This article originally appeared on the Dogwood Initiative blog.

With final arguments in the Kinder Morgan pipeline review underway in Burnaby, a top Chinese official is using the moment to offer Canadians a deal. During his visit to Ottawa last Friday, Han Jun, China’s Vice-Minister of Financial and Economic Affairs, said the world’s second-largest economy would be willing to sign a Free Trade Agreement with Canada — but only if we build a pipeline to the West Coast.

Signing an FTA, Han suggested, would give Canadian agriculture and energy producers greater access to China’s domestic market. In return, Beijing also wants restrictions lifted on takeovers of Canadian companies by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

China has been working to gain access to Canadian oil reserves for more than a decade. As Enbridge’s first partner on Northern Gateway in 2005, state-owned PetroChina pledged to purchase up to half of the pipeline’s capacity, but became frustrated by delays and eventually pulled out of the project.

In the years following, China’s SOEs invested billions into the Canadian oil patch, culminating in the 2013 purchase of Nexen by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) for $15 billion. (In a tragic coincidence, hours after Han spoke in Ottawa, an explosion at Nexen’s Long Lake facility killed one worker and left another critically injured.)

After the Nexen takeover, which prompted concerns about China’s human rights record, labour practices and one-way approach to investment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper brought in restrictions on future purchases of Canadian firms by Chinese SOEs. Angered by the gesture, the Chinese administration shelved negotiations on a Canada-China trade deal.

Now Beijing is back, once again dangling the prospect of free trade. Right on cue, two friendly think tanks — the Canada-China Business Council and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives — released a report arguing that a trade deal with China would boost Canadian exports by $7.7-billion over the next fifteen years and create 25,000 additional jobs.

“During the term of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau there are rare, historical opportunities between China and Canada,” Han told the Globe and Mail. Here in Canada, influential members of the Liberal family are working hard to prove him right.

Having served as Jean Chretien’s former Deputy Prime Minister (as well as Minister of Finance, Foreign Affairs, and Industry), John Manley is perhaps the most visible former Liberal lobbying for closer economic ties to China. Manley is President and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which co-authored the Canada-China FTA report.

The CCCE’s Chairman is Paul Desmarais Jr., whose day job is Chairman and Co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada. Having employed at different times Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and Pierre Trudeau, the late Paul Desmarais Sr. was also the founding Chairman of the Canada-China Business Council, which is the other co-author of the above-cited FTA report.

The CCBC is stacked with Liberal heavyweights. Its current Chairman, Peter Kruyt, works for Desmarais at Power Corporation, while its Vice Chairman is former Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. The CCBC’s President is Peter Harder, a highly-respected former federal civil servant. When Justin Trudeau needed an experienced set of hands to oversee his transition into government, he called Harder.

None of this is to suggest that further trade with China is in itself a bad idea. But the terms on which we negotiate such a deal must be fair to Canadians, as well as uphold the country’s duties to First Nations. By cheerleading publicly for an FTA, old-guard Liberals like Manley and Desmarais increase the pressure on Trudeau to cut a quick deal on China’s terms.

Don’t forget, any new trade deal would take effect in addition to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement ratified by the previous government. The FIPA, from which Canada cannot fully withdraw for the next 30 years, locked in more wide-ranging investment rights for Chinese companies than Canadian firms get in China. That’s why signing the FIPA before negotiating a Free Trade Agreement was a mistake by the federal government, according to one of the treaty’s most vocal critics.

“The sequencing works in China's favour,” says Osgoode Hall law professor Gus Van Harten. “China is the capital exporter in the relationship, so it has the greater interest in a FIPA that provides special rights and protections to each country's investors in the other country. I would say that, with the FIPA, the Harper government gave away one of Canada's bargaining chips to get a favourable trade deal. Now we should be going into trade negotiations with a view to repairing some of the flaws in the FIPA, which will not be straightforward or easy.”

Among the problems with the FIPA — at least for Canadians concerned about environmental laws or labour standards — is the right of Chinese corporations to sue Canada over decisions by courts or legislatures that are seen to interfere with their investments. These investor-state disputes are settled in secretive international tribunals overseen by for-profit arbitrators, and can force host countries to pay damages in the billions of dollars. (For more on the Canada-China FIPA, see Sold Down the Yangtze by Gus Van Harten).Add up the lopsided terms of the FIPA and the sudden pressure on Trudeau to conclude a Free Trade Agreement and the picture becomes clear. China intends to use this next round of trade talks to get what it has wanted for more than ten years: ownership of Canadian energy assets and secure access via pipelines and supertanker terminals on the West Coast.

Let’s curtail any accusations of Sinophobia, right here and now. My family was the victim of the same ‘yellow peril’ discourse that has simmered below the surface of B.C. politics for more than a century. This is not about racism toward Chinese people. This is about protecting our sovereignty — Canadian sovereignty, B.C. sovereignty and Indigenous sovereignty — from a powerful international trading partner.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s job is to balance the pressure coming from the likes of Han Jun, John Manley and Paul Desmarais Jr. with the legal and political realities here in British Columbia. Just last Monday the B.C. government came out in opposition to Kinder Morgan because the company has no credible plan to clean up toxic, sinking bitumen. Municipalities and First Nations around the Salish Sea applauded the province’s move.

Then on Wednesday the B.C. Supreme Court delivered the game-changing Gitga’at ruling, concluding that B.C. erred in signing away its duties of consultation around Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal. That ruling has clear implications for theKinder Morgan review, which relies on the same “Equivalency Agreement” between B.C. and Ottawa. Pipelines, as it turns out, are not the exclusive domain of the federal government.

As Beijing ramps up its campaign for a West Coast pipeline approval, our job will be to support those Members of Parliament looking to do right by their constituents — and prevent another cave-in like what happened with the FIPA. Simply put, if the cost of a trade agreement involves dangerous bitumen-laden supertankers on our coast, then the people of B.C. aren’t going to accept the terms. We have just under two months to make that clear before Trudeau heads on his first trade mission to China.

Image: 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.

British Columbians must learn from mistakes made following the Exxon Valdez and BP Deepwater Horizon oil spills and prepare oil spill community response plans, renowned U.S. marine toxicologist Riki Ott is warning.

Transport Canada, along with the industry-funded Western Canada Marine Response Corporation and the Canadian Coast Guard are in charge of oil spill response on the west coast, but recent incidents like the bunker fuel leak in English Bay show a lack of communication and spotty response can leave local governments and communities on the sidelines.

Speaking at a community workshop in Victoria organized by Georgia Strait Alliance and Living Oceans Society, Ott said the risk of an oil spill off the B.C. coast increases as more tankers and other vessels ply the crowded waters. Communities must be ready to deal with a disaster, she said.

“Oil doesn’t spill on federal and provincial land. It spills in someone’s backyard,” Ott said, warning that people also need to be educated about health hazards that come from breathing oil-laden air, diseases suffered by clean-up crews absorbing toxic chemicals through their skin and the decades-long effects on marine species and wildlife, ranging from mutations to extirpation.

“When it happens, it’s really too late. You have to put all your energy into prevention and it’s really important to have a plan,” she said.

Pipeline company Kinder Morgan has refused to release its full oil spill response plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline in Canada — even though those same plans are publicly available in the U.S. — meaning local communities and emergency responders have little to no information on how to clean up in the event of another oil spill.

An oil spill will disrupt communities and the environment long after the official cleanup is finished, said Ott, pointing to continuing problems in Prince William Sound, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989.

“Oil on the beaches just doesn’t go away, it just goes under and every time the tide comes in, it lifts it up so the poison is rippling through the ecosystem,” she said.

Ott, a scientist, author and activist who witnessed the ecological destruction and social chaos after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and then worked in the Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, shone a spotlight on the resulting chemical illnesses.

Those go far beyond the flu-like symptoms, colloquially known as the “Valdez crud,” and include central nervous system damage, reproductive problems, cancer and liver failure, said Ott, who spent years researching health implications of exposure to heavy crude oil.

In the Gulf of Mexico the situation was made worse by the use of nearly two million gallons of toxic dispersants — used as solvents to break up oil slicks — which make it easier for toxins to be absorbed through the skin, Ott discovered.

“Oil and solvent is worse than oil alone and so much was sprayed it amounted to the sixth largest petro-chemical spill in the U.S,” she said, describing the area around the Gulf of Mexico as a toxic chemical gumbo where it became common to see dead dolphins, fish or shrimp born with no eyes or crabs with dissolving shells.

The lack of human health studies was startling and authorities seemed unaware that the toxic mix was airborne, said Ott, who wants Canadians to arm themselves with information because in February the federal government passed Bill C-22, which allows for the use of the same dispersant — Corexit — in Canada.

It is an alarming decision, especially as efforts are now underway to have the dispersant banned in the U.S., Ott said.

In 2011, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency issued a directive requiring BP to identify a less toxic alternative to dispersants, acknowledging that the chemicals can be carcinogenic and mutagenic.

Incidents such as the ruptured Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline that spewed crude oil over a Burnaby neighbourhood and into the Burrard Inlet in 2007 and this year’s spill of 2,700 litres of bunker fuel into English Bay underline the lack of local planning and minimal information about health risks, Ott said.

Response to the English Bay spill was frustrated by the federal government’s decision to shutter the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, something B.C. Premier Christy Clark, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and the newly elected federal Liberal government have vowed to reverse.

Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau promised to reopen the base as well as reinvest in marine safety and oil spill response capacity in B.C. during the election campaign.

People need to know what products would be used after a spill, who gets to make that decision, where the waste will go, who will be responsible for cleaning oiled wildlife and who will be responsible for collecting carcasses, Ott said.

Canadian plans are based on the “polluter pays” principle, but that can cause problems, she added.

“Do you want the spiller in charge? … You don’t want industry making these calls, you want local government making these calls.”

A recent Georgia Strait Alliance report, “A Voice for Coastal Communities in Marine Oil Spill Preparedness,” echoes those concerns and is calling for the federal government to clarify roles and responsibilities, with an emphasis on ensuring local governments take part in risk assessment, planning and training.

The report also recommends formation of a citizens’ advisory council and additional federal funding to support local governments in preparing oil spill response plans.

“Boaters, beachgoers or local emergency services are often among the first to discover a spill and it is communities that are left with the consequences long after the response teams have gone home,” says the report.

“Yet, when it comes to marine oil spill planning and response in Canada, those who are most directly affected and have the most to lose — coastal residents and the local governments representing them — have ended up on the sidelines.”

The province is preparing plans to create a quicker, more coordinated response to land-based spills, which should be in place by early 2017, and it will also have a marine component, which should address many concerns raised at the workshop, said Graham Knox, director of B.C.’s Environmental Emergency Program.

Image: bunker fuel found on Second Beach by marine scientists Peter Ross of the Vancouver Aquarium

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.

Holy smokes.

Polls are in and Canadians across the country are expressing surprise at the strong win for the federal Liberal party.

While there’s much ink to be spilled over former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reign, he’s likely locked in a bathroom now, so we’ll save that for another, less change-y time.

Canada, you have a new Prime Minister. I would say ‘go home, you’re drunk.’ But don’t, because you’re not. This is actually happening.

But wait, what is actually happening? We have a new majority government. Before the fun gets away with us, let’s do a quick reality check for what the Liberal Party and incoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have been promising all y’all on some of our top DeSmog Canada topics: climate, environment, science and transparency.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberals on Climate

On the issue of Canada’s climate commitments for the UN climate summit this fall in Paris, the Liberal platform is underdeveloped. On the campaign trail last week party leader Justin Trudeau told the CBC he would not commit to specific emissions targets.

“Everybody has thrown out numbers and different targets, and what they’re going to do and what is going to happen,” Trudeau said.

“What we need is not ambitious political targets. What we need is an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions in the country.”

The federal Conservative party promised to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2050, a target that has been roundly criticized as weak. Others have pointed out the Conservative plan made no mention of the Alberta oilsands, the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada.  

Although the Liberals don’t have a specific plan yet, the party has promised to establish a new climate change framework by February 2016 that includes an eventual phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. The plan will also include investment in climate resilience, clean technology and low-carbon infrastructure.

The party will also set aside $2 billion for emissions-reducing projects through a new Low Carbon Economy Trust.

Trudeau has also promised to attend climate negotiations in Paris with all of the premiers and to work with the provinces on emissions reduction plans that are location specific.

Importantly the Liberals have also promised to work with other countries like Mexico and the U.S. in developing shared clean energy plans.

Liberals on Environment

The Liberal party is promising to undo some of the damage done to Canada’s environmental laws and environmental assessment process for projects like pipelines.

The party promises to establish new, credible reviews for proposed development that are comprehensive, consider full and cumulative impacts, including upstream impacts like development in the oilsands, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Their revamped review process promises to be evidence-based and allow for more meaningful participation by the public.

Liberal party candidate Jonathan Wilkinson, who took the North Vancouver riding with 56 per cent of the vote, has also promised to scrap the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline review in favour of a revitalized process.

Trudeau has voiced his support for pipelines, including the Kinder Morgan and Keystone XL pipelines, but has also acknowledged “even though [it is] governments that grant permits, ultimately it’s only communities that grant permission.”

In that light, the party is also promising to engage more respectfully with First Nations during the consultation process. Considering cumulative impacts around the oilsands has been a major issue for local First Nations. On this note the Liberals have also promised to immediately implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — something that will alter the manner in which First Nations are approached and consulted on major energy projects.

Since 2012 the Conservative party has weakened and eliminated many of Canada’s strongest environmental laws, including the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act.

The Liberals have promised to review changes to both of these Acts, re-instate what was removed from them and possibly up protections where warranted.

Significantly for B.C. the Liberal party has promised a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on the province’s north coast.

Liberals on Science

The Liberal party has taken a strong stance on the war on science in Canada, promising to free scientists to speak publicly about their work.

Trudeau has also promised to instate a Parliamentary Science Officer to ensure transparency, expertise and independence of federal scientists. This position will mirror that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In addition to unmuzzling scientists, the party also wants to work collaboratively with the provinces, First Nations and other stakeholders when it comes to ocean management.

This is significant in light of the Conservative government’s de-funding of numerous marine science programs, including the only research being conducted into the effects of industrial pollutants on marine mammals. The Liberal party has promised to reinstate $40 million of funding for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Liberals plan on incorporating more science into federal environmental assessments including the consideration of climate change and environmental impacts of oilsands development on pipeline projects. Under the Conservatives both emissions and environmental impacts of the oilsands were considered ‘outside the relevant scope’ of pipeline reviews.

The federal Conservatives also fought against First Nations and conservation groups regarding the Species at Risk Act and its implication for major projects like oilsands mines or pipelines.

The Liberal party has promised to respond more quickly and more scientifically to the issue of at risk species. This means species will be listed faster and mandatory timelines will be put in place for species once they are listed as at risk.

A new version of the Species at Risk Act is already on the Liberal’s environmental plan.

Liberals on Transparency

When it comes to dealing with media, Trudeau has promised to have a much more open and transparent relationship with journalists.

Through its Transparency Act, the party has promised to make access to information much easier for Canadians, including making all government documents freely available online.

The Access to Information Act will be amended to make information ‘Open by Default,’ that is, more easily available to the public, on quicker timelines and for less money.

Current requests under the act cost $5 per request but may be subject to additional fees if the request is large or requires a lot of time. The amended act will limit the possible fee to the initial $5 charge.

In addition the Act will be reviewed every five years and expanded to include the Prime Minister’s Office, which is usually exempt from disclosure rules.

Trudeau has also promised to repeal certain elements of the Conservative’s controversial anti-terrorism legislation Bill C-51.

Former prime ministers, national editorial boards, tech experts, legal scholars, civil society organizations, democracy watchdogs and droves of citizens opposed the bill, saying it undermined the democratic rights of Canadians.

Many were outraged at the Liberals’ decision to support it.

Trudeau has promised to “take a constructive approach to improving the bill” including instituting greater oversight of Canada’s national security agencies and establishing an “all-party committee of Parliamentarians, to provide oversight of various agencies, including CSIS, CSE, the RCMP and DND.”

No matter what, Canadians are in for a real mix up under this new leadership. Reuters is reporting Justin Trudeau will bring “glamour, youth and charisma” to Ottawa in the dawning of this new age. I’ll reserve that kind of cheer for another moment. For now, I’ll just say the Liberal party certainly has their work cut out for 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 Economist says Vancouver is liveable, but boring. Clearly they haven’t read its latest evidence against Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

As part of its final package of evidence in the NEB’s review of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker expansion, the City of Vancouver solicited expert testimony on how air quality would be impacted by a spill in Burrard Inlet.

The 53-page report prepared by Richmond-based Levelton Consultants has the same underlying thread of doom featured in much of Vancouver’s other evidence. The key difference? This time there’s a possible human body count.

Benzene, Bitumen and the Human Body

In order to make bitumen transportable it is diluted with a mix of natural gas condensates. This mixture often includes toxic impurities like hydrogen sulphide, cyclohexane and aromatics like benzene, toluene and xylene.

These chemicals are liquid at room temperature, but evaporate quickly when exposed to air, and are extremely toxic to humans. Benzene in particular can cause major, permanent and irreversible damage to immune system cellular function. Possible health impacts of exposure include drowsiness, dizziness, irregular heartbeat, headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness and death. It also adheres to mucous membranes like those in the eyes, nose, lungs and skin, causing irritation.

Air quality experts measure potential impacts by PAC (Proactive Action Criteria) exposure levels, with 1 being the lowest and 3 the highest.

According to Levelton Consultants modelling of a possible major bitumen spill at the Lion’s Gate Bridge:

“There are predicted benzene PAC-2 exceedances over water and land areas, however, not in areas where people live according to the Statistics Canada census data (2011). The exceedances of the benzene PAC-2 levels have been predicted for areas where people may be present including Stanley Park, Lions Gate Bridge, Second Narrows Bridge and over water.”

In simpler terms: If people were overcome by the effects of the benzene and were unable to leave the contaminated area and seek medical help — for example, drivers on the Lions Gate bridge stuck in traffic or pedestrians and cyclists on the Seawall — there is a risk of severe permanent health impacts, including death.

Two other figures in the report are worthy of concern.

The first is 31,400 – the number of potential people living within the 42 square kms around the spill area who would be exposed to benzene levels above PAC 1 and may require hospitalization. Side fact: The Vancouver Coastal Health region has only 1,384 beds available in their 'acute care' department. How they would accommodate the sudden possible influx of 31,400 patients is unclear.

The second figure is 133,100 to 1,077,700 — the range of people living in Vancouver who would be exposed to levels of benzene that exceed acute exposure limits (or the maximum safe amount a person can be exposed to without adverse health impacts). The estimates are based on 2011 Census data, and do not account for tourists or visitors who may be in the exposed area at the time of a spill.

While the maximum predicted one-hour concentrations of benzene decrease below PAC level 1 threshold six hours after an oil spill, its levels still remain above the maximum safe amount.

"The Risks and Costs Outweigh the Benefits"

This new research is coupled with information released earlier this month including spill modelling, impacts on wildlife, negative impacts on real estate values, etc. In short, city staff concluded that the pipeline was ‘not needed in a carbon-constrained world’ and that the Kinder Morgan’s assessment has fundamental flaws that ‘systematically underestimates’ the very real risks to Vancouver.

In their opinion, a major oil spill would be a disaster for Vancouver’s environment, economy, health and reputation, with even a less than ‘worse case’ spill being disastrous. And since the pipeline project was designed with an oil price of $94/barrel in mind, there is a real risk of the expanded pipeline becoming a stranded asset if oil prices remain where they are.

Vancouver City Council will reconvene in two weeks to decide on Mayor Gregor Robertson’s motion to accept the evidence and formally recommit its stance against Kinder Morgan.

These revelations come a day after the Tsleil-Waututh Nation revealed its independent assessment of the Kinder Morgan proposal. The massive report commissioned by the Tsleil-Waututh Sacred Trust, concludes:

“That the proposal does not represent the best use of Tsleil-Waututh territory and its water, land, air, and resources to satisfy the needs of our ancestors, and the needs of present and future generations. It has the potential to deprive past, current, and future generations of our community control and benefit of the water, land, air, and resources in our territory. The assessment recommends that Chief and Council continue to withhold Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s support.”

Oral hearings for the Kinder Morgan TransMountain proposal are scheduled to begin in September with a final recommendation from the National Energy Board expected on Jan 25, 2016.

Image Credit: Rob Sinclair 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.

None have captured the unique beauty and wildlife of British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest like acclaimed photographer Ian McAllister.

A resident and long-time conservationist of the unique coastal wilderness, McAllister has intimately documented the region and its iconic species, like the spirit bear, for over 25 years. Much of the landscape — renowned for its biodiversity, including intricate networks of salmon, bears and wolves — is now endangered as energy projects threaten to transform the very existence of the ecosystem, McAllister explains.

“Canada supports the longest coastline in the world and yet we have only protected one per cent of its marine waters,” McAllister said. “And now we have oil and gas projects being proposed that have the ability to destroy everything here in a single event.”

“There is no question that the battle to protect our oceans remains among the last conservation frontiers on planet earth. And our very survival depends on how successful we are in the coming years.”

Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

That battle is precisely what McAllister is now on the road to highlight through his new book, Great Bear Wild.

A mixture of photographs and personal narrative, Great Bear Wild celebrates the legendary beauty of the region at a time when political tensions around the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline are at an all-time high.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

“Everything is at stake here: our climate, our coastline, our communities,” McAllister said. “And it is our hope that these images and these stories continue to remind us of its fragile beauty while also ensuring it remains as wild and fully functioning as it has for so many thousands of years.”

Image from Great Bear Wild – Dispatches from a Northern Rainforest from Pacific Wild on Vimeo.

McAllister will be speaking in Victoria on Wednesday, November 12 at the Alix Goolden Hall.

Upcoming Great Bear Wild Book Tour Dates:

Wednesday, November 12 at 7:30pm

Alix Goolden Hall, Victoria – $12

Thursday, November 13 at 7pm

Quw’utsun Centre, Duncan – By Donation

Friday, November 14 at 7pm

Charlie White Theatre, Sidney – $12

Tuesday, November 18 at 7pm

South End Hall, Galiano – By Donation

Wednesday, November 19 at 7:30pm

Tidemark Theatre, Campbell River – $12

Thursday, November 20 at 7:30pm

Sid Williams Theatre, Courtenay – $12

Friday, November 21

Powell River – Details TBD

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.

Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) announced today that it is stopping the clock on the review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion due to the company’s new proposed corridor through Burnaby, B.C. — which will push a decision on the project back to after the 2015 federal election.

The board will take a seven-month timeout from its 15-month timeline between July 11, 2014, and Februrary 3, 2015, to allow Kinder Morgan time to file studies for its new corridor through Burnaby Mountain, according to a letter to intervenors sent today.

That pushes the board’s deadline to file its report on the project with cabinet back seven months from July 2, 2015, to Jan. 25, 2016.

“The significant thing is that this decision now won’t be made until after the next federal election. It’ll be up to the next Prime Minister to make that call,” says Karen Campbell, staff lawyer with Ecojustice.

“From a campaign perspective, it certainly gives some wind in the sails of those who want to make sure this isn’t a fait accompli before the next election,” she says.

But Campbell also cautioned that there are still a lot of shortcomings in the process that the energy board has not addressed.  

That’s a concern echoed by Gregory McDade, legal counsel for the City of Burnaby.

“There are so many other incomplete items that need work,” McDade says. “We’ve been pushing all along for a proper public hearing with cross-examination and evidence and the NEB said they couldn’t do that because of the tight timeline. Now that we have the time, why aren’t we doing a proper public hearing?”

McDade says that without cross-examination, the energy board’s review is not legitimate. He noted how Kinder Morgan failed to answer many of the questions put to them through the “information request” process, which he described as a “colossal joke.”

“Stalling it seven months doesn’t help at all if you’re not going to properly examine the evidence,” he said. “It just puts the decision off.”

Chris Tollefson, executive director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, says this ruling is just a small step toward fixing the problem and that the entire process needs to be put on hold until Kinder Morgan’s application is complete.

As of right now, the rest of the hearings are scheduled to move forward more or less as per the previous schedule.

“The board has now recognized that this process was not working and that the timelines were unrealistic,” Tollefson says. “What we would call upon the board now to do is to revisit its decision to eliminate cross-examination from this process.”

Any which way, the Conservatives will be in the limelight over their support for heavy oil projects on B.C.'s coast in the 2015 election, according to Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at Dogwood Initiative, a B.C. democracy group.

"It'll be a live issue for sure," Nagata says. "The way Kinder Morgan is going, the more time the NEB gives them to alienate landowners and First Nations, the more likely they are to remind people of Enbridge."

Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion would ship 590,000 barrels of oilsands bitumen to Burnaby each day, where it would be loaded onto 400 oil tankers each year.

— With files from Carol Linnitt

Photo: Rod Raglin 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 is a guest post by Kai Nagata, creator of DeepRogueRam and author of KaiNagata.com.

I’m not. In fact, I don’t think it’s accurate to call me an “environmentalist.” But I am a citizen opposed to exporting bitumen by supertanker from the B.C. coast. And that makes a lot of people, including National Post columnist Kelly McParland, very upset.

Here’s what he wrote yesterday, following the National Energy Board’s conditional approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline (emphasis mine):

“Enbridge Inc. has already set out plans for unprecedented levels of precautionary measures to guard against accidents. Nonetheless, activist spokespeople were already denouncing the report as it was released, pledging an all-out jihad against the project, including legal challenges, political action and street-level protests.”

“It is easy to dismiss such zealotry, but the environmental lobby has more than adequately displayed its expertise in martialling popular support for its campaigns, no matter how ill-informed. It bases its clout on its ability to generate noisy backing and large amounts of cash from a community of well-meaning people who sympathize with its desire to protect the natural world and are easily gulled by its skilled propaganda and the emotion-charged misinformation campaigns at which it excels. People who get their opinions from the entertainment news and mistake celebrity for credibility or expertise are not likely to be swayed by the judgment of a three-member NEB panel, no matter how conclusive.”

To be clear, it’s not the calculated use of war-on-terror language that bugs me. McParland is free to caricature the “environmental lobby” in whatever colourful terms he pleases. His job, after all, is to generate page views. That’s entertainment news. What bugs me is the deeper condescension toward British Columbians: the suggestion that citizens like me are idiots, incapable of calculating risk versus reward.

My opposition to this pipeline is not ideological, it’s utilitarian.

The term “environmentalist” has come to describe someone who ranks the beauty of the natural world above the prosperity of human beings. But to me, those things are on the same level. Two sides of the same coin. Inseparable and interdependent.

Let’s get something straight. B.C. is not a “pristine wilderness.” Nature is not a temple to go to worship. My love for this place is not aesthetic. These are working landscapes. They’ve been managed and regulated for human benefit since time before memory. As the JRP heard many times, the archeological record of that use goes back 10,000 years.

My own family has been here since 1905, harvesting and extracting this province’s resources. Asataro Yoshida worked as a salmon fisherman for canneries in Rivers Inlet, at Namu, on the Nass. Kumazo Nagata grew a greenhouse empire on the shores of Active Pass. Reginald Trice was a boatbuilder. Walter Priest met my great-grandma Margaret at Seabird Island while he was working at a sawmill.

In fact, all four generations have at different times been employed by forestry — my grandpa as a logger and sawmill operator, my dad as a surveyor, me for a reforestation company.

Here’s the thing about trees: they grow back. If you manage the forests properly, they will give and give forever. In fact, you can split a usable piece of lumber off a big cedar without even killing the tree. Fish come back too, if you give them a chance. We had a record run of Pinks this year, all up and down the coast. I was in one river system this summer, half an hour from Vancouver, where you could have grabbed the jumpers with your bare hands. Chum came back to Still Creek in East Vancouver last year for the first time in 80 years. And just three weeks ago I got underwater video of Coho spawning between a construction site and the Lougheed highway.

In June, a pod of orcas swam right into Burrard Inlet while tourists snapped pictures on their phones. Last fall a female grizzly bear migrated to the Pitt River valley, becoming only the third bear in the entire Garibaldi-Pitt management unit. If she has babies, they will be the first baby grizzlies born in the area since the province began keeping records.

When I see orcas or grizzlies, my heart still pounds. Not just because they’re beautiful, awe-inspiring animals. I’m happy because I know there’s enough fish around to feed my friends and family too. They’re indicators of a healthy, productive ecosystem. A place where if you’re smart, you can live well forever.

Of course I measure wealth in terms of real estate, savings and investments. But I also factor in my freezer, stuffed right now with venison, turkey, pork, salmon and herring eggs. I include the crown land and all the learning it took to get that deer. I include the relationship with my friend’s parents, who raised the turkeys. My cousin, who raised the pig. And my friends up the coast, who gave me the seafood as a gift. By those standards, I’m a wealthy and fortunate man.

My family has been here for four generations, and we plan to be here for at least four more. I’d like my great-grandkids to have a better quality of life than I do, more fish to catch, and a deeper understanding of our connection to the place we live. That’s what a bitumen spill places at risk, 365 days a year, for the 40 years Enbridge plans to operate the pipeline.

The oil and gas industry is different from what has driven prosperity until now in B.C. Oil is a one-time thing. You dig it out, you burn it, and it never comes back. For the record, I’m not opposed to doing that. I have family and friends that work in the oilsands. I think Canada’s very lucky to have the resource. But it’s not going anywhere. I see no rush to sell it off by the tankerful to China, putting everything in between at risk. We still don’t know what happens when a million barrels of bitumen hit salt water — and you know, I’d rather not find out.

Does that make me a jihadist? If anyone’s on a crusade, it sounds like it’s Mr. McParland.

Image Credit: gatewayfacts.ca

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 city of South Portland, Maine banned the export of oilsands crude from local port facilities this week. 

Portland, the suburban community of 25,000 is the Atlantic terminal of the Portland Montreal Pipe Line, which currently carries millions of barrels of oil from the coast to refineries in Montreal. The city council is currently seeking to draft a law that would ban Portland Pipe Line Corp. from using Portland facilities to move western crude to the eastern seaboard. 

“We applaud the City Council for their strong leadership in standing up to the oil industry,” said Roberta Zuckerman of Protect South Portland, a citizens group, told the Financial Post. “But now the City Council must turn the temporary ban on shipping tar sands out of our city into permanent legal protections.”

The ban expires on May 6. By then the community hopes to have new regulations in place that permanently ban the transport of diluted bitumen along the pipeline from Montreal.

When South Portland’s city council began workshops on the ban, the American Petroleum Institute sent a fiery five-page letter claiming that it would violate state and federal law, as well as the US constitution.

South Portland isn’t the only city council willing to stand up to oil companies that put profits before environmental stewardship.

In Vancouver, British Columbia earlier this month, Mayor Gregor Robertson tabled a motion for city council to intervene in coming National Energy Board meetings about the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan Transmountain Pipeline.

The mayor decided to speak out after a federal report found that Canada’s spill response system was not adequate to the current level of tanker traffic. According to the Kinder Morgan proposal, tanker traffic would soar from the current rate of five tankers per month to 34.

“Today we received further evidence from staff that the threat of a major oil spill in or near Vancouver’s waters poses unacceptable risks to our local economy and environment,” he said.

“The City of Vancouver’s intervention in the National Energy Board’s hearings will outline Vancouver’s significant concerns about a seven-fold increase in oil tanker traffic, and help ensure that our harbour, our local economy, and Vancouver treasures like Stanley Park are safe from the untold risks of a catastrophic oil spill.”

Image Credit: 350.org 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.

A new report reviewing Canada’s tanker spill prevention and response regime released by a government-appointed expert panel has reignited concerns over the impact increased tanker traffic and a potential oil spill could have on the British Columbia coast. 

The 66-page review of Canada’s oil-spill response system makes a total of 45 recommendations to government and industry, including annual spill training exercises, geographically based risk assessments, improved emergency response times and increased funding for Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the coast guard.

The panel also recommends the removal of a current $161 million liability cap — a change the federal government is describing as a move to a ‘polluter pay’ scenario.

Yet Karen Wristen, executive director of the Living Oceans Society, said the report’s recommendations do not hold industry accountable in the event of an oil spill:

"Under current regulations, the ship-source oil pollution fund, which is a fund presently containing about $400 million, only has to pay out $161 million per spill. What they’re saying is make the whole $400 million available for any one spill. It’s a lot of money but it’s nothing compared to the estimated loss from a spill along the Enbridge tanker route, which has been estimated to be about $10 billion. So to say this is unlimited liability and polluter pays is a bit rich," she told DeSmog Canada. 

What is worse, Wristen said, is in the event the pollution fund is depleted, the recommendation is to borrow additional funds from Canadian taxpayers.

“If we already know that the losses are going to be an order of magnitude higher, why not put a levy on industry now while they are going to be profitable, and get that money built up in the fund? This is the sort of made-for-industry approach that these recommendations take: we won’t bother about it unless it happens,” Wristen said.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt were in Vancouver to release the report.

"Marine shipping contributes importantly to Canadian economic growth, jobs and long-term prosperity," Oliver stated in a government press release. "The tanker safety report commissioned by our government provides independent, objective recommendations that will support our goal of world-class maritime safety."

But Wristen, who attended the announcement, challenges the claim this spill response regime puts the long-term interests of British Columbians first.

Canada’s plans for the West Coast don’t “deal with the fishermen and tour operators who might lose their livelihood,” Wristen said. “There’s nothing about loss of livelihood, loss of personal property, damages, that sort of thing…the costs of oil clean up alone in the last few major spills we’ve had to look at would have more than exhausted what’s available…There’d be nothing left over for the losses of ordinary Canadians.”

The federal government is hoping to establish what it called a "world-class tanker safety system" in an announcement in 2013. The national review is already being seen as an attempt to curry favour with British Columbians wary of increased oil tanker traffic on the coast.

Oil Spills a Concern for B.C. Government

In August, briefing notes from B.C. environment ministry bureaucrats revealed they were worried even a moderate oil spill would overwhelm the province’s ability to respond. Cuts in the 2012 federal budget led to the closure of Environment Canada’s regional spill response offices in Vancouver and other cities, further hindering efforts to contain an oil spill on the West Coast.

A study commissioned by the provincial government and released in October found only three to four per cent of a relatively small oil spill on B.C.’s north coast would be recovered within the first five days.

This finding was in line with B.C.’s final submission to the panel reviewing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway oil pipeline and tanker proposal, which cites an Enbridge witness as saying: "With respect to…most open ocean spills, no oil from a spill is recovered; the oil remains in the environment … there are significant periods of time [68.5% of the time during Fall/Winter in the "Open Water Area"] during which spill response will be impossible or severely constrained."

In that final submission, the province says, “The goal is effective response [to oil spills].” What’s notable is the use of the phrase “effective response” versus “world class response.” In many cases, recovering 10 per cent of spilled oil is considered “successful” and thus could be coined “world class,” but not necessarily  “effective.”

Use of Dispersant Recommended by Panel

Given the unique risks posed by bitumen, the thick substance mined from the oilsands and destined for the Northern Gateway pipeline if approved, the terminology is especially important. In B.C.’s final submission to the panel, the province writes: "[Enbridge] acknowledges that it knows of no techniques to effectively remove dissolved oil from the water column. [Enbridge] acknowledges that the fraction of the total oil volume that sinks can exceed 50%," and "recovery and mitigation options for sunken oils [e.g. weathered bitumen] are limited."

The tanker safety panel also recommended dispersants and in situ oil burning are used in the event of an oil spill — recommendations Wristen finds more favourable to industry than spill-response workers and British Columbians living or working on the coast.

“That’s another one that was a made-for-industry recommendation and it’s got really grave consequences for the environment and for people responding to the spill or anywhere near the spill. There are huge concerns with the human health impacts from the use of dispersants.”

Wristen points to an ongoing class action lawsuit against BP for its use of chemical oil dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence of the method’s drawbacks, including dangers to human and environmental health.

The dispersant, Wristen said, makes its way into the food chain and is acutely toxic to some organisms.

“So we think this is a very, very poor idea. It’s popular with industry, though, because it’s actually cheaper to spray this stuff and say ‘all gone’ rather than actually work at cleaning it up. It prevents the oil from collecting on the beaches in a way that you can see it. So it’s there but you can’t see it.”

Taxpayers on the Hook

The panel’s report cost taxpayers $40 million and is one of three reports expected to cost a total of $120 million.

According to Wristen it will take hundreds of millions of dollars and “probably decades” to make these recommendations work. Effective spill response plans, integrated with local resources, could take years to set up, she said.

She added: “Both ministers Raitt and Oliver were at pains to say they were not committing to implementing anything that was in [the report]. They would take these recommendations back to their respective departments and presumably industry — they said ‘stakeholders’ — to see what would work. They’ll certainly be getting a very strong message from a number of quarters, I would think, that industry really does have to pay for this.”

There’s no indication, however, that the government plans on enforcing that, Wristen said.

The tanker safety panel is due to begin work on a second report in early 2014, reviewing national standards for ship-sourced spills of bitumen and liquefied natural gas — both proposed to be shipped from the British Columbian coast. This forthcoming report will also examine requirements for oil development including spill response in the Arctic.

In 2010, there were 71 oil tanker transits through Vancouver. Pipeline proposals by Enbridge and Kinder Morgan could bring 600 oil tankers to the B.C. coast each year. 

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

According to a new study to be released today the risks associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline are significantly higher than presented by the company in its project reporting. The study, conducted by Simon Fraser University's School of Resource and Environmental Management, found that in three categories – tanker transport, marine terminal facilities, and pipelines – oil spill predictions based on an international oil spill model (the US Oil Spill Risk Analysis, OSRA) are vastly greater than those based on Enbridge estimates.

In the category of tanker transport, the analysis predicted British Columbians can expect to see one oil spill every 10 years. Enbridge estimated such spills would only occur once every 250 years.

According to Enbridge, pipeline spills are only expected to occur 25 times over a 50-year span. The new analysis predicts 776 pipeline spills over the same period – 31 times more frequently.

According to the Globe and Mail's Mike Hume, Enbridge "has long maintained that all aspects of the project will be done to the highest safety standards in the world. Last year Enbridge promised to spend an additional $500-million on extra measures to increase the wall thickness of the pipeline, to install dual leak detection systems and to increase the number of remotely operated isolation valves."

But according to Dr. Tom Gunton, director of the School of Resource and Environmental Management at SFU, Enbridge's risk forecast "has been done in a very deficient way." He told the Globe and Mail the federally appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) is poorly equipped to understand the risks associated with the Northern Gateway project.

"The problem is the panel does not have [complete] evidence before them on the likelihood of an oil spill. And the evidence they do have from Enbridge has serious deficiencies in methodology. So it's impossible for the JRP to make an informed, evidence-based decision," he said.

The Polaris Institute found that Enbridge was responsible for more than 800 spills between 1999 and 2010, with a total of more than 6.8 million gallons of oil released.

From the Polaris Institute report Out on the Tar Sands Mainline, page 53.

That's not including Enbridge's disastrous 2010 pipeline rupture in Michigan that released more than 1 million gallons of tar sands diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, creating the most expensive onshore oil cleanup in the petroleum industry's history. The price tag for that ongoing cleanup is currently estimated at a whopping $1 billion.

Last fall during a public hearing in Prince George, BC, Enbridge was unable to provide evidence for what the company claims will be its 'world-class' spill prevention and response program for the Northern Gateway. When pressed for details, company officials admitted they will have no land-based spill-prevention plan until six months before the proposed pipeline would being operation.

The pipeline, set to cross more than 770 watercourses, will travel over 1,172 kilometres of land before reaching tidal waters in Kitimat, BC.

At the time of the public hearing, BC Environment Minister Terry Lake said Enbridge's testimony was "long on promises, but short on solid evidence and action to date."

"The company needs to show British Columbians that they have practical solutions to the environmental risks and concerns that have been raised. So far, they have not done that."

Today's study from SFU shows that those risks have yet to be fully explored and clearly require independent, third-party analysis.

Yet, because of the restrictions placed on the JRP's review of the Northern Gateway project, this new research – which casts doubt on Enbridge's ability to provide sound estimates related to the proposed project – will not be considered as evidence in the 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.