With the May 27 deadline for evidence submission to the National Energy Board’s review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project fast approaching, the cities of Burnaby and Vancouver are stepping up.

Last Wednesday, the City of Burnaby quietly released a report [PDF] outlining the risks and possible implications of a fire at the Burnaby tanker terminal. The results, to quote Mayor Derek Corrigan, are “comprehensive and jarring.”

“It is remarkable that Kinder Morgan is even asking the citizens of Burnaby to assume such risks, but even moreso that the National Energy Board is willing to consider expanding this storage site in this location — on a hillside near thousands of residents and a busy university, and adjacent to an urban conservation area. This report clearly demonstrates that questions about the safety of this proposed tank farm expansion should be answered prior to any decisions being made by the NEB and that the Board should consider this an essential priority.”

Encompassing 60 pages, the report explores several scenarios where oil could spill and ignite at Kinder Morgan’s tank storage facility off Hastings Street, including a tank fire, explosion and a major earthquake.

Too Many Tanks, Too Little Space

According to the report, the largest potential risk to Burnaby lies in the addition of a large number of new tanks to the existing farm. In order to accommodate the increased output of the twinned pipeline, Kinder Morgan would need to increase the number of tanks at its storage facility from 12 to 26, adding 14 new larger tanks (one of which is a replacement). 

Adding in the proposed new storage tanks on the existing site greatly reduces the buffer zone between the tanks, and moves them significantly closer to the public. 

When a fire occurs at the tank farm — and the report makes it clear that no company can make a 100 per cent guarantee they won't — it will have the potential to be more severe in magnitude, and pose a much greater risk to the public. The closer the tanks are, the more likely it is that nearby storage tanks could to catch fire as well. The report notes that “the distance between storage tanks is a key design and engineering feature provided to allow firefighters to effectively isolate an active tank fire, preventing a multiple tank fire event” and that many of the potential tank fire scenarios within the Trans Mountain Tank Farm facility would be inextinguishable due to lack of safe firefighting positions.

"In order to extinguish a tank fire within the Trans Mountain Tank Farm, emergency responders could be forced to significantly risk their personal safety in order to overcome the design inadequacies of the facility. Specifically, the configuration of the tank farm on a hillside in such a tight footprint would require firefighting personnel to operate in elevated positions above the tank, exposing them to potentially excessive heat and smoke outfalls. In these instances emergency responders would likely be forced to allow the tank fire to burn out while adjacent tanks are protected." – Burnaby Fire Department

A worst case scenario tank farm fire, as set out in the report, is legitimately terrifying: a fire breaks out in one or more of the tanks. It spreads quickly through the close-set tanks, as flames burst across the tops of nearby trees and into the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area. This cuts off road access to Simon Fraser University, exposing the thousands of people living, studying and working there to noxious burning bitumen fumes, including extremely toxic hydrogen sulfide.

The possible impact of an earthquake dumps even more fuel on the nightmare pyre. According to the report: “The potential liquid product release scenario stemming from an expected regional area seismic event would be catastrophic in nature, and has potential to release the contents of several if not all of the storage tanks simultaneously, overwhelming the facilities' retention provisions and flowing unrestricted to highly populated residential areas and sensitive environmental habitats.”

A Bitumen-coated Shoreline in Less than 72 Hours

On Friday morning, the City of Vancouver released their first new piece of evidence — a 2D computer spill model encompassing four scenarios of how oil might spread if spilled in Burrard Inlet. The City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby and Tsleil-Waututh Nation commissioned the report by spill modelling experts Genwest Systems.

The new report finds two key faults with the oil spill models submitted by Kinder Morgan as part of their application to the National Energy Board. Firstly, that Kinder Morgan’s models do not account for beached oil refloating after an initial spill, and secondly, that the supplied modelling of a spill at the Westridge Marine Terminal was ‘unrealistic’ and relied too much on the assumption that containment booms are always properly placed and always work.

The time-lapse video below shows how bitumen and condensate would spread if one of Kinder Morgan’s Aframax-sized tankers spilled 1/5th of its bitumen cargo into Burrard Inlet near the Lion’s Gate Bridge.

In all of its scenarios, Genwest Systems noted how quickly oil spreads in the confined space of Burrard Inlet. Within 72 hours, spilled oil would spread throughout Burrard Inlet to Indian Arm, the Port Moody Arms and to the outer harbour and beyond, with winds and tides spreading them even further. 

100,000 Seabirds and the Pacific Orca Pod at Risk

An additional study on the impact of a Kinder Morgan bitumen spill on local wildlife was released on Monday. Titled “Fate and Effect of Oil Spills from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary,” the report finds that the “extraordinarily high densities and numbers of sea‐ and shorebirds, marine mammals, and fish make them especially vulnerable to potentially devastating mortalities should a major oil spill occur in Burrard Inlet or the Fraser River estuary.” 

With 90 per cent of spilled oil likely to reach shorelines within 48 hours, the intertidal zones of beaches and shorelines become “effective killing zones” for sea and shorebirds. In particular, a large diluted bitumen spill near the Fraser River estuary, could potentially kill more than 100,000 birds, plus other nearby mammals. At the same time, large numbers of marine mammals including Harbour seals and porpoises — plus the southern resident Orca population — could perish. The orca pod, if affected, may risk extinction altogether. 

Kinder Morgan Responds

As media began to cover the release of the reports, Kinder Morgan forwarded an email comment to Burnaby Now. It reads: 

"The terminal in Burnaby has been operating safely for 60 years and through our maintenance, prevention and emergency preparedness programs, we are confident in our ability to prevent and respond to all kinds of incidents,” said Michael Davies, a senior director with the company. “Trans Mountain filed a preliminary risk assessment for Burnaby terminal as part of the National Energy Board review of our proposed expansion. It concludes that through design and good management practices the risk of a fire at the terminal is low. We encourage feedback on our proposed expansion and will be reviewing the report from the Burnaby Fire Department in more detail and would welcome a discussion with them to better understand and address their concerns and questions."

It is worth noting that while Kinder Morgan’s preliminary risk assessment is available online, their accident/spill preparedness plans cannot be compared against the reports from the Burnaby Fire Department or the City of Vancouver as the company has filed legal documents to prevent the public from seeing them.

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 National Energy Board’s decision to grant Costco intervener status in its review of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline even though it had missed the deadline to apply is raising questions given that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was denied its request for an extension to the same deadline.

Costco submitted a late application to participate in the review of Kinder Morgan’s proposal to triple the capacity of its pipeline to Burnaby on April 9, 2015. The company argued that it received formal notice of the pipeline’s potential impacts on its Langley property on Feb. 4, 2015, when it was served with notice for land acquisition.

In a letter sent to all interveners, the National Energy Board wrote that Costco had provided sufficient reasons for the board to consider a late submission based on the fact “the project may cross Costco’s lands and it has the potential to be directly affected.”

American authorities are nervous about Kinder Morgan’s proposal to increase oil tanker traffic by a factor of seven through the shared waters off B.C.’s coast, particularly in light of the recent slow response to a small fuel spill in Vancouver Harbour.

“A catastrophic oil spill would set the Puget Sound clean-up effort back decades, and result in billions of dollars in harm to our economy and environment,” the state’s Ecology Department officials wrote to Washington Governor Jay Inslee in 2013 in documents obtained by the Globe and Mail.

The officials also raised red flags about Canada’s oil spill response capability, writing: “B.C. lacks authority over marine waters, and their federal regime is probably a couple of decades behind the system currently in place in Washington State. … When it is spilled, we are concerned that dilbit oil may be considerably more toxic and damaging, and far more difficult to clean up, than conventional crude from Alaska.”

The documents also indicate that American officials urged the U.S. to sue the NEB for barring the EPA from participating in the hearings on the grounds that it had missed the deadline to apply.

Ultimately, the EPA was granted a lower status as a “commenter,” which does not provide the same ability to provide sworn evidence or ask questions of the proponent.

Asked why Costco was granted intervener status when the EPA was not, National Energy Board Communications Officer Tara O’Donovan told DeSmog Canada that the EPA never officially asked for intervenor status — instead, they asked for an extension to the deadline to apply. The board denied that request in this ruling “as the EPA had not outlined how it would be impacted if it was not able to submit a late application.”

“This letter did not provide any information about the EPA’s mandate, why it sought participation in the hearing, or whether it sought intervenor or commenter status. The Board is required by natural justice to make each decision solely on the basis of the information filed on its record,” O’Donovan wrote via e-mail.

The EPA subsequently filed a late application to participate as a commenter, which “included further details on the agency and the relevant information or expertise it could provide to the board.” The board then granted the EPA commenter status in an April 2, 2014, ruling.

The Globe reported this week that EPA officials wrote in e-mails that the NEB’s decision was contrary to the boards’ obligations under Canadian law. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires the NEB to “consult and co-operate” with the EPA.

 “It does appear that NEB should have consulted with the U.S. (and, in turn, EPA and other such agencies) given the scope of the project which will increase tanker traffic in the [Puget] Sound. … NEB never actually sent out an offer to consult as contemplated by Section 18 of the CEAA,” wrote Courtney Weber of the agency’s Seattle office in the documents obtained by the Globe.

The National Energy Board is expected to make its recommendation to the federal government by January 2016.

The board has been criticized for eliminating all oral cross-examination of evidence during the Trans Mountain review. Many of the province of British Columbia's questions — including its request to see Kinder Morgan's oil spill response plan — have been refused. The City of Burnaby says only three of its last 217 questions were answered.

In late March, several B.C. mayors declared non-confidence in the National Energy Board and called on the federal government to put the current process on hold. The mayors also called  upon the Government of British Columbia to re-assert its role in environmental assessment and to establish a provincial process to assess the Trans Mountain proposal.

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 mayors of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, City of North Vancouver, Victoria, Squamish and Bowen Island have declared their “non-confidence” in the National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and are calling on the federal government to put the current process on hold until a full public hearing process is re-instated.

“It has become apparent that the NEB process does not constitute a ‘public hearing’ and is completely inadequate to assess the health and safety risks of a proposed pipeline through major metropolitan areas, and the potential risks of shipping bitumen oil to Burnaby and through Burrard Inlet, the Salish Sea, and along the coastline of British Columbia,” the mayors write in their declaration.

The mayors also call upon the Government of British Columbia to re-assert its role in environmental assessment and to establish a provincial process, including public hearings, to assess the Trans Mountain proposal.

If built, the Trans Mountain pipeline system would transport more than 890,000 barrels a day of primarily diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to B.C.’s west coast. Most of this heavy oil is destined for Westridge dock in Burnaby, where it would be loaded onto 400 oil tankers per year — a six-fold increase from current oil tanker traffic.

“The current hearing process does not allow for consideration of some of the most damaging aspects of the proposal — the inadequacy of emergency plans; the potential for marine oil spills; the effects of the project on climate change, and the threat it poses to our local economy,” says Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. “We want to demonstrate to our residents and businesses that we are taking the potential risks seriously, and we want to work together with other municipalities in the region to protect our economy, our environment and our people.”

The mayors say the elimination of oral cross-examination from the hearing process has rendered the process inadequate. Without oral cross-examination, the municipalities have been forced to submit their questions in writing and wait on written responses back from Kinder Morgan. 

“The proponent has failed to answer the majority of questions submitted by municipalities and other intervenors,” the mayors write in their declaration. “Because of the inadequacies inherent to the review process, hundreds of questions critical to public safety and environmental impacts remain unanswered.”

The declaration continues: “We have serious concerns that the current NEB panel is neither independent from the oil industry proponents nor ready or able to assess the ‘public interest’ of British Columbians. It is no longer a credible process from either a scientific evidentiary basis, nor from a public policy and public interest perspective.”

 “We know that our concerns are shared by communities throughout the province,” says Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This flawed hearing process disallows review of aspects of the proposal that could cause the most significant damage. It is critical for this project — and for all projects that can harm communities and the environment — that we have federal review processes that are rigorous and transparent.”

"The City of Victoria is concerned about the impact of increased tanker traffic on our ecology and our economy,” says Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps. “We're happy to stand with other municipalities to request a fair and rigorous process to ensure that both are safeguarded for the long term.”

Resolutions calling National Energy Board's review process of Kinder Morgan’s proposal inadequate have already been passed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (September 2014) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (March 2015).

The province of British Columbia has also taken issue with the NEB process, particularly with regard to its failure to compel Kinder Morgan to release its oil spill response plans in B.C. — while the company releases those very same plans across the border in Washington State.

Photo: Mark Klotz 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.

This article originally appeared on the Vancouver Observer.

Industry Minister James Moore who represents the Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam riding engaged in blatantly false fear mongering last week. He threatened a Lac Mégantic disaster if we don’t accept Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. In order to springboard from a disgusting reliance on a horrific tragedy to reach his ridiculous conclusion, he had to make stuff up.

These are desperate tactics from someone who as an elected Member of Parliament and Minister of the Crown should know better. He said, “The people of Lac Mégantic wished they had pipelines instead of rail.” If Mr. Moore and his Tory government colleagues had done their job, Lac Mégantic would not have happened. 

Instead of acting responsibly, Mr. Moore follows up his toxic logic with a distasteful chaser. “It’s very dangerous for the Lower Mainland … to have the massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods,” he said. Moore is reported to have pointed to the huge rail yard in the heart of Port Coquitlam claiming an increasing number of trains are arriving there carrying diluted bitumen crude that has no other way to get to foreign markets.

That’s just not true. There are no facilities on the west coast to transfer crude oil from tank cars to marine shipping vessels. CP spokesperson Jeremy Berry confirmed, “CP does not ship oil along its line to Vancouver for export.”

Mark Hallman, CN’s director of communications and public affairs explained by email that, “CN has never transported crude oil or diluted bitumen to any British Columbia port or terminal for export via ocean-going vessel, and has no plans to do so.”

As for the so-called “massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods” there is neither a massive transfer nor a spike. Transport Canada figures of about 5,000 barrels a day relied on by Mr. Moore date back to 2013. CP confirms that, “2014 numbers are lower than 2013.” It is interesting that Mr. Moore would not use recent figures—maybe because they don’t support his false narrative.

Both the Vancouver Sun and Financial Post printed the grossly misleading story (same article different title). 

Mr. Moore is quoted as following up his falsehood about a massive spike in rail transfer with “The people of Port Coquitlam and Burnaby and New Westminster, with dangerous goods going on those rail lines, should be concerned about that.”

If Mr. Moore is concerned about rail transport, he should do everything he can to stop crude transport until its safe, not blackmail Canadians with incineration if we don’t accept pipeline projects.

The truth is it is the Harper government’s unrelenting willingness to cheerlead on behalf of Alberta’s tar sands that is putting us at risk and failing the Canadian economy—including the economic health of our fossil fuel industry.

The Chevron refinery in Burnaby imports a small amount of crude by rail. Chevron began rail-to-truck-to-refinery deliveries in May 2012 and rail-to-refinery deliveries in April 2013 because Chevron couldn’t get enough space on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline—exports took priority over domestic needs.

Crowding out domestic demand is why the relatively small volumes of crude by rail to B.C. have increased since 2011, not because diluted bitumen is seeking foreign markets. But even if Chevron could export all the crude oil it can now receive by rail, it would take more than two months for them to fill an oil tanker. Mr. Moore’s “heavy oil exports to foreign markets” spin doesn’t even make business sense.

Our safety is not threatened by rail transport of heavy oil. Our safety is threatened by the Federal Government’s de-regulation of transport safety. Since 2010 marine safety budgets have been slashed 28 per cent and rail and aviation by more than 20 per cent. Had Transport Canada done its job regulating the rail industry Lac Mégantic would not have happened. 

Our safety is also threatened by the Harper government’s unwillingness to ensure Canadian energy self sufficiency. The oil transported to Lac Mégantic on that fateful night in July 2013 was Bakken crude—a highly flammable light oil imported from New Town, North Dakota destined for the Irving refinery in New Brunswick. More than 40 per cent of the crude oil used in eastern Canada is imported. The public policy answer is to ensure more bitumen is upgraded in Alberta—what Harper promised would happen in 2008 before foreign multinational interests made him change his mind—not build more pipelines.

Oil sands bitumen is dense like tar or wet cement. It requires imported condensate as diluent to move it through a pipeline. If more bitumen were upgraded in Alberta instead of transported as diluted bitumen for upgrading in other countries we would have plenty of pipeline space. 

Barrel for barrel, diluted bitumen requires twice as much pipeline capacity as upgraded bitumen. You need dedicated condensate import pipelines, like Enbridge’s Southern Lights and Kinder Morgan’s Cochin, to bring condensate in, and then you need 30 per cent of the heavy oil pipeline export capacity to re-export condensate as diluent in bitumen. What’s more, diluted bitumen moves 20 per cent slower than light or synthetic crude oil.

Transporting diluted bitumen, even by pipeline, unnecessarily exposes Canadians to a condensate spill. Condensate becomes airborne when released. It’s highly toxic and causes severe respiratory damage. Rail transport of heavy oil requires little or no condensate because oil in rail cars is stationary—the cars move, not the heavy oil.

Mr. Moore was elected to protect his constituent’s interests, not mislead them with erroneous statements and distastefully false arguments. Instead of busying himself inventing boogie men as a front for big oil he should protect the safety and business interests of Canadians—while he still has time.

Robyn Allan is an economist, former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and qualified expert intervenor in the NEB Trans Mountain Expansion Project Hearings.

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 way tensions between pipeline opponents and Kinder Morgan contractors have escalated during the last week should come as a surprise to no one.

The mishandling of the National Energy Board review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker proposal has created the conditions for the situation now unfolding on the mountainside.

And with the continuing loss of faith in these federal reviews — which even before being refigured to “expedite” energy proposals were already ill-equipped to grapple with the larger societal issues, such as climate change, related to energy proposals — we can expect to see more controversy across B.C. and likely along the route of TransCanada’s Energy East.

How did it come to this?

In 2012, the federal government passed omnibus budget bill C-38 — despite significant upheaval in Parliament — which overhauled Canada’s environmental assessment process.

The changes contained in that bill condensed project review timelines, seriously restricted public participation in the assessment process and limited what environmental concerns are deemed relevant to projects such as pipelines.

Now, during the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline review process, these changes are coming into effect.

It began with climate change impacts being overlooked in the terms of reference for the review — just as they had been in the Enbridge Northern Gateway review. But then it got worse. 

Hundreds of concerned citizens who considered themselves directly affected by the project were denied intervener status by the National Energy Board, the federal body overseeing the pipeline review process.

A group of 27 climate experts, including economists, scientists and political and social scientists, were rejected from participating in the hearings because they wanted to discuss the project’s significance to Canada’s climate targets.

In total, 468 citizens had their application for intervenor status rejected, leading stultified onlookers to call the process “Kafkaesque.”

To add insult to injury, the National Energy Board then quietly removed oral hearings from the review process, meaning oral cross-examination — during which live witnesses are questioned under oath — will play no role in the Trans Mountain pipeline review.

This step reduced the Kinder Morgan “review” to a mere paperwork exercise.

Participants are allowed to pose questions via writing to Kinder Morgan about the impacts of its proposal to triple the amount of oilsands bitumen it ships via pipeline to Burnaby — but the company has failed to treat these questions seriously.

For instance, Ecojustice lawyers asked the company to explain the potential effect of an oil spill on marine fish.

Kinder Morgan’s response? “Harm to marine fish populations seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, following marine oil spills.”

That was one of the better answers compared to the 20 Ecojustice questions Kinder Morgan refused to answer on the basis they were “not relevant” or the company simply didn’t know the answer.

Even the Province of British Columbia had to ask the National Energy Board to compel Kinder Morgan to answer dozens of questions the company had skirted — including failing to provide emergency response documents.

The review process has been so incomplete the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, whose territory overlooks the Burrard Inlet and Kinder Morgan tanker facilities, launched a legal action to challenge the review process on the basis of failed consultation and a fundamental mischaracterization of the project, which includes not just an expanded pipeline but terminals, storage facilities and increased tanker traffic.

Energy executive Marc Eliesen quit the review process amongst much fanfare earlier this month, saying it was “fraudulent” and an act of “public deception.” He accused the NEB of jury-rigging the process with a “pre-determined outcome.” (Read more about Eliesen’s crippling reasons for leaving.)

What’s more, a new report from SFU and The Goodman Group Ltd. shows Kinder Morgan exaggerated the jobs associated with the pipeline construction while seriously underplaying the risk of a potential pipeline rupture. And remember, this pipeline has already ruptured on several occasions, including once in 2007, sending 250,000 litres of crude into the community and 70,000 into the Burrard Inlet.

So with a community on edge and unconvinced of the benefits of the pipeline, and with the local municipality officially opposed to the project, Kinder Morgan perhaps made a critical error sending survey crews to conservation areas on Burnaby Mountain with chainsaws in September.

The city of Burnaby responded with issuing a stop work order claiming the company did not have the right to damage property protected by city bylaws. The National Energy Board, however, told the company to continue on with its legally allowable work, even if that meant cutting down trees on the mountainside.

It’s within the minutia of that legal interpretation — the tension between community self-determination and the energy board’s ruling on allowable survey work — that the Burnaby Mountain protest movement was born.

And for all the reasons above — not to mention the upstream impacts of oilsands development on climate, local ecosystems and First Nations’ territorial rights — this fight should surprise no one.

There has been no credible and democratic way for residents of Burnaby, or citizens in B.C. for that matter, to weigh in on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. There has been no legitimate forum for the concerns of the community, of local First Nations and of a variety of climate and environmental experts.

Although Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan has promised to fight the pipeline by every available legal means, the federal government has made it virtually impossible for citizens to register their opposition to this project in any way other than protest.

And that’s a problem. Because with similar opposition foreseeable for TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline (especially after the company’s downright dirty PR tactics were leaked in documents from Edelman last week), Canada can expect more of these conflicts in our future.

And we should not have to stand for that.

This set of circumstances is fair to no one: not to locally elected municipal leaders looking to represent their constituents, not to communities looking to protect their environments and personal well-being and not to companies looking for stable operating conditions.

The act of proposing a pipeline is a legitimate thing to do in our society. Businesses should have the opportunity to pursue economic opportunities just as communities should have the opportunity to say no if a proposal doesn’t fit in with their long-term plans.

But with a government working in the interests of industry, citizens have been left out of the decision-making process, where the only way to register their voice is from behind the blockade line where they are marginalized, or worse, criminalized as radicals.

Our federal government is failing to lead on one of the biggest issues of our time. What Canada really needs is a grownup national conversation about an energy strategy that meets Canada’s international climate commitments. Until that happens, these debates will continue to play out dysfunctionally during technical review processes that were never designed to answer such large societal questions.

So as the saga of Burnaby Mountain continues to unfold, we should all be asking: who really is acting in the public interest? 

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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.

Today Vivian Krause published an opinion piece in The Province claiming “a vote for Vision is a vote for U.S. oil interests.” So, you might be wondering: just who is Vivian Krause? We’re so glad you asked…

An essential component of all public relations campaigns is having the right messenger— a credible, impassioned champion of your cause.

While many PR pushes fail to get off the ground, those that really catch on — the ones that gain political attention and result in debates and senate inquiries — almost always have precisely the right poster child.

And in the federal government and oil industry’s plight to discredit environmental groups, the perfect poster child just so happens to be Vivian Krause.

Krause describes herself as an “independent” researcher and a single mom asking “fair questions” about American funding of Canadian environmental groups. She blogged for many years in relative obscurity before becoming the federal Conservatives’ favourite attack dog.

Krause’s moment in the sun came in January 2012 when Joe Oliver, Canada’s then Natural Resources Minister, released his infamous letter decrying “foreign-funded radical” environmentalists for “hijacking” the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline review process.

Krause had primed the pump for the Conservatives to swoop in and achieve their goal — to discredit environmental groups by building a public narrative about them acting nefariously, thereby justifying spending millions of dollars on audits of charities’ political activities.

Never mind that philanthropic dollars cross international borders all the time. Never mind that the Northern Gateway proposal is sponsored by China’s state-owned oil company Sinopec, along with many other foreign oil companies. Never mind that there’s probably no more legitimate participation in a democracy than citizens signing up to speak at public hearings.

No, once you have a vendetta, inconvenient facts don’t matter. And Krause’s vendetta against environmental groups has been in the works for a long time — ever since she worked in public relations for the farmed salmon industry.

The Salmon Farming Industry and the Birth of a Vendetta

It was due to her interest in promoting salmon farming that Krause started rifling through the tax returns of large American foundations supporting wild salmon advocacy in Canada.

It didn’t take long for Vivian Krause to cook up a conspiracy theory involving American foundations working to undermine Canadian interests — and then to expand that theory to any number of conservation issues in Canada, with a special focus on conservation campaigns that were inconvenient for the oil industry.

To Krause, it seemed suspicious that foundations from across the border were giving money to Canadian groups working on Canadian conservation and energy issues. It must be, Krause surmised, that these big foundations are spending their dollars to manipulate Canadian energy and environment politics to further American interests. And, she went further to suggest, these Canadian groups are acting as pawns of these suspicious foundations.

Speaking of suspicious, by early 2013, Krause had admitted that more than 90 per cent of her income for 2012 had come from oil, gas and mining interests. Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Vivian Krause's Convenient Aversion to Climate Change Facts

Fast forward to this week when Krause couldn’t resist weighing into the Vancouver election campaign, claiming that: “For Canada, there is no single economic issue that is more important than getting Alberta oil to global markets.”

While oil is no doubt an important part of the Canadian economy, Krause’s statement overlooks two inconvenient facts:

1) According to Statistics Canada, the oilsands account for only two per cent of the national GDP.

2) A study by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd released this week finds Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain jobs promises are overblown and recommends the proposed expansion be rejected as it is neither in the economic nor public interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

The argument that continued oilsands expansion is a positive for the Canadian economy — and more to the point, the Metro Vancouver economy — is far from a slam dunk.

While Krause enjoys spinning another of her clandestine tales in linking Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to U.S. foundations, it’s increasingly clear that it’s all a convenient cover story for her to push her own view that the fossil fuel industry should be allowed to expand.

“Voting for Gregor Robertson means voting to support a U.S.-funded, anti-pipeline campaign that continues the U.S. monopoly on Canadian oil, keeping Canada over a barrel,” Krause writes. “When you go to the poll, don’t vote for Gregor Robertson. Vote for Canada.”

Perhaps Krause missed the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states that governments need to peak emissions, rapidly phase out fossil fuels and transition to 100 per cent renewable energy pronto? Rapidly expanding the oilsands and building new pipelines to serve that expansion doesn’t actually fit into any plans to have an inhabitable earth — not to mention the terrifying consequences an oil spill could reap on Vancouver.

If Krause’s modus operandi is climate change denial, it would be nice if she just stated that right up front, instead of conveniently ignoring it.

(If you want to know where we’re coming from at DeSmog Canada, mosey on over to our About Us page, where you can find out. Hint: we agree with 97 per cent of scientists about climate change, we’re proud to accept donations from anyone who supports our mission and we’re not going to tell you how to vote because that’s not our thing.)

In a recent op-ed in the Calgary Herald, Barry Cooper, a University of Calgary professor and known climate skeptic called on Alberta Premier Jim Prentice to use Krause as an attack dog against environmental groups.

“[Prentice] knows from his work with Enbridge and B.C. First Nations that the real source of opposition to Northern Gateway are the enviros and the deep-pocketed American foundations that fund them,” Cooper wrote. “So, Jim, hire Vivian Krause, who has done a lot of work on this problem, and use the government megaphone to publicize her analyses of the pernicious sources of enviro funding.”

Which raises the question: did someone hire Krause to weigh in — clumsy as it may be — on the Vancouver election?

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.

Kinder Morgan has significantly overstated the benefits of its controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal while vastly understating risks associated with increasing the flow of oil to Metro Vancouver.

That’s the conclusion of a new economic analysis by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd. which also recommended that the proposed expansion be rejected as it is neither in the economic nor public interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

“The jobs created are nowhere near the number claimed by Kinder Morgan and the costs are grossly underestimated when the risks of a major spill, particularly one occurring in the Vancouver area, are factored in,” said Doug McArthur, director of SFU’s Graduate School of Public Policy, which co-authored the report.

“The whole project is highly questionable from a public policy point of view,” McArthur added.

The report — Economic Costs and Benefits of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) for BC and Metro Vancouver — said Kinder Morgan maintains building the $5.4 billion expansion project would create 36,000 person-years of short-term employment in B.C.

The analysis, however, shows it would only create 12,000 person-years, or less, of employment.

“We correctly anticipated that the benefits from the pipeline would be small in the context of the overall B.C. economy and mostly short-term,” said Ian Goodman, president of The Goodman Group Ltd. and co-author of the report.

“But we were very surprised that the company has exaggerated the short-term jobs associated with building the pipeline by a factor of three,” Goodman said.

In terms of permanent jobs, the report notes Kinder Morgan says operating the expansion project would create only 50 direct full-time jobs in the province but a wide range of spin-offs could push the total up to almost 2,000 jobs.

“Once again, these claims are exaggerated: even with a wide range of spin-offs [the Trans Mountain expansion] will only create 800 long-term jobs,” the 70-page report, released Monday, said.

It also said that, on the cost side, Kinder Morgan’s miscalculations are even more dramatic with estimations of a worst-case scenario for spill damage in a non-urban, non-sensitive area costing only $100 million to $300 (CDN) million.

The analysis found, however, potential costs for a major rupture in a sensitive but non-urban setting could start at $1 billion (USD). Under a worst-case scenario involving a catastrophic rupture in an urban setting, costs could escalate to as much as $2 billion to $5 billion (USD).

The ruptured Enbridge Line 6B that sent more than three million litres of diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan came with a clean up cost of more than $1 billion after more than three years of remediation work.

Brigid Rowan, senior energy economist at The Goodman Group Ltd., said Kinder Morgan has vastly underestimated the worst-case costs for a catastrophic pipeline rupture.

“Contrary to [Kinder Morgan’s] findings, damage and cleanup costs for major accidents are highly correlated with population density,” Rowan said.

“So a worst-case scenario for [the Trans Mountain expansion] would involve a major accident in a more densely populated area (such as Metro Vancouver) damaging and disrupting key infrastructure, and possibly resulting in a spill to water and losses of human life,” he said.

Costs for that type of catastrophe could escalate to the multi-billion dollar range — more than 10 times higher than the Kinder Morgan estimates, Rowan added.

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline already ruptured in a suburban area in Burnaby in 2007 sending 250,000 litres of crude into the community and 70,000 litres into the Burrard Inlet. Over 250 residents were evacuated and more than $15 million spent on clean up.

The report also outlined a major profit disparity between the province and producers when it comes to the pipeline’s financial benefits. B.C. would receive less than 2 per cent of the increased revenues paid to tar sands producers who will retain 68 per cent of the new revenues.

“The lion’s share of the benefits flows to [Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain], the Alberta tar sands producers and Alberta, whereas the citizens of B.C., and Metro Vancouver in particular, will bear the lion’s share of the risks and receive very small benefits,” the report said.

The Trans Mountain expansion project proposal, which is hotly contested by local residents and municipal politicians, would increase the capacity of oil flowing from Alberta to Metro Vancouver to 890,000 barrels per day from the current 300,000.

The proposed expansion is currently under a controversial review by the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Kinder Morgan oil facilities in the Burrard Inlet. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

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.

An energy executive is weighing in on the federal review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion with a scathing letter that calls the National Energy Board’s review process “fraudulent” and a “public deception” — and calls for the province of British Columbia to undertake its own environmental assessment.

Marc Eliesen — who has 40 years of executive experience in the energy sector, including as a board member at Suncor — writes in his letter to the National Energy Board that the process is jury-rigged with a "pre-determined outcome."

Eliesen is the former CEO of BC Hydro, former chair of Manitoba Hydro and has served as a deputy minister in seven different federal and provincial governments.

In his letter, Eliesen tells the National Energy Board (NEB) that he offered his expertise as an intervenor in good faith that his time would be well spent in evaluation Trans Mountain’s proposal.

“Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the board, through its decisions, is engaged in a public deception,” Eliesen writes. “Continued involvement with this process is a waste of time and effort, and represents a disservice to the public interest because it endorses a fraudulent process.”

Eliesen writes that he was dismayed when the oral cross-examination phase was removed from the Trans Mountain hearings. He notes that oral cross-examination has served as a critical part of all previous Section 52 oil pipeline hearings.

“It is my experience that when a proponent does not face the spectre of oral cross-examination, their written responses to interrogatories suffer from a lack of detail and accountability,” Eliesen writes. “Still, I was willing to see the results of the Information Request process the board promised would be sufficient.”

When those information requests came back, however, Eliesen lost all hope in the process.

The unwillingness of Trans Mountain to address most of my questions and the board’s almost complete endorsement of Trans Mountain’s decision has exposed this process as deceptive and misleading. Proper and professional public interest due diligence has been frustrated, leading me to the conclusion that this board has a predetermined course of action to recommend approval of the project and a strong bias in favour of the proponent.

In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this board a truly industry captured regulator.

A regulator is considered ‘captured’ when it turns into more of a industry facilitator, rather than a regulatory watchdog.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion proposal would triple the amount of oil the company ships to Burnaby and increase the number of oil tankers travelling through Vancouver Harbour and the Gulf Islands seven-fold.

National Energy Board Has 'Pre-Determined Course of Action' to Approve Trans Mountain: Eliesen

Eliesen argues that a series of National Energy Board decisions reflect a pre-determined outcome.

“They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation,” Eliesen writes.

To illustrate this behaviour, Eliesen outlines six examples:

1) Intervenors being excluded from the formulation of the list of issues to be taken under consideration during the review. Kinder Morgan’s opinion, on the other hand, was taken into account when formulating the list.

2) The board refusing requests from intervenors — including municipal governments and First Nations — for more time to prepare information requests (due to the highly technical, voluminous nature of Trans Mountain’s application).

3) The lack of basic professional standards of disclosure, source verification, references and methodology in Trans Mountain’s studies.

“It is shocking that in a process such as this where due diligence is required on a major capital project that the board has not held Trans Mountain to a minimum professional standard of accountability and transparency,” Eliesen writes. “The Board’s veneer examination of the proponent’s case is reflective of a decision not to dig too deeply for fear the economic case may crumble, or a lack of economic, financial and business acumen on behalf of the Board to know where and how to dig.”

When basic business questions are asked by intervenors, Trans Mountain refuses to answer them, Eliesen adds.

4) The board’s axing of oral cross-examination. The Government of Canada’s Department of Justice has informed the board that evidence given without cross-examination should be rejected. The Department of Justice stated “Canada’s position is that cross-examination is necessary to ensure a proper evidentiary record …” Furthermore, “cross-examination serves a vital role in testing the value of testimonial evidence. It assists in the determination of credibility, assigning weight and overall assessment of the evidentiary record. It has been termed ‘the greatest legal invention ever invented for the discovery of truth’ … without cross-examination the board will be reviewing only untested evidence.”

5) The board's failure to compel Kinder Morgan to answer questions adequately. In the absence of oral cross-examination, the board is relying on written information requests between intervenors and the proponent. However, Trans Mountain has failed to respond in a way that addresses the core elements of most questions — and the board has failed to compel them to answer.

“They have either provided non-responses, general statements, or referred back to the inadequate information in the original application that gave rise to the question in the first place. In many instances Trans Mountain has assumed the regulator’s role declaring that the question asked is outside the List of Issues established by the NEB,” Eliesen writes.

Out of the approximately 2,000 questions not answered by Trans Mountain that intervenors called on the board to compel answers to, only five per cent were allowed by the board and 95 per cent were rejected.

6) Trans Mountain has failed to answer even the Province of British Columbia’s questions, so the province asked the NEB to compel Trans Mountain to answer. But guess what? That request was also denied by the board.

“The board has sided with Trans Mountain dismissing the Province of B.C.’s need for answers in pursuit of its duty to British Columbians,” Eliesen writes in his letter. “The NEB’s bias in support of the proponent is reflecting poorly on the Province of B.C. in that it is unable to obtain necessary answers to conduct its due diligence.”

Province of B.C. Should Cancel Equivalency Agreement, Launch Own Review of Trans Mountain

Eliesen finishes his letter by calling on the Province of B.C. to cancel the equivalency agreement with the federal government to undertake its own environmental assessment as the only meaningful way to get answers to its questions.  

Andrew Weaver, Green MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, joined the call for the B.C. government to issue the 30-day notice required to cancel the equivalency agreement with the feds and launch its own, separate environmental assessment process.

“In the past week alone we have seen Kinder Morgan sue Burnaby residents for trespassing on parkland and one of the most credible intervenors, Marc Eliesen, fully withdraw from the hearing process,” Weaver says.  

The June 2010 equivalency agreement signed between the federal government and province set the review process for major pipeline and energy projects under the National Energy Board, with final approval to be determined by the federal cabinet. The equivalency agreement for the Trans Mountain project can be cancelled with 30 days notice.

“The B.C. government needs to stand up for British Columbians,” Weaver says. “What we need is a made-in-B.C. environmental assessment that is controlled by British Columbians to ensure our concerns get respected and that our questions get answered.”

Marc Eliesen Letter of Withdrawal from Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion NEB process

Photo credit: Jenny Uechi, Vancouver Observer

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.

Kinder Morgan has launched an advertising campaign pushing the company’s proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that just so happens to coincide with B.C.’s municipal elections — but Elections BC says the company doesn’t need to register as a third-party advertiser.

That’s a bit of a puzzler given that Elections BC rules clearly state that anyone who runs ads on an election issue must register as a third-party advertiser and disclose costs within 90 days of the Nov. 15 election.

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion, which would triple the amount of oilsands bitumen flowing to the B.C. coast, is certainly an election issue, with Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson staking out positions against the project.

An online survey for the Burnaby NOW found the pipeline expansion is the No. 1 concern for Burnaby voters during the civic election.

With that in mind, Burnaby-Douglas New Democrat MP Kennedy Stewart asked Elections BC to look into Kinder Morgan’s advertising blitz. The Canadian Press reported that he received a response from Jodi Cook, Elections BC manager of provincial electoral finance, which said that Kinder Morgan’s advertising doesn’t meet the definition of election advertising.

Let’s look at the Elections BC definition of election advertising: “Election advertising is any transmission of a communication to the public during an election proceedings period that directly or indirectly promotes or opposes the election of a candidate or an elector organization. Election advertising includes a communication that takes a position on an issue with which a candidate or an elector organization is associated.” (Emphasis added)

Given that definition, the Dogwood Initiative, a non-profit group that opposes Trans Mountain, felt it needed to register as a third-party advertiser even though the group isn’t endorsing candidates.

“We talked to Elections BC over the summer and determined that even if we make no formal endorsements … the very fact that we are surveying candidates and differentiating candidates on an issue makes this into election advertising,” said Kai Nagata, Dogwood’s energy and democracy director. “We’re tracking the time and money that goes into communications even with our own supporters.”

Elections BC communications manager Don Main told DeSmog Canada that "the [Kinder Morgan] advertising did not appear to implicate, positively or negatively, a candidate or elector organization. The advertising brought to our attention did not tie explicitly or implicitly to the election, and did not serve the primary purpose of supporting or opposing a particular elector organization or candidate."

Nagata notes that Kinder Morgan launched its advertising campaign —which includes leaflets, bus shelter ads, television and online advertisements, robocalls and telephone townhalls — right after the nomination period for the municipal elections closed.

One of Kinder Morgan's television advertisements, which is running during B.C.'s municipal election campaigns.

According to the Elections BC third-party sponsor guide, indications that advertising may qualify as “third party advertising” include advertising specifically planned to coincide with the election proceedings period and a substantial increase in the normal volume of advertising.

“I don’t think you get very far in being a public relations or advertising executive without being able to read a calendar,” Nagata said.

“The impression that is created, especially in the municipalities where this has been an election issue … is that of a targeted ad campaign aiming to sway voters on the merits of a particular project in the middle of a municipal election where candidates have staked their positions on this issue.”

Kinder Morgan has said that the regulatory process is not currently under municipal jurisdiction and therefore can’t be a municipal election issue.

“What that ignores of course is that such a project would have immediate and tangible impacts at a local level,” Nagata said, noting that the Burnaby Fire Department is already having to plan for an oil fire.

After the Elections BC ruling, Stewart submitted additional evidence to Elections BC, alleging Kinder Morgan was focusing advertising efforts against Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who strongly opposes the pipeline.

Stewart stated in the letter to Nola Western, the deputy chief electoral officer, that Kinder Morgan held a telephone town hall meeting in Burnaby in which 5,000 residents participated.

In a recording of the meeting posted on the project website, Stewart said Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson describes a plan to offset Mayor Corrigan's "very public media driven campaign against the pipeline."

“Corrigan is disparaged by Anderson, who states opponents are using 'fear and emotion' to sway residents, and that information about the projects is being mischaracterized by the mayor," he said in the letter.

Elections BC responded by saying the town hall meeting has since been removed from the website.

Nagata said Dogwood Initiative could have avoided registering as a third-party advertiser and waited for a complaint to Elections BC to force a ruling on the matter, but “it didn’t even seem like it was an option not to register given the definition as we read it. This [Kinder Morgan] ruling surprised us."

So while voters will someday know how much non-profits like Dogwood Initiative spent during the election, as it stands it will forever remain a mystery how much oil giants like Kinder Morgan have pumped into advertising during this year's municipal campaign. What isn't a mystery is that oil companies certainly have a lot more to spend than organizations working in the public interest.

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.

Kinder Morgan made the news last week after disagreement between the company and the city of Burnaby came to a head over the removal of trees in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area in advance of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

After Kinder Morgan began clearing an area to facilitate survey work, which included exploratory drilling, Burnaby issued a stop work order, stating the company was violating municipal bylaws and causing irreparable damage to park areas.

On Monday, Burnaby filed a civil claim against Kinder Morgan in the Supreme Court of B.C., asking for interim and permanent injunctions to halt the company’s work in the Burnaby Mountain area. The city will appear in court Thursday to request the company cease work until the matter be heard before the Supreme Court.

But Kinder Morgan's interest in park area goes beyond Burnaby Mountain as detailed plans submitted to the province of B.C. reveal. The company's Provincial Protected Area Boundary Adjustment application, shows the Trans Mountain pipeline will cut through three provincial parks and one protected grassland in B.C. 

The application requests parkland be removed from four park boundaries to facilitate pipeline construction.

These areas include:

Finn Creek Provincial Park. For additional information, see Kinder Morgan's Finn Creek application.

North Thomson River Provincial Park. For additional information, see Kinder Morgan's North Thomson River application.

Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area. For additional information, see Kinder Morgan's Lac Du Bois application.

Bridal Veil Falls Provincial Park. For more information, see Kinder Morgan's Bridal Veil Falls application. 

According to B.C. Parks, Kinder Morgan will submit an additional resource use permit requesting to construct the pipeline expansion through the Coquihalla Summit Recreation Area.

According to Kinder Morgan, "Following completion of Project construction, the lands removed from the parks through the boundary adjustment may be returned to park or protected area status with operations authorized under a park use permit."

Public comment on the proposed changes can be made to Kinder Morgan or B.C. Parks until October 12. Although, as Stephen Hui notes on the straight.com, B.C. Parks requires commenters to agree to a privacy statement that entails sharing comments with Kinder Morgan before a feedback form is made available. 

Image Credit: Bridal Veil Falls in B.C. by Michelle Lee 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.

Tensions are rising between the City of Burnaby and Kinder Morgan after company employees arrived in the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area Tuesday with chainsaws to remove trees and brush in order to assess a proposed route for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The City of Burnaby issued a stop work order for the conservation area, saying Kinder Morgan does not have the right to do damage to property protected by city bylaws.

“I think it’s unfortunate that it has come to this,” city Mayor Derek Corrigan said in a press release, “but we can’t let Kinder Morgan cut down trees and do irreparable damage in a conservation area protected by our City’s bylaws.”

Corrigan added those bylaws are in place to protect the “rights and values” of local residents. “It’s astonishing that, as a private corporation, Kinder Morgan thinks they have the right to override our citizens’ wishes and the laws that have been put in place to reflect the value our citizens place on these sensitive, irreplaceable ecosystems.”

Lizette Parsons Bell, lead of stakeholder engagement and communications for Trans Mountain, said Kinder Morgan is conducting fieldwork and studies “to determine the feasibility of routing a two kilometre section of proposed pipeline between our Burnaby tank terminal and our Westridge marine terminal through the Burnaby Mountain.”

“What we’ve been doing is last week we started with clearing some brush to do some geophysical work and this week we started some geotechnical work,” she said.

Parsons Bell said the company hopes to route the pipeline through Burnaby Mountain using “trenchless construction,” a technique that requires drilling samples of the mountainside.

“This investigation informs our larger work of understanding the subsurface of Burnaby Mountain,” she said.

Burnaby is willing to grant Kinder Morgan access to the conservation land for “non-invasive work” according to mayor Corrigan, “but absolutely not to do what they arrived to do [Tuesday] – to cut down trees to create helicopter landing pads and sites for drilling bore holes on this protected land,” he said.

Parsons Bell said a helipad was being constructed for the delivery of equipment, but not for the landing of helicopters. “What I can categorically say to you is at no time will a helicopter land in the conservation area,” she said.

It appears that what is at issue between Kinder Morgan and Burnaby is a competing interpretation of the National Energy Board Act’s Section 73.

Section 73 states “a company may…enter into and on any Crown land without previous licence therefor, or into or on the land of any person, lying in the intended route of its pipeline, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements on the land for fixing the site of the pipeline, and set out and ascertain such parts of the land as are necessary and proper for the pipeline.”

 

The section also allows for a company to “take and hold of and from any person any land or property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its pipeline.”

According to Mayor Corrigan, Kinder Morgan is using Section 73 to justify work that may damage the local region against city bylaws.

“As we’ve said before, there is nothing in Section 73…which Kinder Morgan is aggressively asserting gives them the right to do this damage – that does, in fact, allow them to do it.”

“The work that we’re looking to do now on this two kilometre section of the proposed pipeline between the proposed terminal and the Westridge terminal on August 19, the National Energy Board confirmed that Trans Mountain – that we – had Section 73 rights to be able to do that,” Parsons Bell said.

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director with the Dogwood Initiative said, as a municipality, Burnaby is in a difficult situation.

“The first problem, the first sticking point, for Burnaby is that Section 73 allows a company onto private land or municipal land before a project is approved,” he said.

“So building a helipad or cutting trees down – all of that can happen before a project is approved.”

Nagata criticized the National Energy Board for failing to provide a legitimate forum to assess the desirability of a proposed pipeline in the first place, pitting local communities and their elected officials against federal regulators who appear to be pushing through projects like Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain.

“There is no credible democratic forum in which to contest these projects,” Nagata said. “But in the meantime Burnaby is flexing its limited jurisdiction any way it can in order to register its opposition to this project at the level of governance.”

“It begs the question of where the province is in all of this,” Nagata said. “If the city of Burnaby can hold up a project by seven months and they can issue stop work orders and if they can be a stick in the spokes of Kinder Morgan as they have been, what could the province be doing to represent its constituents and uphold the public interest with the resources and jurisdiction available to them?”

“I think what we’re seeing is provincial leaders basically wash their hands of this whole fight and leave it up to First Nations and municipalities and individual citizens rather than asserting their responsibilities.”

Nagata said it’s unclear exactly where federal jurisdiction ends and where First Nations or local jurisdiction begins.

“We applaud Burnaby for pushing the envelope and finding out what the limits of their jurisdiction are and setting and example for other municipalities and local governments in opposing this project,” he said.

Greg McDade, legal counsel for the city said Kinder Morgan has overstepped what is allowable under local laws.

“Kinder Morgan has not only damaged the Conservation Area in contravention of the law, they have also attempted to interfere with traffic on public roads and to obstruct park staff in their duties,“ he said.

“The actions of the company are unprecedented, and they appear to believe they can act as if the rule of law doesn’t apply to them.”

He added the city will seek a court injunction to uphold its laws and protect its parkland. The city also plans to ensure “ongoing protection” of the conservation area.

Burnaby officially opposes the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion which will triple the amount of oil stored on Burnaby Mountain and increase the movement of oil through residential areas. The expansion would also increase the number of tankers traversing the Burrard Inlet to 400 supertankers a year.

Image Credit: Playground of the Gods on Burnaby Mountain. Kyle Pearce 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.