Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

Northern Gateway West Line
Location
Country	Canada
General direction	east–west
From	Bruderheim, Alberta
To	Kitimat, British Columbia
General information
Type	crude oil
Owner	Enbridge
Expected	2015
Technical information
Length	1,177 km (731 mi)
Maximum discharge	0.525 Mbbl/d (~2.62×10^7 t/a)
Diameter	36 in (914 mm)

Northern Gateway East Line
Location
Country	Canada
General direction	west–east
From	Kitimat, British Columbia
To	Bruderheim, Alberta
General information
Type	natural gas condensate
Owner	Enbridge
Expected	2015
Technical information
Length	1,177 km (731 mi)
Maximum discharge	193,000 barrels (30,700 m3) of condensate per day
Diameter	20 in (508 mm)

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project is a proposal to construct 1,170-kilometre twin pipeline pipelines running from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat, British Columbia. The eastbound pipeline would import natural gas condensate and the westbound pipeline would export crude oil where huge tanker ships will transport it to Asian markets. The $5.5 billion pipeline project also includes a proposed new marine terminal in Kitimat. This project is developed by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian crude oil and liquids pipeline company. Enbridge Inc., (TSX:ENB) wants to build an 1,170-kilometre twin pipeline from Bruderheim, Alberta to northwest B.C. where it will send oil to a port facility at Kitimat where huge tanker ships will transport it to Asian markets.

The pipeline and port, if completed, would provide 104 permanent jobs in Alberta and British Columbia and 3,000 temporary jobs during construction. The Douglas Channel that leads into Kitimat and surrounding northwest coast waters pose safety and weather hazards for oil tankers, particularly Very Large Crude Carrier envisioned for this project. First Nations and oil sands opponents among others, denounce the project on environmental, social and cultural grounds. The Northern Gateway project joint review three-member panel assessing the environmental effects of the proposed project held its first session in Kitamaat Village, British Columbia on January 10, 2012. Historically in Canada, First Nations who will be most affected by the risks benefit the least financially.

History

The project was proposed in mid-2000s and has been postponed several times. It was announced in 2006. Enbridge signed a cooperation agreement with PetroChina in 2005 to ensure the utilization of pipeline capacity. PetroChina agreed to buy about 200 thousand barrels per day (~1.0×10^⁷ t/a) transported through the pipeline. In 2007, however, PetroChina withdrew from the projects because of delays in starting the project.

On December 4, 2009, Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued the Joint Review Panel Agreement and the terms of reference for the environmental and regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.

Enbridge Northern Gateway submitted its project application to the National Energy Board on May 27, 2010. The eight-volume regulatory application will be assessed by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) established by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and the National Energy Board (NEB). On January 19, 2011, the JRP requested that Enbridge provide additional information on the design and risk assessment of the pipelines due to the difficult access and unique geographic location of the proposed project.

Technical description

The planned project consists of two parallel pipelines between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, each with a length of 1,177 kilometers (731 mi). Crude oil produced from oil sands would be transported from Bruderheim to Kitimat, while natural gas condensate would move in the opposite direction. Condensate would be used as a diluent in oil refining to decrease the viscosity of heavy crude oil from oil sands, and to make it easier to transport by pipelines. About 520 kilometers (320 mi) of pipeline would run in Alberta and 657 kilometers (408 mi) in British Columbia. The crude oil pipeline would have a diameter of 36 inches (910 mm) and a capacity of 525 thousand barrels per day (~2.62×10^⁷ t/a). The condensate pipeline would have a diameter of 20 inches (510 mm) with a capacity of 193,000 barrels (30,700 m³) per day. Enbridge expects these pipelines to be completed by 2015. It is expected to cost at least C$4.5 billion. The proposed Kitimat terminal would comprise two tanker berth platforms, one serving Very Large Crude Carriers and another serving Suezmax-type condensate tankers. The terminal would include oil and condensate tanks and a pump station.

Environmental assessment

As a inter-provincial pipeline, the project requires a public regulatory review process conducted by JRP. The JRP will provide a joint environmental assessment and regulatory process that will contribute to decision making. Other types of studies, such as socio-economic assessments, are also necessary prior to project approval. However, under the current regulations, the recommendations made in the assessments are non-binding and the project could be approved even if significant adverse environmental and socio-economic effects were found. At the provincial level, it may also be regulated by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO).^{[citation needed]}

Issues

Impact on native groups

The pipeline has been heavily criticized by native groups, as the pipeline traverses much of their traditional lands and threatens habitat for wild salmon, which they have relied upon for sustenance for thousands of years. In December 2010, over 61 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed a declaration in opposition to the project.

Dozens of native bands rely upon healthy waters for sustenance, specifically from the Skeena, Kitimat, Morice, Fraser, and Bulkley river systems, and from the coastal waters of British Columbia: the Haisla, Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Gitsan, Carrier, Sekane, and other tribes. Polluting the rivers or coastal waters of BC would effectively poison the waters, fish, and other animals that these people need to survive.^{[citation needed]}

Enbridge has announced that it is considering offering aboriginal groups an equity stake in the project to secure First Nations support for the project.

Several First Nations (including the Haisla, Gitga'at, Gitxaala, Wet'suwet’en, Nadleh Whut'en, Nak'azdli, and Takla Lake) have publicly stated (via the Joint Review Panel or in the media) that neither the Crown nor the established assessment process for Enbridge's project have adequately met their duty to consult and accommodate, or respect their Aboriginal Rights and Title.

Tanker moratorium in British Columbia

Proposed oil tanker routes to service the Northern Gateway Pipelines, and the tanker prohibition zone proposed by the federal Liberal Party.

There has been an informal moratorium on large tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound since 1972. Since then, the federal and provincial governments have commissioned periodic studies to reassess whether to lift the tanker moratorium. Each study has concluded that the risk of tanker spills is too high. In 2003–2004, the federal government initiated a three-part review process, including a scientific review by the Royal Society of Canada (the RSC report), a First Nations engagement process (the Brooks Report), and a public review process (the Priddle Panel). The RSC report concluded that "the present restriction on tanker traffic along the West Coast of British Columbia should be maintained for the time being."^{[citation needed]}

In 2009, the Canadian government's position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia. However, on December 7, 2010, Canada's environmental watchdog said that "Canada isn't ready to respond to a major oil spill emanating from a tanker or other vessel."

In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a motion to ban "very large" oil tanker traffic off the British Columbia coast.

Enbridge's history of incidents

The pipeline has been criticized by several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citing Enbridge's spotty history with pipeline installation and numerous spills. These NGOs point to numerous incidents, including the high-profile Kalamazoo spill of 2010, where over 3 megalitres (19,000 bbl) were spilled into the Kalamazoo river, and a spill in the Chicago area in 2010. Other concerns include the 2008 pipeline installation in Wisconsin, where over 500 regulatory violations were incurred in one year of construction. Enbridge has also had over 600 recorded leaks and breaks over the last 10 years.

The Pembina Institute has published a report saying that the pipeline will have adverse impacts on land, air, and water. Some of Enbridge's shareholders have asked the company to investigate the unique risks and liabilities associated with the project.[3]

On the first day of the public hearings into the company’s planned Northern Gateway pipeline, U.S. pipeline regulators informed Enbridge of the leak from its Stingray pipeline. Enbridge claimed they can continue operations at the Stingray pipeline which carries up to 560-million cubic feet a day of natural gas from offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Bubbles from the pipeline leak were observed about 100 kilometres from the Louisiana coast.

External links

• Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline