The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) never considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of the Pacific NorthWest LNG export terminal, according to documents revealed in a federal court this week.

The documents were submitted to a federal court in Vancouver during a hearing to determine whether the information should be considered as part of a forthcoming judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the LNG project.  

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust filed for the judicial review of the project’s approval and received 17,000 pages of federal documents under disclosure — the release of information required by law during legal proceedings. SkeenaWild hired two experts to give expert testimony on those documents.

One of those experts Kirsten Zickfeld, a climate scientist and associate professor of geography at Simon Fraser University, testified in a sworn affidavit that CEAA did not provide the federal government with an assessment of cumulative emissions from the project and that these emissions “should be assessed, especially…in terms of their share of a provincial or national ‘carbon budget.’ ”

A second expert, policy and technical analyst from the Pembina Institute Maximilian Kniewasser, testified in a sworn affidavit that Canada considered imposing conditions on the project to limit carbon pollution, such as requiring the project be powered by grid electricity rather than natural gas, but chose not to despite doing so to varying degrees for two other LNG projects, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG.

The federal government and Pacific NorthWest LNG asked the court to strike the affidavits from consideration as evidence on the basis that they are “inadmissible…extrinsic evidence.”  

Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild, argued the two affidavits should be considered as evidence in the upcoming judicial review, likely to take place this fall.

“We are not trying to bring in new evidence,” Knox told DeSmog Canada, “just evidence to the court to show in black and white that the agency failed to provide the minister and cabinet with the proper information to make an informed decision on the project.”

Pacific NorthWest LNG To Take Up Big Chunk of Canada’s Carbon Budget

Zickfeld, an expert in climate modelling and carbon budgets, served as the lead author of the UN Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the 1.5 degree target.

Under the Paris Agreement, the majority of the world’s governments, Canada included, have agreed to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a goal of limiting that increase to 1.5 degrees.

Efforts to work towards that goal, Zickfeld outlines, will require countries to cap their climate pollution through carbon budgets.

Depending on the type of carbon budget Canada selects, Pacific NorthWest LNG could eat up 2.5 to 11 per cent of the country’s total all-time climate pollution allowance.

“Over the lifetime of the project (here assumed to be 30 years), these annual emissions add up to about 360 million metric tons of CO2 cumulative emissions,” Zickfeld wrote.

A large part of what makes liquefied natural gas exports so carbon-intensive is the process of turning natural gas into a liquid. The process requires running massive compressor stations 24/7 to cool gas to -162 degrees Celsius, the point at which gas turns into a liquid that can be loaded onto tankers.

In the second document Kniewasser concludes the carbon emissions from the project could have been significantly reduced had the agency assessed the technical and economic feasibility of powering the LNG terminal with grid electricity, rather than with natural gas.

“I described two alternatives to power LNG projects other than burning natural gas: using grid electricity to power non-compression load, and using grid electricity to power compression load,” he wrote in his affidavit.

These alternatives could have reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the project by between six per cent and 44 per cent, or 8 and 57 megatonnes of carbon emissions, every year, Kniewasser stated.

“These potential emissions reductions are especially significant given the project’s long operating life, B.C.’s legislated long-term climate targets, and Canada’s Paris climate commitments.”

Feds Never Considered Cumulative #Climate Impacts Of Pacific Northwest #LNG, Court Docs Reveal https://t.co/CX9llm7KZ2 #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 14, 2017

Much of Pacific Northwest LNG Review Conducted Behind Closed Doors

The fact that cabinet was not apprised of the cumulative climate impacts of Pacific Northwest LNG was not a matter of public knowledge, Knox told DeSmog Canada.

“In the type of environmental assessment process we had for this project, none of that was made available to the public. And it was never provided to the public until we requested it through the legal process,” he said.

Under what is know as a standard environmental assessment process, the Canadian Environmental Assessment agency conducted a review of Pacific NorthWest LNG with no public hearing, no cross examination and no full public disclosure of documents submitted during the duration of the review.

About half of the documents that were used in the assessment process weren’t on the public record, Knox said.

“When we got those documents in the spring, that is when we got some expert witnesses to comment on the complete lack of cumulative effects assessment for climate pollution and an assessment of the viability of using electricity from the grid to reduce emissions.”

“Under CEAA both of those things should have been done and the minister in cabinet should have been given that information. That poses the question: what sort of discussions and deals were done behind the scenes and why wasn’t this proper process done to reduce and assess the climate pollution from this project?”

Knox said the federal government’s decision to approve Pacific NorthWest LNG conflicts with promises to take meaningful action on climate change.

“When the government and industry are teaming up to argue against doing their due diligence on the climate impacts of this project, it’s really disconcerting,” he said.

“I think that government in this case is standing up for the interests of industry. We believe we’re bringing information and evidence forward that is in the public’s interest.”  

Kirsten Zickfeld Affidavit PNW LNG by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Max Kniewasser Affidavit (Apr 27 2017) by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Crown's Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits PNW LNG July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

PNW LNG Motion to Strike Zickfeld and Kniewasser Affidavits July 2017 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: Federal ministers and Premier Christy Clark annouce the approval of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal in September 2017. Photo: B.C. Government via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

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.

Water quality in a tributary of one of Southeast Alaska’s prime salmon rivers will improve once a new mine opens on the B.C. side of the border according to spokesmen for Seabridge Gold Inc, the Toronto-based company planning to open the Kerr-Sulpherets-Mitchell (KSM) mine.

The copper, gold and molybdenum mine, 65 kilometres northwest of Stewart and 30 kilometres from the Alaska border, received federal and provincial environmental assessment approvals last year and the company is now seeking a joint venture partner for the $5.4-billion project.

But the prospect of a massive mine close to a tributary that runs into the Unuk River has alarmed Alaskan fishing, First Nations and environmental groups who say the risk is unacceptable and are pushing for transboundary mining issues to be referred to the International Joint Commission.

“The long term risks of KSM far outweigh any short-term improvements to water quality the mine may create,” Chris Zimmer, Rivers Without Borders Alaska campaign director, said.

The KSM tailings pond, with a massive 239-metre tailings dam, will be built in the Bell Irving/Nass watershed in B.C., but the mine operation will be close to Sulpherets Creek which runs into the Unuk River.

“The open pits and waste rock piles are located in (the Unuk) watershed,” Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders said.

“They’re essentially using the Unuk, all the way up to the border as a mixing zone.”

However, Brent Murphy, Seabridge Gold vice president environmental affairs, in an interview with DeSmog Canada, said water quality in the creek is already bad because of natural erosion of copper, iron and zinc deposits.

“The acidity will basically eat your boots off,” he said.

Federal and provincial regulators agree there will not be any impact in Alaska from the mine, Murphy said.

“The operation of the KSM water management system will, in fact, improve the overall water quality,” he said, pointing to company photos of discoloured creek water.

“We will treat the water that comes into contact with the mine site and improve the water running into Sulphurets Creek and ultimately the Unuk River,” Murphy said.

But Alaskan groups say the photos are misleading and point to a 2014 report by Skeena Wild Conservation Trust that concluded KSM would release metals into the Unuk watershed that would exceed levels known to have serious impacts on salmon.

“I am especially concerned when people make statements to the effect that they can improve natural systems. Seems the height of hubris,” said Guy Archibald, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inside Passage waterkeeper coordinator.

“There is more complexity in a mud puddle than science will ever understand and a massive intervention such as the KSM mine will no doubt have massive unforeseen negative consequences.”

Following the 2014 collapse of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam there has been increased concern about earthen tailings dams and the expert panel looking into the disaster recommended that mining companies should adopt best available technologies and consider dry stacking tailings when possible.

However, Peter Williams, Seabridge vice-president of technical services said location is the paramount concern when choosing how to dispose of tailings and, after considering dry stacking, it was decided the KSM site was ideal for wet tailings, with a lined tailings pond to ensure no discharge into the environment.

“We have put it into a valley and most of the walls are valley walls, so they are very strong,” he said.

“It makes this location very safe.”

The u-shaped valley will have gently-sloping dams at either end, constructed of sand from the tailings, Murphy said.

That is very different from the Mount Polley dam which consisted of a steeply-sloping ring dyke constructed of locally-sourced till material, he said.

“Most importantly, after treatment, water from the proposed KSM facility will be discharged on an annual basis, preventing the build-up of any water within the facility as occurred at Mount Polley where there was no treatment of water for discharge,” he said.

Zimmer, who emphasized that Alaskan groups are concerned about the effect of the mine on any rivers, whether Canadian or Alaskan, said one of the major worries is what happens over time.

“What happens after 250 years? What if the water treatment fails or doesn’t work as proposed — Seabridge has no contingency plans for this,” he said.

Williams said there should be no concerns after closure as, after the tailings are topped and revegetated, there will be minimal water flow.

During the six-and-a-half-year review process, Seabridge held numerous meetings with Alaskan groups and regulators, including a public meeting in Ketchikan, Murphy said.

There was also a detailed assessment by independent federal regulators so there was no need for a panel review — as requested by Alaskans — because it would duplicate work already done, Murphy said.

Neither would a referral to the International Joint Commission be the correct process, Murphy believes.

“In our opinion [the IJC] is a political dispute resolution process and we are continuing to support efforts of the B.C. and Alaska governments who are working on increasing cooperation between the two governments on transboundary projects and we encourage them to work towards a memorandum of understanding,” he said.

But Zimmer said most of the meetings were open only to agency and company officials and many questions remain — such as lack of funds to deal with major accidents or proof that Seabridge can treat water for selenium.

“The arrogance demonstrated by Seabridge’s blind faith in their engineering in the face of the forces of Mother Nature and time, is the same arrogance that resulted in the Titanic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Mount Polley,” he said.

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.

While Canadians have had their eye on the company's Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal, Enbridge has been quietly developing numerous new hydroelectric projects in major B.C. and Alberta waterways. Since 2011, Enbridge submitted water license applications for almost a dozen new projects, some located in the Skeena Watershed region and others along the Fraser River.

Researchers at the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust uncovered several numbered company applications and reports concerning projects that would have serious consequences for wildlife in the area. SkeenaWild executive director Greg Knox says the projects, designed to divert river water to power stations, would disrupt salmon spawning grounds and impair water flow that is crucial to sediment transport.

“These streams are constantly producing gravel in the system which the salmon require for spawning. Without the large flow through the streams, there won’t be this large gravel production, and the gravel that’s there will eventually be washed away.”

The proposed projects require the construction of tunnels and pipes used to direct water away from the river. At certain times of year, very little water flows through wide sections of the rivers. 

One of the projects, a proposal to dam a significant reservoir at the confluence of the Clore and Bernie Rivers, could put as much as eight kilometres of fish habitat in serious jeopardy.

A confidential scope report (attached below) for the Clore River Hydroelectric Project, obtained by SkeenaWild, states the power project has nothing to do with Northern Gateway. It claims the “project is not expected to connect to or interact with any other facilities or infrastructure not proposed by 8056587 Canada Inc. other than connection to the BC Hydro grid at the Point of Interconnection.”

But Knox isn’t buying it.

“It is baffling to me how they can completely ignore the fact that they are planning to drill a tunnel right beside the Northern Gateway pipeline tunnel, and build the same access road Northern Gateway would require from below the Clore Canyon to the Bernie/Clore confluence, and not mention any of this.” Three of the four proposed projects are situated within two kilometres of the proposed Northern Gateway route.

Knox said a local brought information forward about potential new independent power projects (IPPs) after the company failed to notify potentially affected First Nations. When researched the anonymous company, he discovered it was located at the same address as Enbridge’s Calgary office. Enbridge confirmed that it owned the anonymous company.

In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, Enbridge spokesperson Ivan Giesbrecht told the paper that it’s common for companies to do preliminary work using anonymous companies to remain competitive, especially with new ventures. According to SkeenaWild’s research, however, numbered companies rarely play a role in these types of project proposals. 

“In investigating, we couldn’t find anywhere that it was a common approach,” Knox said. “Most of the companies that applied for water licenses for IPPs did not use numbered companies, so it was confusing to receive Enbridge’s answer that this was common practice.”

This isn’t the first time an energy company has considered building a hydroelectric dam on the Clore River. In 2009, energy company C-Free Power Corp withdrew its application for a water license in the area when the project review failed to meet the company’s own standard for environmental care.

The letter of withdrawal (attached below) states that all C-Free’s projects are evaluated based on its four pillars: environment, First Nations, community and economic development. An environmental consultant on the project and a member of the Kitselas First Nation whose territory is in the region reported there were no barriers to fish migration anywhere along the Clore Canyon and that damming the river could cause significant damage to fish populations. The company concurred and cancelled its plans.

Other projects are located on Williams Creek, Bolton Creek and McKay Creek, all of which are important producers of Coho, Chinook, and steelhead and bull trout species.

There are an additional seven IPPs proposed for locations on the Upper Fraser River, primarily the McGregor Watershed. The cluster of proposals along the Fraser combined would trigger an environmental assessment, but several of the projects around the Skeena Watershed are small enough in scope—producing less than 50 megawatt—tho avoid triggering a provincial review. Without a review, Enbridge needs to obtain provincial crown land tenures as well as fish habitat alteration permits from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, both of which Knox says aren't especially hard to come by.

Knox added that the secrecy with which the application process has been conducted, as well as Enbridge’s failure to draw links between the IPPs and Northern Gateway is indicative of several things.

“It leads me to believe that Enbridge wanted to hide it from the public because they didn’t want it to be part of the Joint Review Panel process,” Knox said. They also knew that all of these IPP proposals were on salmon bearing streams and rivers and probably assumed there would be a lot of public concern because of the potential impacts.”

Image and files courtesy of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.

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.