Most Canadians weren’t surprised to hear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline this week.

Yet Trudeau’s announcement was so thoroughly cut through with political spin and misinformation some have described it as “Orwellian.”

So where did the Prime Minister rank highest on the spin-master index?

Here are our top five myth and misinformation moments from Trudeau’s Kinder Morgan announcement.

Kinder Morgan Pipeline Approval Based on ‘Science’

Concerns about scientific integrity have plagued the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline since the project first came under review.

The pipeline review, conducted by the National Energy Board, refused to consider the upstream climate and environmental impacts of the project, meaning vital scientific information about the impacts of oilsands development on air, water, at risk species and human health were excluded from consideration. The province of B.C. quietly accepted the NEB’s assessment of the project, despite noted deficiencies in its analysis of cumulative impacts, emissions and oil spill impacts.

To the frustration of participants, the NEB also excluded oral cross-examination from the proceedings, meaning Kinder Morgan avoided answering many difficult questions about the project’s environmental impacts.

In fact, a group of 27 climate experts, including economists, scientists and political and social scientists, were refused intervenor status during the pipeline hearings because they wanted to discuss the project’s impact on Canada’s climate change targets.

In the weeks before Trudeau’s announcement a group of scientists reached out to the PMO to share their findings on the lack of scientific literature regarding the effects of bitumen spills.

“It’s hard to imagine that the federal government decision (to approve new pipelines) could be based on science, just when we’ve found that in many cases, there’s very little science to base those decisions upon,” Wendy Palen, associate professor of biological sciences at Simon Fraser University told the National Observer.

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tankers ‘Safe’ for B.C. Coast

Because of inadequate or faulty science, it is impossible to substantiate the claim the pipeline and its related increase in tanker traffic is “safe” for the coast.

During the pipeline review process Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans argued Kinder Morgan’s assessment of threats to whale species off the B.C. coast from increased tanker traffic contained “insufficient information and analysis.”

A separate analysis, commissioned by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, found the anticipated increase in tanker traffic gives the local Southern Resident Killer Whale population only a 50 per cent chance of survival. Southern resident killer whales, which use echolocation to hunt their prey, have been overwhelmed by noise pollution in their habitat, a problem that has recently been connected to starvation within the population.

Kinder Morgan also failed to explain the potential impacts of a marine oil spill on fish populations.

Ecojustice, a west coast environmental law firm that acted as an intervenor in the pipeline hearings, pressed Kinder Morgan on this issue and 20 others related to marine science and safety during the pipeline review process.

Kinder Morgan refused to answer, simply claiming the questions raised were “not relevant.”

The recent grounding and sinking of the Nathan E. Stewart tugboat off the coast of central B.C. demonstrated the challenge of marine spill response in B.C.’s unpredictable waters and undercuts the myth of world-class oil spill response.

Following the diesel spill resulting from the Nathan E. Stewart grounding, Trudeau announced a $1.5 billion investment in coastal protection, which will help meet B.C.’s five conditions for the Kinder Morgan pipeline, and followed up with a tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast. Critics have argued the funding amounts to subsidies for oil and gas exporters, who should be required to pay for cleanup of spills in marine habitats.

Kinder Morgan Pipeline a Part of Canada’s Climate Plan

Trudeau announced the approval of the pipeline, saying it was “integral” to meeting Canada’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Currently Canada is on track to miss this target by a wide margin. The Climate Action Network estimates that by 2030 Canada will be 91 megatonnes over the line.

Approving this pipeline (which was approved at the same time as the Enbridge Line 3 expansion which will increase the line’s capacity by 525,000 barrels of oil per day) will make it harder for Canada to meet those targets.

Trudeau admitted expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline comes in light of increased oilsands production. The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of carbon pollution.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the approval of the Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines is estimated to put an additional 23 to 28 megatonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, the equivalent of adding 58 million cars to the road.

Pipeline Will Help Usher in Clean Energy Transition

Trudeau repeated a familiar talking point when approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline: that approving pipelines will help us move closer to a green energy future.

The basic assumption here is that Canada’s oil and gas sector, hurting from low market prices, needs the boost a new pipeline provides.

Yet prominent energy analysts and economists have disputed the argument that a bitumen export pipeline will be a boon for the Canadian economy, much less fund a clean energy transition.

Jeff Rubin, senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and former chief economist of CIBC world markets, told the CBC Canadians have been oversold on the benefits of selling oilsands crude to Asian markets.

“The reality is that Asian markets pay less, not more, for the bitumen that Canada wants to sell than U.S. refineries,” Rubin said.

Asian markets may not be in a position to handle refining oilsands crude, a particularly heavy hydrocarbon that often must undergo a costly coking process to be upgraded to a more useable light hydrocarbon product. Several refineries capable of handling oilsands crude already exist in the U.S., however.

Kinder Morgan argued the pipeline would be a major job creator, yet the company’s figures were called exaggerated in a report by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group that found the economic risks from a pipeline rupture were downplayed.

Rubin said some jobs from the pipeline construction are a small benefit, but may not outweigh the burden of building costly fossil fuel infrastructure at a time of global carbon constraints.

“If in fact it’s built, I don’t deny that the construction of a new pipeline will be a short-term job creator,” he said. “But if that ends up being a stranded asset, that’s not going to be an engine of economic growth. That’s an albatross around the economy.”

Pipeline Approval Doesn’t Violate Indigenous Rights

Last month a ministerial panel, convened by the federal government, released its report on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

Their conclusion? The pipeline should not be built without serious reassessment of its impact on Canada’s relation with indigenous peoples.

The panel posed this question to Justin Trudeau and his ministers: “how might Cabinet square approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and to the UNDRIP principles of ‘free, prior, and informed consent?’”

The panel posed this question because roughly two-thirds of the First Nations directly affected by the pipeline project have not signed letters of support for the project.

Several First Nations have already launched legal actions against the pipeline project and the National Energy Board-led review process they say did not respect constitutionally protected aboriginal rights.

Far from being in line with reconciliation, Trudeau’s approval of the pipeline goes against his promise to repair nation-to-nation relations with Canada’s indigenous peoples.

With files from James Wilt.

Image: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau discuss the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Photo: Prime Minister Photo Gallery

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.

Under the waves of Haro Strait, hydrophones record the noise made by passing vessels and, if you happen to be a whale, the din is already disorienting and disturbing, making it difficult to echo-locate food or communicate with other members of the pod.

“It’s a thunder. Thump, thump, thump, accompanied by squeals and engine noise. It’s like being under the hood of a hot-rod,” said Howard Garrett, president of Orca Network, the Washington State group that tracks the comings and goings of the 80 remaining members of the endangered southern resident killer whales.

All recent studies of the resident pods have identified marine noise around the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait as one of the stressors threatening their survival, in addition to lack of Chinook salmon — the whales’ favourite prey — contaminants accumulating in their blubber and degradation of their critical habitat.

Now, with federal approval of the Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the situation for the whales is about to get much worse and experts are predicting that the fragile population, which spends about six months a year in the Salish Sea, will not be able to survive the onslaught of tankers.

The number of tankers travelling from the pipeline terminal in Burnaby through Burrard Inlet, around the Gulf Islands and into Juan de Fuca Strait will increase from about five a month to about 34 a month and, while the increased chance of an oil spill is stomach-churning for marine scientists, the damage from increased tanker noise is equally alarming.

“We don’t need to have an oil spill to have significant adverse effects — and no one is disputing that, not the National Energy Board, not Kinder Morgan and not federal scientists,” said Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation biologist.

To a whale, it does not matter whether a tanker is empty or laden, meaning the animals will have to deal with a 700 per cent increase, made up of more than 800 inbound and outbound tanker trips every year, MacDuffee said.

Two years ago Raincoast called together top scientists with specialities in endangered populations and acoustics to do an analysis of the viability of the three pods of whales and the conclusion was that the population was on a precipice and could go either way, MacDuffee said.

“They said they cannot endure any more of these stressors.”

The whales are already in the presence of some kind of vessel, ranging from small boats to ferries and tankers, for 85 per cent of the time and, with the additional tankers, they will be in the presence of a vessel 100 per cent of the time, MacDuffee said.

Sound travels four times faster in the water than in the air and it will diminish the ability of the whales to locate their food, which is already in short supply.

“They use echolocation when they are feeding, so they are sending out little clicks and chirps to find individual fish and estimate the size of it and where it is in the water column and then communicate with the pod on how to catch it,” MacDuffee said.

“Our research shows a decrease in efficiency in the presence of vessels, so that translates into less food,” she said.

Insufficient food is believed to have been one of the elements in the latest death among the whales. J28 died in October and it is believed her 10-month-old calf has also died, unable to survive without his mother’s milk to supplement his catch.

“Poor, poor whales. They are just surrounded and bombarded on all sides,” said whale researcher Paul Spong of OrcaLab, a whale research station on Hanson Island, off northern Vancouver Island.

“It’s oil or orcas — take your pick…I think the risks are too great.”

The possibility of a spill is the biggest threat and, as seen in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez spill, that would be disastrous, but noise will also affect their survival, Spong said.

Already, regulations are needed to restrict whale watching vessels and the noise levels of ships, but the government has ignored recommended amendments to marine mammal regulations, Spong said, suggesting one of the first moves should be to severely restrict the speed of vessels travelling through the area.

“The whales are having a difficult time finding food to eat and now, if you shave a little bit more away from them, you are having a big impact on their ability to survive,” he said.

Spong shrugged off a claim by Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc that there would be only a one per cent increase in the noise level and said that was simply an acknowledgement that there would be an impact.

LeBlanc, in an interview with CBC Radio, said initially there might be a one per cent increase in noise, but a critical piece of getting the project right, is to ensure there is no increase in noise.

From Visually.

The whales are under pressure from lack of prey and coming into contact with ships of all sorts, so the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has put together an action plan under the Species at Risk Act, LeBlanc told CBC.

“We’re going to do a lot more to protect that whale population and, in fact, you’ll have a very comprehensive action plan in the new year based on 11,000 public suggestions,” he said.

The NEB found that there would be “significant adverse effects” on the southern resident killer whales from the additional tankers, but, as echoed by the Liberal government, suggested they could be mitigated.

In answer to questions from DeSmog Canada a spokesman for Fisheries and Oceans Canada said DFO recognizes the need to address the cumulative effect of all marine traffic in the area.

Before any shipping from the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project begins, the government will work to reduce impacts on southern resident killer whales in four areas, he said in an emailed statement.

Those include reducing cumulative noise from marine traffic with both voluntary and mandatory strategies, reducing chemical and biological pollutants, improving food supply by restoring coastal salmon habitat and new research to establish baselines.

“The objective is to more than mitigate for the impact of additional Trans Mountain marine traffic before the project begins operations,” the statement reads.

As part of the 157 binding conditions placed on the Kinder Morgan pipeline’s approval, the proponent will be required to develop a marine mammal protection program and support the measures identified in the Southern Resident Killer Whale Action Plan.

Also, the recently-announced $1.5-billion investment in the Oceans Protection Plan will help address the cumulative effects of shipping on marine mammals, according to the statement.

However, MacDuffee said, although ship noise can be reduced, there are currently no requirements to make engines and propellers quiet. She added it would take years to bring in legislation for new ships and to insist older ships are retrofitted.

The fight is likely to continue in the courts as Raincoast and the Living Oceans Society have already applied for a judicial review of the NEB’s report recommending approval of the pipeline expansion, saying the NEB failed to apply the Species At Risk Act.

The organization is now looking at the possibility of a second legal action.

Opponents on both sides of the border are vowing to battle the federal government’s decision and Garrett said there may be lessons from Washington State where the Cherry Point coal export terminal was stopped because of tribal and public opposition and litigation.

Image: NOAA

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.

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.

A report submitted to the National Energy Board (NEB) by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) points to “insufficient information and analysis” in Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal as it relates to whale populations off the coast of British Columbia.

“There are deficiencies in both the assessment of potential effects resulting from ship strikes and exposure to underwater noise in the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application documents,” the report says. “Ship strike is a threat of conservation concern, especially for…Fin Whales, Humpback Whales and other baleen whales.”

The report concludes that an increase in shipping intensity related to Kinder Morgan’s proposal would lead to an increase in threats to whale populations that occupy the Strait of Georgia and the Juan de Fuca Strait.

As covered by Blacklock’s Reporter the DFO analysis outlines Kinder Morgan’s failure to adequately address these concerns and “lack of an appropriate assessment framework” that would allow the department to evaluate the company’s claims.

Kinder Morgan’s current proposal would increase the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day. The increased capacity would see a significant spike in oil tanker traffic on the Burrard Inlet, from around 60 to more than 400 per year.

Critical habitat for killer whales, proposed habitat for humpback whales and other important areas for marine mammals as outlined in Kinder Morgan's submission to the NEB. Click image to see original in report.

“It’s a big issue,” NDP MP Nathan Cullen told Blacklock’s. “It’s a global concern, particularly in an area where we have had recovery of whale species.”

“The process that is being used by the government so far is flawed, and the public has lost faith,” Cullen said of the NEB review process. “It doesn’t provide certainty and creates avenues for conflict.”

Cullen recently introduced Bill C-628, which seeks to ban oil tankers from the northern B.C. coast.

Last spring, the federal government downgraded the classification of humpback whales from “threatened” to “species of special concern” under the Species at Risk Act. The move provoked British Columbia's public interest groups, which saw the downgrade as an attempt by the federal government to eliminate a legal requirement to protect whale habitat along the B.C. coast.

In February 2014, the federal courts, prompted by an Ecojustice lawsuit, ruled the Harper government had failed to provide recovery strategies for 170 species at risk in Canada. Two months later the federal government reclassified humpback whales, eliminating the requirement for feeding ground protections.

The DFO review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project submission found the company only measured noise pollution in marine mammal habitat from one single tanker and did not include noise exposure from other marine traffic. Kinder Morgan also misapplied noise exposure models, leading to inaccurate results and did not use adequate measures to calculate potential whale strikes from oil tankers, the report found.

Image Credit: Trans Mountain

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.

Vessel noise is already hindering endangered southern resident killer whales from communicating and finding fish and the noise bombardment will get worse if proposals for coal terminals and pipelines in B.C and Washington State are approved, said scientists and environmentalists at a conference looking at the health of the Salish Sea.

"Ships dominate the soundscape of Puget Sound," said Scott Veirs, Beam Reach Marine Sciences and Sustainability School program coordinator and professor, speaking at the Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference.

Veirs and his students take underwater sound recordings off Lime Kiln Park on San Juan Island, an area where the killer whales are known to spend time, and then model the echo-location and communication consequences for the resident killer whales. The resident killer whale population has dropped this year to 80 animals in three pods, the lowest number in more than a decade.

Sounds of swooshes, rattles and bangs echoed through the room as Veirs demonstrated noises surrounding the whales every day and audience members covered their ears as he played the screeching and metallic grindings made by a ship with a damaged propeller.

"At least one ship is present about 40 per cent of the time and when that ship is going through it reduces the range that whales can communicate by 68 per cent," Veirs said.

That means the whales miss about 37 per cent of calls and, if traffic doubles – as it could with increases in oil tankers from twinning the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby and with 21 per cent more carriers and barges from proposed coal terminal expansions in B.C. and Washington – it is estimated the whales will miss 44 per cent of the calls, he said.

Current noise levels mean whales are already finding almost 50 per cent less fish than they would otherwise and a doubling of traffic would increase that to 58 per cent, Veirs said.

The noise is having a significant impact as chinook salmon is already scarce, Veirs said.

Canadian and U.S. government studies have pinpointed lack of salmon – and particularly the whales' preferred diet of chinook – noise and pollution as the major threats faced by the resident killer whales.

Juvenile chinook salmon. Photo by Roger Tabor, USFWS.

Ship owners should be offered incentives to properly maintain their vessels and the noise could be mitigated by ships slowing down or rerouting through Rosario instead of Haro Strait, Veirs suggested.

"Every knot you slow down, you come down about one noise level," he said.

However, that would mean more time in the vicinity of the whales, which would increase the possibility of oil spills, he said.

Concerns about shipping noise changing the whales' behaviour was echoed by Marla Holt, research wildlife biologist with the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Vessel noise affects acoustic signals that are important for foraging, Holt said.

"The behavioural changes in response to vessels is quite concerning as one of them is decreased foraging," she said.

NOAA used digital acoustic recording tags, temporarily attached to whales with suction cups, to estimate noise levels.

The minimum noise level recorded, with two stationary and one slow boat in the vicinity, was 88 decibels and the maximum, with a large ferry less than 300 metres away, was 141 decibels, Holt said. Sound charts equate 140 decibels with the sounds of a jet engine at 100 feet.

Last year, the behaviour of the whales was different than in previous years, said Jenny Atkinson, executive director of The Whale Museum in Friday Harbour, Washington.

The Whale Museum documented sightings in the Salish Sea and found that, especially during the summer, when the whales typically spend their time around Juan de Fuca Strait, Haro Strait and the Strait of Georgia, the animals spent more time off the west coast of Vancouver Island and did not get together to socialize in their traditional areas.

It is not known whether the behaviour changes are connected to salmon runs or noise, but the result is that no one is observing the greeting ceremonies or the three pods coming together in a superpod, Atkinson said.

"They're not spending too much time socializing and making babies," she said.

The only calf born in 2013 washed up dead and no births have yet been reported this year.

An additional problem is that southern residents reproduce more slowly than northern residents, possibly because of lack of prey availability or contamination, said Dawn Noren of NOAA.

But other whale populations are doing well, with increases in the northern resident and transient killer whale populations and a resurgence of humpback populations, Atkinson said.

"So what is going on with the southern residents?" she asked.

Howard Garrett of Orca Network has watched the changing behaviour and believes prey availability is the most likely cause.

"It may be that it's not just lack of food on the inside, but an abundance on the outside," he said.

The whales appear to like the protection of inland waters as it allows them to congregate, but that will likely start happening again once they are well fed, Garrett said.

Superpods are important for mating as there are strict rules within the pods that do not permit mating with family members, Garrett said.

"Maybe they're having superpods off the west coast, but the chance of that seems slighter because of the rougher water," he said.

Image Credit: vijay_SRV 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 week the federal government was legally obligated to establish protected habitat for threatened North Pacific humpback whales. Instead the Harper government suddenly moved to take the humpback off the “threatened species” list. That would eliminate the legal requirement under Canada’s Species At Risk Act for protecting habitat along the British Columbia coast.

The government based the downgrade on a recommendation made by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the independent scientific body that designates which wildlife species are in trouble, in 2011.

Critics have noted the decision eliminates a major obstacle to both the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. After the conditional approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline by the National Energy Board's joint review panel, the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre launched a legal complaint on behalf of B.C. Nature requesting the government's recovery strategy for humpback whales be taken into consideration.

A federal recovery strategy for humpback whales on the B.C. coast released in October cited potential increased oil tanker traffic as a danger to dwindling populations. The recovery strategy, released after a five-year delay, also noted the danger toxic spills posed to critical habitat.

If built, the two pipeline projects would increase oil tanker traffic from eight to 28 per month, increasing the risks of collisions with whales, potential spills in vital habitat and excessive noise.

The good news is that the North Pacific humpbacks are recovering after nearly being wiped out by whale hunting, Marty Leonard, chair of COSEWIC, told DeSmog Canada.

The whales were listed as a species of “special concern” back in 2011, Leonard said. “Their numbers are increasing which is good to see. But they still face threats.”

Those threats include oil spills, collisions with ships, entanglement in fishing gear and overfishing of their food sources.

The Pacific Ocean is the largest feature on the planet — bigger than all land areas combined. After 250 years of whaling, an estimated 1,400 humpbacks remained in the North Pacific. They’re among the largest marine mammals reaching 14 metres in length and weighing up to 40 tonnes. Hunting was banned in 1965 and today there are about 20,000 in the entire region. Perhaps 3,000 are found seasonally in B.C. waters.

The Species At Risk Act took affect in 2003, prior to which Canada had little endangered species protection.

In 2005, COSEWIC listed North Pacific humpbacks as a “threatened” species. COSEWIC defines “threatened” as a species likely to become endangered if nothing is done. “Endangered” means about to go extinct. The government’s move will demote the status of humpbacks to “species of special concern.”

The federal government is required to produce an official “recovery strategy” for all species on the endangered and threatened lists, including legal protection of essential habitat.

Despite its legal obligation, the Harper government has persistently failed to do so for humpbacks and another 170 species.

In September 2012, Ecojustice lawyers filed a lawsuit in response to the Harper government’s delay on behalf of five environmental groups, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, Sierra Club BC, Wilderness Committee and Wildsight.

In February 2014, the Federal Court ruled the Harper government was breaking the law and was very critical of the government’s delay.

“We took the federal government to court and won,” said Caitlyn Vernon of the Sierra Club BC. 

“There is clearly an enormous systemic problem within the relevant Ministries,” Justice Anne L. Mactavish wrote in her judgment.

Justice Mactavish also noted that when it comes to protecting species, delay can lead to extinction.

The lawsuit prompted the Federal government to develop a recovery strategy for North Pacific humpbacks in September 2013, eight years after being listed as threatened.

The recovery strategy required legal protection of designated feeding grounds to be in place by this week, Vernon told DeSmog.

But rather than implement such protections, the government moved to downgrade the status of the whales to eliminate the need for legal protection of habitat.

“It’s good news humpback numbers are increasing, but their recovery is fragile. The science is clear that increased tanker traffic from the proposed pipelines will affect that recovery,” said Vernon.

“One oil spill and they’re back on the endangered species list.”

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 officially submitted a 15,000-page application for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to the National Energy Board (NEB) today, triggering what will no doubt be a lengthy and heavily scrutinized review of the controversial project. The submitted file stands over two metres tall and fills 37 binders.

According to a Kinder Morgan press release “the application filing follows over a year and a half of engagements with pipeline and marine communities, a detailed environmental and socio-economic assessment, route assessments, and other various marine and terrestrial analyses and studies.”

Karen Campbell, staff lawyer with Ecojustice, says it is difficult to say what exactly the application documents include. “Now that the application is out, we will be looking at it carefully and we expect to be involved in the process in some way, shape or form,” she said.

If approved, the expansion project will nearly triple the capacity of the 1,147 km Trans Mountain pipeline from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. To accommodate the increased oil, Kinder Morgan is proposing to build a new pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta, to the Burrard Inlet in Burnaby, B.C., create new and modified facilities and add three berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby. The pipeline carries a variety of hydrocarbon products including diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands.

The expansion project is expected to result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic in the Burrard Inlet. Currently the Kinder Morgan terminal services five tankers a month. If the project is approved that number could jump to 34 per month, or more than 400 annually.

“The proposed tanker route is a ‘high risk’ area," says Sierra Club BC's campaigns director Caitlyn Vernon, "and the provincial government has acknowledged that effective oil spill clean-up is impossible under many scenarios on the B.C. coast. Instead of investing in the possibility of toxic jobs in oil-spill clean-up, why not invest in green jobs instead? Building retrofits, renewable energies and low-carbon transportation options provide more jobs than the oil and gas industry.”

More than 130 First Nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration opposing oilsands pipelines, and the Union of BC Municipalities passed a motion opposing oil tanker expansion on the B.C. coast in 2012.

According to the National Energy Board, a review of Kinder Morgan’s application will consider the economic need and feasibility of the project as well as potential environmental and socio-economic effects. The federal review will also consider appropriateness of the general route, land requirements, and design of the project.

In addition, First Nations’ interests will be taken into consideration as well as safety, spill response and preparedness.

The National Energy Board will also hear from various intervenors throughout the hearing process. Recent changes to environmental assessment legislation severely limit who can participate in the hearings and what issues those participants can speak to. Environmental group ForestEthics Advocacy recently filed a suit against the federal government for the changes, stating the new rules limit the legitimate participation of the public in the hearing process and prevent participants from discussing critical issues such as climate change or expansion of the Alberta oilsands. 

Vancouver city councillors are considering a motion that would direct city staff to register as intervenors in the hearings. A motion filed in early December by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson proposes staff seek intervenor status to argue against the “unacceptable risk” the project poses to “Vancouver and the region’s vibrant economy, local environment and parks, infrastructure, financial and legal liability, public health, and our international brand as one of the world’s most livable cities.”

The motion also suggests the City of Vancouver officially disagree with the National Energy Board’s refusal to consider the climate impacts of the project as relevant to the public’s interest. 

Robertson’s motion states “the City of Vancouver views an increase in the extraction of fossil fuels intended for combustion, and the increase in greenhouse gases associated with this extraction and combustion, as posing a direct risk to the city and a result of sea-level rise and extreme weather impacts associated with anthropogenic climate change.”

The motion also voices concerns around the lack of appropriate emergency preparedness and the question of financial loss to local residents and businesses in the event of a spill.

City council is hosting a public hearing on the motion Wednesday December 18th. So far no members of the public have registered to speak at Wednesday’s city council hearing.

In 2007 a construction crew damaged the Trans Mountain pipeline spilling nearly 250,000 litres of oil into a local residential neighbourhood and the Burrard Inlet. At least 50 homes were evacuated. 

Last fall Kinder Morgan held several public information sessions across B.C. in a bid to boost support for the project, although consultations with First Nations will likely emerge as the company’s highest social licence priority moving forward.

If approved, the expansion could be in operation as early as 2017.

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

A new independent report has revealed that there's nothing on the books in Canada to ensure the owners of tankers that spill oil on the west coast will be held financially accountable for damage to communities and individuals.

The West Coast Spill Response Study, released late last week by the Province of British Columbia, outlines the major gaps in both federal and provincial oil spill response plans, most notably the hole where legislation requiring polluters to pay should be.

The Ministry of Environment says the report “lays the foundation for building a world-class marine spill response and preparedness system.” But if this is what the foundation looks like, there’s a long way to go before the house is complete. The report reveals that tanker companies are not legally responsible for compensating individuals or communities affected by long-term environmental damage, such as that caused by oil spills off the BC coast. The report further states that there are no regulations in place to establish environmental impact or determine how compensation should be given, and while the BC government has the authority to restore damaged coastline habitats, there’s currently no funding mechanism in place to do so.

The BC Liberals commissioned Nuka Research to conduct a three-phase investigation of the policies and regulations currently in place governing marine oil spill response at both levels of government, as well as lay out industry best practices to determine how best to address gaps. A world-class marine spill response system is one of five conditions the BC Liberals have laid out for the Harper government, demanding they be met before the province will give its consent to allow the Northern Gateway Pipeline and heavy oil on the west coast.

“We stand by this condition, which is why we contracted Nuka Research, an international expert in the field, to conduct this comprehensive study,” said BC Environment Minister Mary Polak via email.

She said the BC Liberals are pleased with some of the steps the federal government has made toward a better prevention and response system, namely the creation of a federal tanker safety expert panel announced in March that will also review existing safety measures and recommend improvements.

But, she said, ultimately BC will have to wait and see what those improvements are before determining whether conditions have been met.

“We believe the current federal response standards need to be strengthened given the increase in both the number and size of tankers along our coast,” she said. “If an oil spill occurs, it’s important to know that in all cases, the spiller is responsible for clean-up and monitoring. The role of provincial and federal agencies is to oversee the response.”

Several major players in the Canadian oil export industry, including Kinder Morgan and Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd, declined to comment on the report.

The report also points out a number of other oversights and omissions concerning spill prevention, mainly in the form of tanker safety. The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) is mandated to inspect all foreign ships the first time they enter Canadian ports and then yearly thereafter. In 2010, the most recent year for which information is available, the CCG inspected 1,082 ships and found deficiencies in 40 percent of them. Of those ships, less than five percent were detained. In March of this year, the federal government announced its commitment to increasing the number of vessels inspected each year, however, the report states that this commitment only means that Canada will work harder to meet its own requirements for inspecting all ships upon their first visit to Canada and yearly thereafter, and not a net increase in the number of ships inspected.

There is a voluntary tanker exclusion zone that runs from Valdez, Alaska to Puget Sound, Washington, that keeps laden oil tankers a minimum of 50 nautical miles offshore. But the zone doesn’t apply to tankers whose destination is within those bounds, such as the BC ports. And while there are escort tug requirements for several locations in southern BC to help with safe navigation through difficult passages, there are no such regulations in northern BC.

Subjectivity is a theme throughout. The report cites multiple references to “reasonable” costs in both federal and provincial regulations, as well as liability limits for tankers of various sizes. The current limit according to the federal Marine Liability Act is $137,973,797. The final bill for clean-up and remediation after Enbridge’s spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010 was just over $1 billion.

Image Credit: Photo by Wendy North 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.