| Northern Gateway West Line |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Country | Canada |
| General direction | east–west |
| From | Bruderheim, Alberta |
| To | Kitimat, British Columbia |
| General information | |
| Type | crude oil |
| Owner | Enbridge |
| Expected | 2015 |
| Technical information | |
| Length | 1,177 km (731 mi) |
| Maximum discharge | 0.525 Mbbl/d (~2.62×107 t/a) |
| Diameter | 36 in (914 mm) |
| Northern Gateway East Line |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Country | Canada |
| General direction | west–east |
| From | Kitimat, British Columbia |
| To | Bruderheim, Alberta |
| General information | |
| Type | natural gas condensate |
| Owner | Enbridge |
| Expected | 2015 |
| Technical information | |
| Length | 1,177 km (731 mi) |
| Maximum discharge | 193,000 barrels (30,700 m3) of condensate per day |
| Diameter | 20 in (508 mm) |
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project is a proposal to construct two pipelines running from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat, British Columbia. The eastbound pipeline would import natural gas condensate and the westbound pipeline would export crude oil. The project also includes a proposed new marine terminal in Kitimat.
This project is proposed by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian company that operates the world's longest crude oil and liquids pipeline system.
Contents |
The project was proposed in mid-2000s and has been postponed several times. It was announced in 2006. Enbridge signed a cooperation agreement with PetroChina in 2005 to ensure the utilization of pipeline capacity.[1] PetroChina agreed to buy about 200 thousand barrels per day (~1.0×107 t/a) transported through the pipeline. In 2007, however, PetroChina withdrew from the projects because of delays in starting the project.[2]
On December 4, 2009, Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued the Joint Review Panel Agreement and the terms of reference for the environmental and regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines.[3]
Enbridge Northern Gateway submitted its project application to the National Energy Board on May 27, 2010. The eight-volume regulatory application will be assessed by a Joint Review Panel established by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board.[4]
The planned project consists of two parallel pipelines between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia, each with a length of 1,177 kilometers (731 mi). Crude oil produced from oil sands would be transported from Bruderheim to Kitimat, while natural gas condensate would move in the opposite direction.[3] Condensate would be used as a diluent in oil refining to decrease the viscosity of heavy crude oil from oil sands, and to make it easier to transport by pipelines.[5][6] About 520 kilometers (320 mi) of pipeline would run in Alberta and 657 kilometers (408 mi) in British Columbia.[3] The crude oil pipeline would have a diameter of 36 inches (910 mm) and a capacity of 525 thousand barrels per day (~2.62×107 t/a). The condensate pipeline would have a diameter of 20 inches (510 mm) with a capacity of 193,000 barrels (30,700 m3) per day. Enbridge expects these pipelines to be completed by 2015.[7] It is expected to cost at least C$4.5 billion.[8] The proposed Kitimat terminal would comprise two tanker berth platforms, one serving Very Large Crude Carriers and another serving Suezmax-type condensate tankers. The terminal would include oil and condensate tanks and a pump station.[6]
Once the application has been filed by Enbridge, the project will be required to undergo an extensive public regulatory review process led by the NEB and CEAA. Together, these two agencies will lead a Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The JRP will provide an environmental assessment and regulatory process that will contribute to decision making.[3]
On January 19, 2011, the JRP requested that Enbridge provide more information on the proposed pipeline before it hands down its decision. The JRP said, "Based on our assessment of the application and the comments received during the panel sessions, we have determined that additional information on the design and risk assessment of the pipelines is required. This is due to the difficult access and unique geographic location of the proposed project."[9]
The pipeline has been heavily criticized by native groups, as the pipeline traverses much of their traditional lands and threatens habitat for wild salmon, which they have relied upon for sustenance for thousands of years.[10] In December 2010, over 61 First Nations bands in British Columbia, including many along the proposed pipeline route, signed a declaration in opposition to the project.[11]
Dozens of native bands rely upon healthy waters for sustenance, specifically from the Skeena, Kitimat, Morice, Fraser, and Bulkley river systems, and from the coastal waters of British Columbia: the Haisla, Haida, Tsimshian, Nisga'a, Gitsan, Carrier, Sekane, and other tribes. Polluting the rivers or coastal waters of BC would effectively poison the waters, fish, and other animals that these people need to survive.
Enbridge has announced that it is considering offering aboriginal groups an equity stake in the project to secure First Nations support for the project.[12]
Several First Nations (including the Haisla, Gitga'at, Gitxaala, Wet'suwet’en, Nadleh Whut'en, Nak'azdli, and Takla Lake) have publicly stated (via the Joint Review Panel or in the media) that neither the Crown nor the established assessment process for Enbridge's project have adequately met their duty to consult and accommodate, or respect their Aboriginal Rights and Title.[13]
The pipeline has been criticized by several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citing Enbridge's spotty history with pipeline installation and numerous spills. These NGOs point to numerous incidents, including the high-profile Kalamazoo spill of 2010, where over 3 megalitres (19,000 bbl) were spilled into the Kalamazoo river,[14] and a spill in the Chicago area in 2010. Other concerns include the 2008 pipeline installation in Wisconsin, where over 500 regulatory violations were incurred in one year of construction. Enbridge has also had over 600 recorded leaks and breaks over the last 10 years.[15][16]
The Pembina Institute has published a report saying that the pipeline will have adverse impacts on land, air, and water.[17] Some of Enbridge's shareholders have asked the company to investigate the unique risks and liabilities associated with the project.[18]
There has been an informal moratorium on large tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound since 1972.[19] Since then, the federal and provincial governments have commissioned periodic studies to reassess whether to lift the tanker moratorium. Each study has concluded that the risk of tanker spills is too high.[20] In 2003–2004, the federal government initiated a three-part review process, including a scientific review by the Royal Society of Canada (the RSC report), a First Nations engagement process (the Brooks Report), and a public review process (the Priddle Panel). The RSC report concluded that "the present restriction on tanker traffic along the West Coast of British Columbia should be maintained for the time being."
In 2009, the Canadian government's position was that there is no moratorium on tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia.[21] However, on December 7, 2010, Canada's environmental watchdog said that "Canada isn't ready to respond to a major oil spill emanating from a tanker or other vessel."[22]
Tanker and pipelines that cross provincial boundaries are regulated by the federal government through the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). At the provincial level, they may also be regulated by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO).
Often, where more than one agency is involved, a joint review panel will be struck to evaluate a project by a joint environmental assessment. Other types of studies, such as socio-economic assessments, are also necessary prior to project approval. However, under the current regulations, the recommendations made in the assessments are non-binding and the project could be approved even if significant adverse environmental and socio-economic effects were found.[23]
In December 2010, the federal House of Commons passed a motion to ban "very large" oil tanker traffic off the British Columbia coast.[24][25]
Under current federal regulations, Enbridge would not be responsible if a tanker spill were to happen and would not be legally obliged to pay damages or help with cleanup efforts.