and LNG plants on the coast? How do we make wise decisions about the right pace and scale of development for our communities?

Click here for more information.

The first session was held in Prince Rupert on December 11, 2014. Future dates and locations are to be announced. Stay informed about upcoming events here.

Brochure: What you need to know about Petronas and its impacts on Skeena Salmon

This brochure provides an overview of the impacts that Petronas' proposed Pacific Northwest LNG facility poses to juvenile salmon habitat in the Skeena Estuary. It was created in November 2014 and distributed widely to communities in the Skeena watershed. View the document below or download the PDF here (3.2 MB).

 

Brochure: What you need to know about Petronas and its impacts on Skeena Salmon

This brochure provides an overview of the impacts that Petronas' proposed Pacific Northwest LNG facility poses to juvenile salmon habitat in the Skeena Estuary. It was created in November 2014 and distributed widely to communities in the Skeena watershed.

Download the PDF (3.2 MB).

Brochure: LNG in Northwest BC

This publication provides an overview of proposed LNG projects in Northwest BC and takes a close look at air pollution in Kitimat/Terrace and salmon impacts in the Skeena Estuary. It was produced in May 2014 and distributed widely across the region from Haida Gwaii to Burns Lake. View the brochure below or download the PDF here (337 KB).
 

Brochure: LNG in Northwest BC

This publication provides an overview of proposed LNG projects in Northwest BC and takes a close look at air pollution in Kitimat/Terrace and salmon impacts in the Skeena Estuary. It was produced in May 2014 and distributed widely across the region from Haida Gwaii to Burns Lake.

Download the PDF (337 KB).

Brochure: Comparing the BC government findings on Enbridge to the Joint Review Panel’s final report

This pamphlet provides a brief comparison of the BC government's final submission to the Joint Review Panel and the Joint Review Panel's recommendation.  It also highlights critical information regarding the behaviour of diluted bitumen in water, and impacts to humpback whale habitat that were not included in the review.

View the document below or download it here (3.9 MB)
 

Comparison of the BC government’s submission on Enbridge and the JRP’s recommendation

This pamphlet provides a brief comparison of the BC government's final submission to the Joint Review Panel and the Joint Review Panel's recommendation.  It also highlights critical information regarding the behaviour of diluted bitumen in water, and impacts to humpback whale habitat that were not included in the review.

Download the pamphlet (3.9 MB)

LNG Pipeline and Facility Maps

*Maps produced in October, 2013. Information is subject to change.

Download pipelines map

 

Download facilities map

Table of LNG Projects in Northwest BC

*last updated May 2017

The following table provides details on proposed Liquified Natural Gas projects in Northwest British Columbia. We will update this table as new information becomes available. Download a PDF of the table (36 KB)

Request for a Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment of BC LNG Proposals

The following report and media release from the Northwest Institute and UVic Environmental Law Centre call on the federal and BC Ministers of Environment to establish a Strategic Economic and Environmental Assessment of proposed massive new BC LNG developments.  Acting for the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research, the Centre proposes a careful examination of a dozen or more new LNG proposals, thousands of related new gas wells, the potential for numerous redundant cross-provincial pipelines, and the resulting risks to water, air, fish, grizzly, caribou, and human health.

Download media release

Download full report

Report: BC LNG Proposals and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

With an increasing number of LNG projects being announced on B.C.’s coast, it is important to balance the economic arguments of these announcements with the associated risks. The emissions from LNG projects and the impact to B.C.’s climate targets are still unclear, but based on initial modeling done by the Pembina Institute using projected volumes of LNG, it is clear that even modest development will have a material impact to the overall emissions in the province. Three questions are addressed in this memo to provide context to the LNG debate and attempt to quantify the impacts based on currently available information.

Download full report

Liquified Natural Gas Fact Sheet

This Northwest Institute publication provides an overview of the Liquified Natural Gas development process and the LNG projects currently proposed in Northern British Columbia.  Please note that the table in the fact sheet was last updated in February, 2014 and is subject to change. For an up-to-date table of proposals please go here.

Download Fact Sheet (1.0 MB)

Prince Rupert, May 1st, Day 91

Please see the following document or download the PDF (88 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Apr. 30th, Day 90

Please see the following document or download the PDF (88 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Apr. 29th, Day 89

Please see the following document or download the PDF (270 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 27th, Day 88

Please see the following document or download the PDF (90 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 26th, Day 87

Please see the following document or download the PDF (299 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Apr. 25th, Day 86

Please see the following document or download the PDF (98 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 24th, Day 85

Please see the following document or download the PDF (100 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 23rd, Day 84

Please see the following document or download the PDF (128 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Apr. 22nd, Day 83

Please see the following document or download the PDF (190 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 11th, Day 82

Please see the following document or download the PDF (65 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 10th, Day 81

Please see the following document or download the PDF (212 Kb)

Liquified Natural Gas

The Northwest Insitute has produced a number of publications about Liquefied Natural Gas proposals in BC including a fact sheet, an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, an up-to-date table of proposals and a request for a Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessement of BC LNG proposals.  

To read these publications, visit our LNG Projects page.

Documenting the Enbridge Joint Review Panel Hearings

If built, the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands westward to a new tanker port at Kitimat, and carry condensate (a bitumen diluent) eastward to Alberta. The issue is of critical concern to Northwest British Columbians and people from across Canada. Currently, the proposed project is being reviewed by a Joint Review Panel headed by the National Energy Board. The panel travelled throughout Northwest B.C. and elsewhere in B.C. and Alberta to hear from citizens on the matter. The Northwest Institute  documented the hearings throughout the Joint Review process.

To read summaries of the community and technical hearings, visit our Enbridge Joint Review Panel page.

Prince Rupert, Apr. 9th, Day 80

Please see the following document or download the PDF (111 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Apr. 8th, Day 79

Please see the following document or download the PDF (117 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 6th, Day 78

Please see the following document or download the PDF (108 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 5th, Day 77

Please see the following document or download the PDF (129 Kb)

Prince Rupert, April 4, Day 76

NWI Hearing Notes, Day 76 by Northwest Institute

Prince Rupert, Mar. 22nd, Day 75

Please see the following document or download the PDF (82 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 21st, Day 74

Please see the following document or download the PDF (79 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 20th, Day 73

Please see the following document or download the PDF (67 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 19th, Day 72

Please see the following document or download the PDF (185 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 18th, Day 71

Please see the following document or download the PDF (182 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 16th, Day 70

Please see the following document or download the PDF (189 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 15th, Day 69

Please see the following document or download the PDF (85 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 14th, Day 68

Please see the following document or download the PDF (86 KB)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 13th, Day 67

Please see the following document or download the PDF (767 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 12th, Day 66

Please see the following document or download the PDF (100 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 11th, Day 65

Please see the following summary or download the PDF (260 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Mar. 1st, Day 64

Please see the following document or download the PDF (90 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 27th, Day 62

Please see the following document or download the PDF (91 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 26th, Day 61

Please see the following document or download the PDF (187 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 25th, Day 60

Please see the following document or download the PDF (87 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 23rd, Day 59

Please see the following document or download the PDF (73 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 22nd, Day 58

Please see the following document or download the PDF (89 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 21st, Day 57

Please see the following document or download the PDF (85 Kb)

 

Prince Rupert, Feb. 20th, Day 56

Please see the following document or download the PDF (77 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 18th, Day 54

Please see the following document or download the PDF (312 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 8th, Day 53

Please see the following document or download the PDF (81 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 7th, Day 52

Please see the following document or download the PDF (221 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 6th, Day 51

Please see the following document or download the PDF (83 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 5th, Day 50

Please see the following summary or download the PDF (800 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Feb. 4th, Day 49

Please see the following document or download the PDF (480 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 14th, Day 47

Please see the following document or download the PDF (370 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 13th, Day 46

Please see the following document or download the PDF (784 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 15th, Day 48

Please see the following document or download the PDF (216 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 12th, Day 45

Please see the following document or download the PDF (322 Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 11th, Day 44

Please see the following document or download the PDF (271Kb)

Prince Rupert, Dec. 10th, Day 43

Please see the following document or download the PDF (225 Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 28th, Day 42

Please see the following document or download the PDF (76Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 27th, Day 41

Please see the following document or download the PDF (136Kb)


Prince George, Nov. 26th, Day 40

Please see the following document or download the PDF (79Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 23rd, Day 39

Please see the following document or download the PDF (111Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 22nd, Day 38

Please see the following document or download the PDF (105Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 9th, Day 37

Please see the following document or download the PDF (174Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 8th, Day 36

Please see the following document or download the PDF (73Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 7th, Day 35

Please see the following document or download the PDF (78Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 6th, Day 34

Please see the following document or download the PDF (80Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 5th, Day 33

Please see the following document or download the PDF (67Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 3rd, Day 32

Please see the following document or download the PDF (1.2Mb)

Prince George, Nov. 2nd, Day 31

Please see the following document or download the PDF (81Kb)

Prince George, Nov. 1st, Day 30

Please see the following document or download the PDF (66Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 31st, Day 29

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (226Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 30th, Day 28

Please see the following document or download the PDF (210Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 29th, Day 27

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (159Kb)

Prince George, Oct.19th, Day 26

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (123Kb)

Prince George, Oct.18th, Day 25

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (64Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 17th, Day 24

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (65Kb)

Prince George, Oct.16th, Day 23

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (93Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 15th, Day 22

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (68Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 14th, Day 21

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (110Kb)

Prince George, Oct.12th, Day 20

Please see the following document  or download the PDF (438Kb)

Prince George, Oct.11th, Day 19

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (318Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 10th, Day 18

Please see the following document or  download the PDF (58Kb)

Prince George, Oct. 9th, Day 17

Please see the document below or  download the PDF (51Kb)

Edmonton, Sept. 28th, Day 16

The final day of hearings in Edmonton opened with Dr. Tom Gunton as the expert witness for the Coastal First Nations. The only witness for the entire day, he was lucid and informative on all the topics addressed in his public interest and potential impacts reports filed as evidence.

Richard Neufeld for Northern Gateway Pipelines questioned Dr. Gunton for the greater part of the day, followed by Carol Hales for the National Energy Board. And for the first time, all three Panel members had questions for the witness, each seeking advice, not information.

Mr. Neufeld’s questions presented Dr. Gunton with opportunities to point at shortcomings in the two reports Northern Gateway Pipelines had commissioned as the cornerstones of its economic evidence: the markets analysis of Muse Stancil, and the public interest and cost-benefit report of Wright Mansell. On one critical issue, the two reports were in conflict.

Drawing on the ENSYS analysis done for the US Dept. of Energy, Dr. Gunton explained his concern that proposed pipeline projects, including Gateway, would result in significant overcapacity. Every year there is overcapacity, there is a cost to the system. Industry still reaps benefits, but passes those costs through to the public as reduced taxes.

Dr. Gunton said that the Muse Stancil markets analysis had made a number of assumptions which essentially drove its results. Dr. Gunton said, “If you take those assumptions away and allow the market to operate over time, the market will equilibrate and will remove [the price differentials that provide the rationale for building Northern Gateway.]

He also expressed concern about the Northern Gateway reports forecasting a small difference (+/- 2%) in price over a long period of time. Forecasting that degree of accuracy is beyond the reasonable expectations of forecasting, especially when Muse Stancil completely missed forecasting the bottleneck at Cushing, and the $18 disparity between WTI and Brent prices which resulted only two years after the original Muse Stancil report was published.

Dr. Gunton was candid about the difficulties involved in quantifying ecosystem values. But, he argued, the values are real, and are significant and must be taken into account.

On oil spills, he said Enbridge understates both the risks and the costs, yet its refusal to take responsibility for spills suggests that it has little confidence in its own stated numbers.

Following a rich discussion with Mr. Neufeld and Ms. Hales, Dr. Gunton was asked a few questions by each Panel member.

In response to a question from Kenneth Bateman of the Panel, about the polarized views about this project across the country, Dr. Gunton said, “The probability of building a project such as this with this degree of opposition is virtually zero.”

For a more detailed summary, please see the document below or  download the PDF (490Kb)

Edmonton, Sept. 27th, Day 15

Leanne Chahley of the Alberta Federation of Labour notes that her client’s interest is creating jobs in Alberta. This morning her questioning of Harold York and Christopher Holly, experts for the Government of Alberta, led directly to that concern.

Dr. York’s Wood Mackenzie netbacks report stated that synthetic crude oil (SCO) can be processed in any market, maintaining its value. It’s not the case for Western Canadian heavy crude oil which can only be processed for optimal value in a limited number of refineries.

Ms. Chahley wondered why more upgraders were not being built in Alberta. Dr. York said that at the current price of SCO and the high capital costs of new upgraders, they are not commercially viable.

Heavy crude fetches its highest value in the limited number of refineries that have the capability of processing it for optimal value. But once that capacity in those refineries is fully utilized, heavy crude loses some of its value, and the netback for heavy crude drops by $8.

According to Dr. York, this $8 discount can be avoided by the Northern Gateway – but for only one year, its first year. After that, increases in supply will overwhelm the effect of Northern Gateway and the volume of heavy crude will trigger the discount. And things will be back to where they were.

The first person to question the Haisla Nation’s panel of Matthias Ruth and Rebecca Gasper was Bernard Roth from Northern Gateway Pipelines.

Mr. Roth began by questioning the qualifications of the witnesses, though Dr. Ruth, a specialist in ecological economics, has degrees in geography and economics, and is a professor in engineering and public policy.

The interesting information to come out of Mr. Roth’s questioning was actually about the Pacific Trails natural gas pipeline (PTP), and Kitimat LNG, rather than Northern Gateway. Routes for the two pipelines are very close together in much of their western right-of-way. Crossing Hunter Creek, PTP is cutting into the stream bed in an open cut to lay the pipeline, whereas NGP will be drilling under the stream.

Mr. Roth also filed an aid to questioning about a new Australian LNG project that will release 41 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent into the environment annually.

The implications for British Columbia are ominous. Kitimat LNG and other LNG projects may be significant generators of greenhouse gases. Mr. Roth suggested that it could be a revealed preference of the Province of British Columbia to undertake LNG projects notwithstanding their significant greenhouse gas emissions.

For a more detailed summary, please see the document below or download the PDF (530Kb)

Edmonton, Sept. 26th, Day 14

Barry Robinson representing the Coalition of Living Oceans, Forest Ethics and Raincoast Conservation Foundation got it on the record that the Alberta Land Stewardship Act gives regional plans supremacy over “regulatory instruments’ and that the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan has limits for the release of specified substances that are exceeded by those for new projects in the region.

Sheila Leggett, the Chairperson for the Joint Review Panel, didn’t like where he was going with this. Mr. Robinson said he was moving on. The Chairperson replied, “The Panel is glad you are prepared to move on.”

Mr. Robinson obtained agreement from Harold York, author of the Wood Mackenzie netbacks report for the Alberta Government, that the economic benefits of a “West Coast pipeline” are the same whether it’s Northern Gateway or a Trans Mountain expansion.

The rest of the day belonged to Leanne Chahley, counsel for the Alberta Federation of Labour, and Dr. York. Much of their discussion was about the meaning of the Wood Mackenzie report. So much so that at the end of the day, the Chairperson advised Ms. Chahley, “We would encourage you to be able to frame your question in a way that tests the evidence as opposed to revisiting the content of the report.”

Ms. Chahley did obtain insights into Dr. York’s report. For example, the benefits of the Gateway project, would be to stop the discounting of Alberta oil by $8 a barrel, an effect created by insufficient pipeline capacity from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, “it's between two and three years. Northern Gateway does not solve the problem forever.”

He also said that the effect of Northern Gateway could also be achieved by opening up pipeline capacity from Alberta to the Gulf. If you build enough capacity, he said, “you could stay at the PADD III [Gulf of Mexico] netback for the entire time horizon.”

Ms. Chahley’s questioning worked toward the discovery that a marginal 337,000 barrels per day would control pricing at the threshold which would trigger the price-discount of $8 per barrel. Producers or government could tune production to avoid the discount.

Dr. York’s response was that “the policy would have to know how much volume shouldn’t be in the market five to seven years ahead of time.”

The cleverest line of the day goes to the Chairperson. When Ms. Chahley was having trouble focusing attention on a specific number on a chart, the Chairperson asked, “Do you have a pointer?” Ms. Chahley replied, “I do, Madam Chair.” Chairperson, “Could you use a pointer? Ms Chahley: “I don’t have a pointer. I thought you were asking me if I have a point.” Chairperson, “If you have a pointer.”

For a more detailed summary, please see the document below or download the PDF (391Kb)

Edmonton, Sept. 25th, Day 13

Leanne Chahley for the Alberta Federation of Labour continued questioning of the “shipper panel” – Cenovus, Nexen, Suncor, Total & MEG. Asking if their companies had identified where their condensate would come from, they all said there is no need to line it up this far in advance. It is the same answer for oil – more typical to arrange sales weeks and months ahead, not years.

Carol Hales representing the National Energy Board asked a multitude of questions about the sequence of events from the initial contact between Enbridge and potential shippers to the signing of precedent agreements. Who was present? (Mostly one-on-one.) Was Enbridge open to more or fewer than 10 units for funding participants? (No, though it facilitated discussion with other interested parties if someone wanted to sell part of their unit.)

“The Coalition” of Forest Ethics Advocacy, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, and Living Oceans Society put up a witness panel David Hughes, an energy analyst, and Nathan Lemphers from the Pembina Foundation. Both witnesses had their credentials questioned, and neither was accorded full expert recognition.

Questioning from Northern Gateway, CAPP, and Cenovus et al was not friendly.

For example, Richard Neufeld for Northern Gateway characterized some of Mr. Hughes charts based on CAPP data, as appearing “to attribute things to CAPP” that CAPP did not say.

Later, in questions about a campaign to impede oil sands development in which Pembina Institute and Forest Ethics are both involved, Mr. Neufeld seized on some strategic activities that are part of that campaign, including mobilizing the public in the Northern Gateway hearing. “Mob the Mic”, Mr. Neufeld called it, before he was called on it by Barry Robinson, the Coalition’s lawyer.

Referring to the large numbers of people concerned about the project, Mr. Neufeld asked Mr. Lemphers, “So the campaign has been quite successful, from your perspective?”

Mr. Lemphers replied, “It's a fairly basic story. I think people can make up their own minds.”

David Coles, the President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union strongly championed his union’s view that bitumen exports should be curtailed in favour of domestic jobs and that Canada needs a national energy strategy.

The Government of Alberta panel sat for only a few questions before the day ended.

For a more detailed summary, please see the document below or download the PDF (189Kb)

Edmonton, Sept. 24th, Day 12

The Alberta Federation of Labour panel of AFL President Gil McGowan and economist Robyn Allan were questioned today by Richard Neufeld, counsel for Northern Gateway Pipelines (NGP) whose project is under review.

A question to Gil McGowan was intended to demonstrate that there is no restriction on bitumen that would inhibit construction of a new upgrader. Instead, Mr. McGowan said that “construction and operation costs have essentially priced Alberta out of the market in terms of upgrading and refining,” and that NGP would exacerbate that problem.

To underscore his point, Mr. McGowan referred to a Raymond James report which found that “basically every project that has been developed since 2008 has been at least 100 percent over budget and, in some cases, as much as 260 percent over budget.

Raymond James’ conclusion was that there were simply too many projects going on at the same time. Mr. McGowan said the AFL agrees with former Premier Peter Lougheed that we should set a more reasonable pace for development in the oil sands.

Ms. Allan stated that the expansion potential of NGP should be part of the consideration of this review. She said that the oil pipeline can go from 525,000 barrels a day to 850,000 barrels a day. And the condensate pipeline can go from 193,000 barrels a day to 274,000 barrels a day, with only the addition of pumping stations and pumps.”

”If you’re going to expand 60 percent in pipeline and 40 percent in condensate, you actually increase tanker traffic by over 50 percent and you also increase the amount of activity in the marine terminal. Risk is not additive; it’s exponential,” she said.

Joint Review Panel member Kenneth Bateman asked Ms. Allan about the value of a “parental guarantee” – the idea that Enbridge will backstop or guarantee all the costs of a major spill – Ms. Allan replied that “Enbridge won’t entertain that”. Mr. Bateman replied, “It’s not the Applicant who makes these decisions.”

In questioning the witness panel put up by five shippers on the NGP, Leanne Chahley, counsel for the Alberta Federation of Labour, exposed a concern for oil sands producers that has not received a lot of attention: competition in the traditional US markets.

John Van Heyst of Suncor noted that two US oil fields, Bakken and Eagleford, produced barely more than 100,000 barrels three years ago. “Production from those two fields alone is in excess of a million barrels today. So we’re having to compete in our traditional markets with growing U.S. production.”

For a more detailed summary, please see the document below or download the PDF (91Kb)