The Alberta government has barred the Oilsands Environmental Coalition from hearings on a proposed new oilsands development by Southern Pacific Resource Corp., even after a similar decision last fall was overturned by a judge.

Conservationists say the decision only makes clearer the Alberta government's tendency to shut down public dialogue on resource development. "The government hasn't learned its lesson from last time," said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, one of the groups in the coalition.

Dyer said the coalition will be appealing the second ruling, reports the Canadian Press.

Alberta Environment first denied the coalition standing to participate in hearings about a development on the MacKay River in northern Alberta in 2012, which would expand an existing steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project. The expansion would result in the extraction of an additional 24,000 barrels per day (bpd) of bitumen.

The Alberta government argued that the group was not directly affected by the project, even though members of the Pembina Institute have a recreational lease in the area, and 45 others live nearby in Fort McMurray.

The coalition applied for a judicial review of the decision. During the process, a 2009 Alberta Environment memo was discovered that singled out the coalition, which includes Pembina and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association, as "not simple to work with" and as having published "negative media on the oil sands."

Justice Richard Marceau invalidated the government's decision on the basis of the 2009 memo, writing in his statement that the law does not permit the Alberta government to "reject statements of concern from those persons or groups who voice negative statements about proposed oil sands development."

"The process of identifying who is 'directly affected' should not be decided by the application of rigid rules," Marceau wrote, noting that there would be no environmentalist voices present at the Southern Pacific hearing if the coalition were barred.

Regardless, in a March 27 letter to the coalition, Alberta Environment official Kevin Wilkinson repeated the very reasoning that got the 2012 decision overturned.

Wilkinson wrote that the coalition is not a legal entity and cannot therefore be considered directly affected, saying that the recreational lease "is no more compelling than the ability for any Albertan to recreate on public land." He added that homes in Fort McMurray, 45 kilometres from the development, were too distant for residents to be considered directly affected.

Wilkinson also assured coalition members that their concerns would be "considered by the designated director, even if the person who submitted the concern is found not to be directly affected."

Dyer noted that the coalition has participated in many other provincial hearings before, and continues to be granted standing at joint federal-provincial hearings. He said that the government's decision is indicative of a pattern of tighter restrictions on who gets to voice concern to regulators about the oilsands.

Earlier this year, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) cancelled the public hearing on the Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s proposed Kirby Expansion Project after none of the groups that applied to participate were allowed standing. Statements of concern were filed by the Oilsands Environmental Coalition and several First Nations, all of whom were denied. The Kirby Expansion Project, another SAGD project, was subsequently "referred by the hearing panel AER staff for further review and dispensation without hearing."

Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary, called the government's tests for deciding standing at hearings "narrow and stringent."

Spokeswoman Katrina Bluetchen said that there has been no regulatory change at Alberta Environment. "Nothing has changed," she said. "It was deemed (the coalition) was not directly affected."

The government has kept information on how many groups have been denied standing in hearings restricted. An access to information request put in by the Canadian Press has been at Alberta Environment for six months without any result.

Dyer thinks Alberta Environment's actions harm the ability of the province to evaluate the impact of resource development, saying that "the government should err on the side of allowing people to speak and collecting input" to help make responsible decisions.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Former TransCanada employee and engineer Evan Vokes, who released thousands of pages of records after he was dismissed by the corporation in 2012, believes that a newly acquired internal email shows his managers tried to discredit him for raising the alarm on their safety practices.

Vokes obtained the email in Feburary 2014 through access to information legislation, reports Mike De Souza for InsideClimate News. Most of the message was censored by TransCanada before release, but the first line clearly mentions "managing the EV [Evan Vokes] credibility issue."

"My understanding is that we have been reasonably successful at influencing authorities [redacted] and pointing out EV is disgruntled, and actually had the responsibility to correct these same matters and did not," reads the email, dated July 26, 2013.

TransCanada has not disclosed the identity of the employee who wrote the email or the "authorities" referred to in it. "We are not going to debate interpretations of the wording used by TransCanada staff members in old emails or private records," spokesman Davis Sheremata told InsideClimate News.

The previous records released by Vokes document internal safety issues raised within the energy company over its operations in Canada, as well as in the United States, where it hopes to build the proposed multibillion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline project. Vokes submitted the records as evidence when he appeared before a Canadian Senate committee hearing on energy policies in 2013.

The U.S. State Department, which is reviewing the Keystone XL project, declined to comment on whether they'd discussed Vokes with TransCanada. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also declined to comment on the email.

Vokes believes TransCanada's management tried to discredit him because they got "fed up" with his allegations that the company was saving money by skimping on safety inspections and repairs.

 Pipeline section marked 'junk' by TransCanada. Photo by Dave Whitley via Flickr.

A pattern of dismissal 

"There are literally thousands of cracks in the system but they sit there until somebody disturbs them," Vokes told InsideClimate News in an interview. "Whether it's the ground or frost, construction in the area, or a farmer doing work, suddenly all these substandard construction techniques can become a major problem because they were never dealt with during construction."

Vokes's records include discussions that took place within TransCanada about safety concerns that management dismissed. In a January 2011 email exchange, an engineering technologist, Russell Wong, was told by management to "stop these e-mails" when he warned them not to hire a welding company based on its poor performance history. Another engineering technologist asked whether the company would provide inspectors to examine the Keystone pipeline in a June 2011 email. Manager Tom Hamilton, in charge of quality and compliance for Keystone, wrote "Ha ha ha" in his email response.

Another series of internal emails from June 2011 between Vokes and other engineers and managers documents how TransCanada employees were unable to find records on the company's welding procedures for months, after they were reqested by provincial regulator Alberta Boilers Safety Association.

In another June 2011 email, Vokes himself was told by David Taylor, a manager of materials and engineering, to stop raising concerns and "accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company."

TransCanada said that it could not comment on Vokes' eventual dismissal or whether the managers in the emails were disciplined, because of privacy and confidentiality issues.

Breaking pipeline safety regulations and whistleblower protections in Canada

Vokes collected most of the records over his five years working at TransCanada, where he specialized in "non-destructive" examination of pipeline infrastructure using tools and visual inspections. His complaints about pipeline safety led the National Energy Board (NEB) to conduct an audit of TransCanada's operations, released February 2014. The NEB found no immediate safety concerns, but concluded that TransCanada was breaking Canadian pipeline regulations in areas including "Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control…Inspection, Measurement and Monitoring; and Management Review."

Another audit on TransCanada's management, released April 24, found that the company's management wasn't meeting requirements to protect concerned whistleblowers like Vokes.

When asked by InsideClimate News about the email concerning Vokes, the NEB said that TransCanada did not try to interfere with the audits.

"At no time during numerous interactions between board staff and TransCanada staff did the company attempt to influence the board on the character of Mr. Vokes," NEB spokeswoman Erin Dottor said in an email. "The source of any complaint or issue identification in no way impacts the NEB's commitment to take action to mitigate or prevent potential hazards to public safety or environmental protection."

Keystone XL future uncertain

The controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone XL project has brought TransCanada's safety record under close scrutiny. The company's existing Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Oklahoma, has suffered at least 35 leaks or other incidents since it opened in June 2010. If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, crossing several sensitive U.S. water sources. Oilsands development is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada.

The Obama administration's decision on Keystone XL has been continually delayed since the project was first proposed in 2008, and has met with opposition in both the United States and Canada. The final decision on the project isn't expected till November, owing to the latest hurdle–an ongoing court case over the pipeline's route through Nebraska.

Dave Domina, a lawyer representing Nebraska landowners challenging the Keystone XL pipeline's route, said that "TransCanada has a tug-of-war going on between environmental safety and profit." He said that the emails acquired by Vokes probably couldn't be used in the court case, however, though they come into play if the state is forced to restart the approval process.

Meanwhile, Vokes has been notified by the federal privacy commissioner's office that it is reviewing the censored portions of the documents released by TransCanada to him, after the company agreed to an audit. The privacy commissioner's investigator will be meeting with TransCanada management face to face after the materials are reviewed, though the company has asked that Vokes not be present.

Image Credit: TransCanada promotional video screen cap

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new poll released Thursday finds that more than three quarters of British Columbia residents want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to embrace cleaner sources of energy.

The online survey, conducted by Strategic Communications Inc., found that 78 per cent of British Columbians agree that B.C. should transition away from using fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy to prevent climate change from worsening, compared to 17 per cent who disagree.

"As climate science continues to demonstrate, climate change could have devastating impacts on both the environment and the economy," said Kevin Sauve, spokesperson for the Pembina Institute in B.C.

"It's encouraging to see that British Columbians are on the same page. Not only do they understand the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but see economic benefits in developing cleaner sources of energy as well."

"British Columbia is largely sitting on the sidelines of a global clean energy bonanza," said Merran Smith, Director of Clean Energy Canada. "Citizens know that the world's energy system is changing. The provincial government needs to strengthen the province's clean energy economy through targeted policy today."

The poll was commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Eight hundred and two adult B.C. residents were surveyed from April 1 to April 2, 2014, using an established proprietary research panel. The results were statistically weighted according to the most recent education, age, gender and region Census data to provide a representative sample of the B.C. population.

"This poll sends a clear message that British Columbians want steps put in place now to transition this province towards a prosperous low-carbon future," said Tom Pedersen, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). "It is encouraging to see such strong support for change across all levels of society, but especially among tomorrow's leaders — 18-34 year olds."

The poll found that 67 per cent of B.C. residents agree that the province should decrease its reliance on fossil fuels for greater economic security while more than 78 per cent suggested a move away from fossil fuels is necessary to avoid worsening climate change. Another 74 per cent agreed the province could benefit from clean sector jobs and growing the alternative energy economy.

Natural gas "out of step with clean energy"

The results of the poll come as B.C. Premier Christy Clark is pushing for the increased development of natural gas fields and liquified natural gas (LNG) plants for export.

On Earth Day, April 22nd, Environment Minister Mark Polak suggested the rush to develop the province's vast gas deposits was a part of B.C.'s climate plan.

“Our proven track record of climate leadership and our unwavering commitment to sustainable economic growth will also guide the development of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry. Climate change is a global issue. By exporting our abundant natural gas, B.C. will supply growing markets with the cleanest burning fossil fuel from the world’s cleanest LNG plants," she said.

Yet B.C.'s natural gas and LNG ambitions might not square with its ambitious emissions reductions.

“There are scenarios under which natural gas could potentialy be a transition fuel and that’s certainly the way the government has been positioning it," Sauve told DeSmog Canada. "But there is very little analysis to back that up.”

An increase in natural gas development will pile up on the climate impacts of other fossil fuels, Sauve said.

“Given this poll it looks like [the development of natural gas] is out of step with the expectations of British Columbians. It is out of step with clean energy.”

He added: “The general direction B.C. wants to go in is away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy.”

Image Credit: Sookie / Flickr Figures 1-3: British Columbians' opinions on climate change and clean energy: poll summary

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

More than 100 scientists and economists "concerned about climate change and its impacts" signed an open letter Monday calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, mainly for export.

The signers "urge [President Obama and Secretary Kerry] to reject the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline as a project that will contribute to climate change at a time when we should be doing all we can to put clean energy alternatives in place."

The letter, signed by prominent leaders in science and economics, is the latest addition to an already strong and growing opposition to the Keystone XL project in the U.S., including 2 million public comments sent to President Obama and a previous open letter signed last month by over 200 business leaders and entrepreneurs asking for the rejection of the pipeline.

The signers write:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada's Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction."

The signers remind President Obama and Secretary Kerry of their previous commitments to combating climate change, and reiterate that "evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change."

The letter emphasizes that fuels from oilsands crude result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuel from conventional oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would open up overseas markets for higher-polluting oilsands fuels, causing "a sizeable expansion of tar sands production and also an increase in the related greenhouse gas pollution."

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have yet to make a final decision on Keystone XL. The U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the pipeline, released in January, has been criticized by environmental groups as flawed and narrow in scope.

As the open letter observes, "the State Department environmental review chose an inconsistent model for its 'most likely' scenarios, using business-as-usual energy scenarios that would lead to a catastrophic six degrees Celsius rise in global warming," a potential rise that, the signers note, "has no place in a sound climate plan."  

A decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, write the signers, would be one "based on sound science," given the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2e emissions the pipeline could produce over its expected 50-year lifespan.

"These are emissions that can and should be avoided with a transition to clean energy," states the letter.

The signers in the letter include Nobel Prize winners Dr. Philip W. Anderson and Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, environmental activist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, several authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy and Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, among numerous other lauded scientists and economists.

The public can add their voice against the Keystone XL pipeline to an online petition hosted by the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC).

Image Credit: maisa_nyc / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last week the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) rejected a request this month from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the deadline to apply as a participant in the public hearings on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion.

The EPA was unaware of a February 12 deadline to apply as a participant in hearings on the proposed $5.4 million expansion of the Vancouver-to-Edmonton Trans Mountain pipeline, which would increase its capacity from 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) of diluted bitumen to 890,000 bpd.

The pipeline expansion, which is supported by 13 oil companies, will free the flow of landlocked Albertan oil to Asian markets overseas.

The EPA reportedly needed more time to “follow through with agency protocols and procedures” before applying to take part in the hearings, according to a notice filed with the NEB. Media relations and communications advisor Hanady Aisha Kader said in an e-mail that the EPA is “reviewing information and considering any appropriate next steps in reviewing potential transboundary environmental impacts posed by the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion.>

Kader added that the agency “has been in touch with individuals, groups and government agencies in Washington State; Environment Canada; and Canada’s National Energy Board,” but could not give any further information.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline route.

Ben West, tar sands campaign director at ForestEthics Advocacy Association said that “it seems that the EPA didn’t have sufficient time to do their own internal process in order to apply within the short window the NEB put forward,” but found it “mind-boggling…that Harper would so publicly slap the U.S. government in the face in regards to this proposed pipeline project.”

This wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. and Canada have faced tensions over pipelines. Prime Minister Harper has criticized President Obama for “punting” the decision on whether to approve the proposed cross-border TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline’s development remains in limbo until the U.S. approves it.

Sven Biggs, campaign organizer for ForestEthics, observed that not only has the window to apply for NEB hearings been getting “smaller and smaller,” going from five months for the Enbridge hearings to twenty-eight days for Kinder Morgan, but “adding to the confusion, initially the NEB were telling folks that this comment period would start in April.”

Environmental groups on the Canadian side see the EPA being shut out of the hearings as an inevitable result of sweeping changes to environmental laws made by the Harper government in 2012. These changes included repealing the Canada Environment Assessment Act and replacing it with the CEAA 2012.

“CEAA 2012 replaced the CEA Agency with the NEB as the responsible authority for certain projects, such as pipelines, and imposed tight timelines on the completion of the review process,” Eugene Kung, a lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, told DeSmog Canada.

Harper’s reform of environmental law has resulted in a review process that is “less democratic, less transparent, less thorough and less accountable,” said Kung.

After the changes made by the federal government, members of the public can only register to comment or intervene in an NEB hearing if they are ‘directly affected’ by the project being assessed, rather than an ‘interested party,’ as was the case prior to 2012. Whether or not the NEB will consider the EPA as ‘directly affected’ remains to be seen.

West thinks there is ample reason to see the EPA as a ‘directly affected’ party, since “there are clearly implications for the environment along [the] west coast of the U.S. if there was an oil spill from the tankers passing by Puget Sound and down the coast.”

Map of tanker route along the Washington border from Living Oceans Society.

“Furthermore, the EPA has expressed concerns regarding the carbon footprint of tar sands oil and should have the ability to submit evidence to the government of Canada in regards to these concerns,” West added.

Kung agreed that the impact of the Trans Mountain expansion is not limited by international borders, with “the dramatic nearly 700% increase in tanker traffic through the Salish Sea and the corresponding increase in a catastrophic oil spill[s]” ensuring lasting effects both in Canada and the U.S. The fact that the NEB is not considering the upstream or downstream impacts of the project on emissions from oilsands expansion and burning oilsands crude abroad “further demonstrates the shortcomings of the proposed environmental assessment,” said Kung.

According to Kung, the EPA now has the option of filing a judicial review to the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal about the NEB decision. The Harper government’s changes to the NEB Act means NEB decisions on whether it will consider the representation of a person (including the EPA) are final.

“As this situation demonstrates, the new Environmental Assessment regime places very strict limitations on public process to the point where the EPA may not be able to contribute their wealth of knowledge and experience in regulating Kinder Morgan with the NEB,” said Kung.

Kung explained that West Coast Environmental Law, along with ForestEthics and the Sierra Club, hosted two webinars to explain the NEB application process because of public confusion over the new rules.

“Many people reported difficulties navigating the complex application system,” said Kung, but “despite all the hurdles and challenges, 2,134 people, organizations and institutions had filed applications, including over 50 First Nations, municipal governments, concerned citizens groups, businesses and homeowners.”

Image Credit: ForestEthics Advocacy Association / Who Writes the Rules? A Report on Oil Industry Influence, Government Law, and the Corrosion of Public Process

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A new report from Pembina Institute says that the proposed TransCanada Energy East pipeline could generate up to 32 million tonnes (Mt) of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the crude oil production required to fill it. Thirty-two million tonnes of carbon emissions is the equivalent of adding 7 million cars to Canada's roads, exceeding the projected emissions of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

The Keystone XL pipeline, in comparison, would generate 22 Mt of additional GHG emissions through oilsands production, according to a previous report by Pembina. The estimated emissions impact of Energy East is "higher than the total current provincial emissions of five provinces."

The $12 million Energy East pipeline, proposed by TransCanada in August 2013, would have the capacity to transport 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands and conventional crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. According to the report, the volume of new oilsands production associated with Energy East would represent up to a 39 per cent increase from 2012 oilsands production levels.

Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Energy East compared to those of selected provinces. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Oilsands production is currently Canada's fastest growing source of GHG emissions, and is set to nearly triple between now and 2030, according to Environment Canada. Report authors Clare Demerse and Erin Flanagan told DeSmog Canada that this growth is "the single largest barrier to achieving [Canada's] 2020 climate target."

Given that Canada is set to miss its 2020 emissions reduction target by 122 Mt with current measures, Demerse and Flanagan see the Energy East proposal's potential to add a new source of GHGs from the oilsands as "significant and troubling."

The authors stress that the report, titled Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline, only assesses the pipeline's upstream, "Well-to-Refinery Gate" emissions impact, rather than the downstream, "Well-to-Wheel" emissions of the crude oil being transported, which would include emissions released by its combustion in vehicle engines. The actual climate impact of Energy East would therefore be even greater than figures in the report.

"The oilsands are already Canada's fastest-growing source of carbon pollution and the Energy East pipeline would help to accelerate production. Any regulatory review should include not only the impact of the pipeline itself, but also the impact of producing the crude that would flow through it," said Demerse, Federal Policy Director at Pembina.

Figure 2: Change in GHG emissions by economic sector, 2005-2020. Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline: A Preliminary Assessment. The Pembina Institute, 2014.

Demerse and Flanagan hope that the report will urge the National Energy Board (NEB) to undertake a more thorough appraisal of Energy East's environmental impact than its review of Enbridge's Northern Gateway proposal, saying that they wanted to submit their findings "before the National Energy Board decides on the format of its review."

The authors note that "many Canadians asked for consideration of the impacts of oilsands production in the Northern Gateway hearings," so if the NEB chooses a "more complete and balanced review of the Energy East proposal – one that looks at the environmental impacts of filling the pipeline as well as the pipeline infrastructure itself – I think the regulators would simply be catching up to where Canadians already are."

TransCanada is set to submit its regulatory application for Energy East to the NEB later this year.

The report recommends that the NEB "include the pipeline's full upstream impacts in the scope of its review, and that the federal government should end its delays and adopt strong emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector."

The report mentions that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have been found to lower oilsands production emissions, but adds that "Canada lacks the kind of stringent climate policies that would provide a strong incentive for those kinds of investments," especially considering the high cost of such technology.

ICO2N, a group of energy companies invested in developing CCS technology, estimates that a carbon price of $125/tonne is necessary to justify capture of approximately 15 per cent of oilsands CO2.

The authors believe that approving projects like Energy East and Keystone XL could "see less emphasis on, and less encouragement of, clean energy investment in Canada" when the country needs to be "starting the transition to a clean energy future."

"The oilsands industry plans to triple production by 2030 and building new pipelines is necessary to realize those ambitions. We need to look at the full scope of impacts when evaluating pipelines," said Flanagan.

In its 2013 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Association (IEA) modelled a scenario where countries take the action required to keep global warming below 2 degrees C, and found that global demand for oil would likely peak in 2020 and fall thereafter. Demerse and Flanagan suggest that Canada needs to "keep that kind of long-term picture in mind when we're considering a pipeline proposal that could last for 30, 40 or 50 years."

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

According to a recent poll commissioned by four environmental groups, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of residents in British Columbia oppose Enbridge's plan to transport crude oil through B.C. using the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tankers.

The hybrid telephone-online poll, conducted by Justason Market Intelligence, found that 50 per cent of B.C. residents strongly oppose the Enbridge proposal, compared to 12 per cent who strongly support it.

The poll was commissioned by Dogwood Initiative, ForestEthics Advocacy, Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research and West Coast Environmental Law. Six hundred adult British Columbians were surveyed from January 13 to January 19, 2014 through random telephone sampling and Justason's online panel.

"When British Columbians actually get the facts about oil tanker and pipeline proposals, their opposition is overwhelming," said Will Horter, executive director of Dogwood Initiative. "Other polls in the past few months have only talked about pipelines, with no mention of the crude oil supertankers that would inevitably come with them."

Image: Oil Tanker Traffic in B.C.: The B.C. Outlook Omnibus / Justason Market Intelligence

This is the first poll released about Enbridge's oil tanker and pipeline proposal since the National Review Board's controversial joint review panel (JRP) report recommended conditional approval of the project in December.

When asked whether they trust the review process, 51 per cent of B.C. residents said they distrust the process, 32 per cent said they trust it, and 17 per cent were unsure.

"These polling results bring home why the Enbridge tanker and pipeline proposal is going nowhere fast — despite the JRP recommendation," said Jessica Clogg of the West Coast Environmental Law Association. "Residents of B.C. continue to withhold 'social licence' for the project, while multiple First Nations lawsuits threaten to derail it and the government of B.C. formally opposed the Enbridge project."

According to the poll, a significant majority of British Columbians (79 per cent) feel that decisions about projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal should be made with public participation, while only 13 per cent feel that such decisions should be made solely by government.

"British Columbians simply do not accept closed door decision-making and know they deserve a say. Any politicians thinking of cutting a backroom deal do so at their peril," Horter said.

A March 2012 Justason Market Intelligence poll had nearly identical results with 66 per cent of B.C. residents opposing the Enbridge proposal, and 50 per cent strongly opposed.

"For all the millions of dollars Enbridge has spent in advertising over the past two years, opposition to this proposal hasn't budged," said Sven Biggs of ForestEthics Advocacy.

Image Credit: Travis Blanston / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto has found that air pollution emissions released by oilsands operations in Alberta are likely two to three times higher than previously estimated.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed U.S. journal, modeled levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) released by oilsands bitumen extraction. PAHs are toxic air pollutants released by the burning of fossil fuels, and can be highly carcinogenic.

"When dealing with chemicals that have such great potential to harm people and animals, it is absolutely vital that we truly understand how, and how much they are being released into the environment," said Abha Parajulee, co-author of the report, in a press release.

The researchers found PAH estimates "in environmental impact assessments conducted to approve developments in the Athabasca oil sands region are likely too low."

The study raises concerns about the accuracy of government-conducted environmental impact assessments on the oilsands, following the recent U.S. State Department report on Keystone XL, which claimed that the pipeline would have little environmental impact.

"If you use these officially reported emissions for the oil sands area you get an emissions density that is lower than just about anywhere else in the world," study co-author Frank Wania said. Wania is professor in the department of physical and environmental sciences at the University of Toronto.

Corporate estimates for oilsands pollution were "inadequate and incomplete," said Wania, insisting that a "complete and accurate account of the emissions" would be required before it is possible to "make a meaningful assessment of the environmental impact and of the risk to human health."

Previous government-approved estimates for PAH emissions from the oilsands, which fall within regulatory levels, do not take into account indirect pathways for the pollutant to enter the atmosphere, including evaporation from tailing ponds.

The researchers said that their model's predictions are consistent with actual PAH measurements taken near the Athabasca oilsands region by academic scientists and Environment Canada, which are much higher than reported industry estimates.

The researchers' model also factored in PAHs released by transport and storage of waste materials in oilsands production.

"Tailing ponds are not the end of the journey for the pollutants they contain. PAHs are highly volatile, meaning they escape into the air much more than many people think," Parajulee said.

"It was shocking to me to understand that current environmental impact assessments do not take [the volatility of PAHs] into account at all," said Jonathan Martin, an associate professor in the department of environmental toxicology at the University of Alberta, who reviewed the study before its publication.

"It just shows how little we know," Martin said. He added that PAH measurements need to be taken above tailing ponds to confirm the research model's projections, which would require corporate permission.

Wania said that Environment Canada has shown interest in the report's findings, and has agreed to fund further research.

"We are not at the world-class level to really be championing that," said Andrew Read, a researcher with Pembina Institute, and a member of the joint oilsands monitoring program. Read expressed doubt that there was adequate funding to properly monitor oilsands emissions.

"There is a concern there that we are not doing the effective monitoring that is necessary to really understand the full impact on the environment," Read said.

The results of the University of Toronto-funded study were published Monday.

Image Credit: Kris Krug

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

British Columbia's Gitxaala Nation filed a lawsuit on January 17 claiming the federal Joint Review Panel's (JRP) report that recommended approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline was flawed and unlawful.

The B.C. First Nation's lawsuit is one of many filed in response to the report, including one filed by the Environmental Law Centre on behalf of B.C. Nature and another filed by Ecojustice on behalf of three different environmental groups.

Rosanne Kyle, lawyer for the Gitxaala Nation, said that the "Gitxaala were given the opportunity to speak, but were not heard."

The Gitxaala Nation's lawyers said that the review panel did not properly consider Aboriginal rights and title or weigh the public interest against the pipeline's economic benefits to the Alberta oilsands.

The band participated in the hearings, expending significant resources in submitting more than 7,500 pages of documentary evidence, providing nine expert witnesses and including a 320-page submission detailing the adverse effects of having as many as 230 supertankers moving through Gitxaala Nation territory annually.

The band claims tanker traffic in traditional waters violate their Aboriginal rights and title, noting the potential catastrophic effects an oil spill in the region's narrow coastal channels may have on Gitxaala way of life and the ecosystems they've harvested from for centuries.

The suit observes that the review panel had a mandate to consider the band's constitutionally protected rights in a meaningful way, and chose to ignore it.

"The Gitxaala played by the rules," said Clarence Innis, acting chief of the Gitxaala Nation. "The JRP had a responsibility to take our concerns seriously but it didn't."

Kyle also said that a series of recent government reports support the Gitxaala's concerns but were released too late to be considered by the panel for their report.

Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Northern Gateway Pipelines, said in an e-mail that "Northern Gateway does not believe this will necessarily delay the review by the federal government of the (Joint Review Panel's) report," reports CTV News.

Despite the multiple lawsuits questioning the report's decision, Giesbrecht added that the JRP's recommendations were "based on science and the input of experts," and that the evidence presented was the "most thorough and comprehensive proceeding in Canadian history."

Cabinet has 180 days from the time it received the report, released in December, to make a final decision on the pipeline, adhering to the 209 conditions laid out in the report.

Image: Jennifer Castro / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Environmental groups, including ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, filed a lawsuit today to block cabinet approval of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.  

Ecojustice lawyers representing the three groups filed the lawsuit at the federal court level, saying that the Joint Review Panel's (JRP) final report on the pipeline is based on insufficient evidence and does not satisfy the legislated requirements of the environmental assessment process.

"The JRP did not have enough evidence to support its conclusion that the Northern Gateway pipeline would not have significant adverse effects on certain aspects of the environment," said Karen Campbell, Ecojustice staff lawyer.

The panel, a joint effort of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, held an 18-month review of the proposed $6.3 million Enbridge pipeline, which would ship 520,000 barrels per day of diluted oilsands bitumen to the B.C. coast for export on tankers.

The three groups behind the lawsuit were participants in the review process.

Campbell said that the panel made its recommendation "despite known gaps in the evidence, particularly missing information about the risk of geohazards along the pipeline route and what happens to diluted bitumen when it is spilled in the marine environment."

For example, the panel's conclusion that diluted bitumen is unlikely to sink in an ocean environment was refuted by a federal report released last week. This suggests that potential spills could have more serious environmental impacts and be more difficult to clean up than the panel's report makes evident.

Karen Wristen, executive director of Living Oceans Society, said that they "have no choice but to go to court and challenge the JRP's final report."

"The panel's recommendation was made without considering important evidence that highlights the threat Northern Gateway poses to the B.C. Coast," Wristen said.

The panel also failed to consider the final recovery strategy for humpback whales or identify mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on caribou, as required by sec. 79(2) of the Species at Risk Act.

"The proposed tanker route travels directly through humpback whale critical habitat identified in the recovery strategy. Yet the panel refused to consider this potential conflict when making its recommendation," said Dr. Paul Paquet, senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Paquet said that "the panel's failure to consider the project's likely adverse impact on the whales makes no sense," considering that "the federal government will be required to legally protect the humpbacks and their habitat beginning in April."

Although the panel's final report concluded that 35 per cent of the Northern Gateway's economic benefit would come from upstream oilsands development, it did not address the environmental impacts associated with oilsands development, despite a clear request to do so.

Nikki Skuce, senior energy campaigner with ForestEthics Advocacy, said that the panel "cannot consider the so-called economic benefits of oilsands expansion tied to this pipeline but ignore the adverse impacts that expansion will have on climate change, endangered wildlife and ecosystems."

"The environmental assessment process is supposed to consider both sides of the coin, and in this instance the panel failed," Skuce said.

The panel's environmental assessment found the oil tanker and pipeline project was unlikely to have adverse environmental effects, aside from cumulative impacts on some grizzly bear and caribou populations. Campbell said this conclusion was reached "without considering all the necessary and available science."

Campbell added that the report "only tells part of the story, and we are asking the court to ensure that this flawed report doesn't stand as the final word on whether Northern Gateway is in the national interest."    

The lawsuit seeks a federal court ruling to prevent the government from relying on the flawed report to approve Northern Gateway.

A spokeswoman for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government would not comment on the lawsuit, reports the Globe and Mail.

"As the minister said before, we will thoroughly review the report, consult with affected First Nations, and then make our decision," said Melissa Lantsman, Oliver's director of communications. "Our government will continue to take action to improve the transportation safety of energy products across Canada."

Cabinet is set to make a decision based on the panel's recommendation in the following six months. Under the new environmental assessment framework forced through in the 2012 spring omnibus budget, cabinet has final decision-making power over Northern Gateway, bound by the 209 conditions laid out in the panel's report.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.