Economist and former ICBC president  Robyn Allan withdrew from the National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project Tuesday, saying she can no longer “endorse a process that is not working.”

In a letter addressed to Sherri Young, secretary of the NEB, Allan said the “review is not conducted on a level playing field” and that because the panel is “not an impartial referee…the game is rigged.”

Allan said she began to seriously question the process when oral cross-examination was removed from the process.

“I had concerns with what that would do to the overall calibre of the process,” she said.

Allan said she wanted to “participate in good faith through the process of information requests” but now that it has been completed “it’s very clear it has been an exercise in futility.”

“I wanted to see the process through enough to unequivocally conclude that it’s broken,” she said. “ Now I see it’s beyond repair.”

Allan said the limited scope of the board’s review of the process is an “unconscionable betrayal of Canadians.” 

“The board does not include the very serious issues the Canadian public expects the scope to include. And that’s not just the absence of greenhouse gasses in the review and the very serious implications of those for climate change — we don’t even have a classical economic scope of issues,” Allan said.

Allan said the review does not give full consideration to the impact the added Trans Mountain pipeline will have on the whole system, including the increase of tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet.

Concerns are running high in the Vancouver area after the accidental release of bunker fuel from a cargo vessel in English Bay called the city’s oil spill response capabilities into question.

“You’ve see even just from the bunker C fuel spill in the Burrard Inlet that they were totally incompetent in their ability to deal with [a spill],” she said, adding that the board will only consider the incremental rise in tanker traffic in Vancouver’s waters resulting from the Trans Mountain expansion, but not the impact on tanker traffic as a whole.

“They’re not looking at the whole system,” she said. “This is a deception being perpetrated on the public.”

Allan also said the board relies too heavily on Kinder Morgan’s assessment of risk. Recently the City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby and Tsleil-Waututh Nation commissioned an oil spill assessment by modelling experts Genwest Systems that found two key faults with Kinder Morgan’s oil spill assessment.

Allan said she expects the board to support Kinder Morgan’s risk assessment over those submitted by third parties and downplay the significance of spill risks for the project as a whole.

“The board will say — because Kinder Morgan says — that a spill is ‘not likely’ and therefore we don’t have to consider the cost or the implications.”

Recently NEB chair and CEO Peter Watson addressed public concern over the review process in British Columbia where opposition parties, several major environmental organizations and municipal leaders are calling on the provincial government to pull out of the federal process.   

Allan called the public outreach “duplicitous.”

“The public relations activities that Mr. Watson has been involved in are media spin,” she said. “It’s part of a strategy to lull the Canadian public into a sense of safety when none exists.”

Allan said intelligent Canadians don’t necessarily have the time to investigate the federal government’s review process. She felt she might be able to help: “from the beginning with my expertise and ability and concern I felt that was an effective role I could play.”

Now, after a year of pro bono engagement with the process, Allan says she can no longer participate in good faith.

“What I’ve concluded is the game is rigged, the National Energy Board is a captured regulator and their actions are putting the healthy and safety of the economy, society and environment at risk.” 

Robyn Allan Withdrawal Letter NEB May 19, 2015

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 group of professional engineers who say Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal is three times riskier than the company states is trying to raise $20,000 to ensure their alternative analysis reaches a broader audience.

Brian Gunn, who was the project engineer for the development of the Roberts Bank super port coal terminal in Delta, says he and a group of other professional engineers believe the risk posed by Enbridge’s oil tankers is too high.

“We’ve been heavily involved in resource extraction and transportation of resources,” Gunn said. “Our main effort is to see that these [projects] are done safely. We’re not opposed to … oil, tarsands, pipelines, whatever. We’re opposed to doing it in an unsafe manner. And, in our view, Northern Gateway is not a safe project.”

The engineers studied the risks inherent in Enbridge’s proposed pipeline and oil tanker project. After reviewing Enbridge’s marine shipping risk analysis report, they decided to prepare their own risk analysis. 

The engineers reached three broad conclusions. First, they found that Enbridge understated the risks of a tanker spill by a factor of three. While Enbridge’s report said there’s a nine per cent chance of a major oil spill occurring during the project’s 50-year operating life, Gunn’s group found the probability is closer to 23 per cent.

“You could ask somebody from Enbridge if they’re prepared to get on an airplane in that 50-year period when they know there’s a 23 per cent chance they are going to die,” Gunn said.

Even using Enbridge’s risk assessment, the project is too risky compared to other major civil projects, typically required to be 20 times safer than Enbridge’s estimate, Gunn argues.

“We’re concerned that it’s the wrong place and the wrong environment and the risks are far too high,” Gunn said. “Is a nine per cent chance of a major spill something that society should accept?”

Secondly, the engineers concluded it is uncertain whether diluted bitumen, the product Enbridge proposes to transport, will stay afloat long enough to be cleaned up in the event of a tanker spill. 

“When the spill occurs, the environment will have to live with it,” said Gunn, who is one of the founders of the B.C. Wilderness Tourism Association. “It will not be cleaned up. They will spend a lot of money trying and hopefully they will clean some of it up, but statistics show that they’re not very successful at doing that.”

Thirdly, the engineers concluded the financial cost of clean-up of a significant oil spill will be borne by the Canadian people, not by Enbridge.

The engineers toured the north coast, visited First Nations and other communities.

“We came back more convinced than ever that we had to do something,” Gunn said.

They enlisted the help of C.J. Peter Associates Engineering, a mechanical engineering firm in Prince George, B.C., registered as an intervener for the National Energy Board’s hearings on the project. That way, the engineers were able to question Enbridge and its consultants during the hearings.

Now, with the clock ticking down on the review panel’s recommendations — due by the end of this month — Gunn’s group hopes to raise $20,000 through a crowdsourcing campaign to develop a website, video and social media presence in time to influence the Enbridge debate.

“We’re getting close to the quarter point and we’ve got 20 days left to go. We’re going to try to get those arguments up and running before Christmas,” Gunn said. “I think generally people value this province, they value the supernatural image, they value the outdoors and I believe that if they know the risks are as high as they are, they won’t accept that.”

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.