Many reasons to oppose Kinder Morgan's Pipeline Expansion - now!
I recently participated in peaceful, yet passionate protest against the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Local Coast Salish people launched this protest to protect Burrard Inlet. They are supported by several environment groups and many concerned volunteers. I encourage you to go to their web site Protect the Inlet and sign up to support them as well.
Both Canada and Alberta are rich enough today to direct all new energy investments to create jobs in clean energy. Canada has the 10th largest economy in the world and should lead the charge to renewables.
It's worthy to note that the previous Harper government backed out of the Kyoto accord (ratified by Jean Chretien's Liberal government), when it was clear that Canada could not meet Canada's commitment to that agreement. The Trudeau government is jeopardizing our Paris climate accord commitments by pushing this pipeline expansion project.
Proponents of the pipeline expansion argue that Canada does not have existing capacity to refine more tar sands oil and that refinery expansion is too expensive. Yet the Irving Oil Refinery in New Brunswick had capacity to refine some of the increased Alberta bitumen production. BC businessman David Black was spearheading investment of $22 billion for the construction of a new state-of-the-art low emission refinery in Kitimat in Northwest BC. That refinery would also support Alberta's need for a pipeline to salt water and would have enabled refined oil to be exported rather than raw bitumen. It's estimated that refining adds $20 to the value of each barrel. The Trudeau government rejected this proposal.
b) Burrard Inlet is overburdened with heavy industry. It supports chemical manufacturing, container shipping, oil refining, a coal terminal, a sulfur terminal, a cement factory, and a natural gas powered hydro generation facility. In 2002, the Georgia Strait Alliance found that 25 industries and municipalities were licensed to discharge effluent on a continual basis into Burrard Inlet. The Burrard Inlet is suffering from the current level of industrialization it supports.
c) The risk of spill is high over 30 years. Currently, approximately 60 oil tankers move through Burrard Inlet each year. The KM project would see this number increased to over 400 larger oil tankers per year. The tanker route will be through tricky waters. They will travel 148 kilometers through the narrow, busy waterways of Burrard Inlet and Georgia Straight / Salish Sea before reaching open ocean. Tankers must navigate under Vancouver's Lions Gate Bridge, a narrow crossing with rapid tidal rips adjacent to Stanley Park, the jewel of the city.
d) The jury is still out on the "Will it sink or will it float" question. We might not have the ability to clean up a spill. When oilsands bitumen comes out of the ground, it is practically a solid and must be diluted before it can be sent through a pipeline, hence the term dilbit. Oil companies add a variety of chemicals such as gasoline, naphtha and others to reduce the viscosity. In a spill, those lighter compounds evaporate and the dense, solid bitumen remains. A spokesperson for the US Environmental Protection Agency said researchers have found that unlike conventional oil, which tends to float on the surface, dilbit often sinks to the bottom. Shouldn't we demonstrate the ability to cleanup a spill before we take on additional risk?
e) Both wild Salmon stocks and Orca whale pod sizes on BC Southwest coast are threatened. We really don't know why but habitat loss and climate change are considered two main causes in population declines. Both of these wild stocks play a huge role in our economy and identity, especially for First Nations. Do our brothers & sisters in Alberta and our national leaders in Ottawa have the right to increase risks to these species?
f) Vancouver's vision is to be the greenest city in the world by 2020, not an industrial city. Vancouver has bet its economy on clean jobs: tourism, film, and knowledge industries. Do our brothers & sisters in Alberta and our national leaders in Ottawa have the right to veto our vision for the future?
g) Approval agreements = “Bribery in plain sight" according to Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Kinder Morgan's chances of obtaining federal approval would be strengthened if they obtained approval from the many governing bodies along the pipeline route. They were able to buy that approval by negotiating community benefit agreements with municipalities to the tune of $8.5 million and mutual benefit agreements valued at $400 million with 40 First Nations.
Examples of community benefits agreements (from the Vancouver Sun):
Governing organizations on the shores of Burrard Inlet where the risks are highest are unanimous in their strong opposition to the Kinder Morgan Expansion. This includes: The Tsleil-Waututh & Squamish Nations, City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby, Port Moody, District of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, Bowen Island and Victoria. Washington State is supporting BC in its opposition to the KM expansion project.
Trudeau understood this was wrong and when running for office in 2015, campaigned that he would reform the pipeline review process. BC trusted his campaign promise and rewarded him for his bold vision of transparency by electing a record number of Liberals seats including 5 in Metro Vancouver. Only one year later, Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan expansion based on NEB review recommendations that were constrained by the same old flawed process.
The Kinder Morgan proposal, approved by Trudeau just months earlier, was not required to meet this stricter criteria. The Prime Minister has sole authority to approve these alternative pipeline proposals after reviewing NEB recommendations.
Why did Trudeau stack the deck against BC in favour of the Kinder Morgan proposal? Why not evaluate both proposals under that same revised rule book? The answer is Power and Politics, not objective science. The Liberals changed the rules on TransCanada to avoid a strong Quebec opposition that had formed. The Energy East pipeline would have passed through Montreal terminating in New Brunswick, a salt water port where the Canadian owned Irving Oil refinery is located. The Irving Oil refinery had capacity to refine some of the product and thereby creating more jobs in Canada.
Local support for a terminus in Saint Johns, New Brunswick was strong. It's mayor was quoted over the loss of the pipeline as saying "This is a disappointment. It's an economic blow. I'm frustrated". The New Brunswick Premier also stated his provincial government is “disappointed”. Why would Trudeau deny a pipeline terminus to Saint Johns, NB that wants one badly, but force Metro Vancouver who does not want an expanded terminus, to accept one?
The Liberals need Quebec votes more than BC votes to retain power (Liberals won 40 seats in Quebec vs 17 in BC in the 2015 election) and there is always a risk to Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa forces Quebec to accept something it does not want. If Canada had to build one pipeline to salt water, the TransCanada Energy East pipeline was a better pipeline option in many ways. If transitional jobs and nation building are the reasons we need pipeline expansion, why wouldn't we refine and add value to the Alberta product here in Canada instead of exporting refinery jobs overseas? It should also be noted that TransCanada Corp is a Canadian Corporation based in Calgary. Kinder Morgan is an American Company headquartered in Texas. Despite what appears to be a better pipeline for Canadians, Liberals choose to export raw product and create refinery jobs in China.
We're discovering now, just 300 years after the European industrial revolution started, that our economic system must change quickly before self-imposed risks materialize. Many climate scientists warn that we are on the path of our own extinction if we do not change our ways. We are finally listening to First Nations who have lived in BC for as long as 20,000 years, learning from them how to respect the water, air and land that sustained them for many years.
Tsleil-Waututh Nation traditional territory is on the waters of Burrard Inlet. TWN recognize there is no going back but they recall the days, just three generations ago, when they could bathe in all streams and rivers that feed Burrard Inlet and they recall that they could dig and eat clams from the sandy beaches of what is now Maplewood Flats. They want to ensure that future decisions restores the environment, the KM expansion project does not do this.
The time is right to place the environment ahead of economic exploitation of resources and we should support the Tsleil-Waututh Nation.
Many reasons to oppose Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion - now
1. Mother earth can't absorb any increased oil sands production
Canada is the world's 4th largest producer of oil and natural gas and we make the top 10 list of nation's largest CO2 carbon emitters per capita. Alberta plans to increase oil sands production by 36%, an increase of 1 million barrels a day in the next decade. Oil sands production results in 22% more emissions than in conventional oil production. Mother Earth cannot handle increased emissions from increased oil sands production. (You might also agree that BC should not increase CO2 omissions through more fracked, liquefied natural gas exports. That's a different campaign that many British Columbians are opposing)
2. Canada and Alberta don't need revenue and jobs from increased tar sands production to transition to cleaner energy
Both Canada and Alberta are rich enough today to direct all new energy investments to create jobs in clean energy. Canada has the 10th largest economy in the world and should lead the charge to renewables.3. Canada must meet our Paris climate agreement commitments
The OECD, an intergovernmental economic organisation with 35 member countries warned that Canada is on a path to fail to make our 2030 Paris climate accord commitments. The report suggested that by 2017, Canadian emissions should have fallen by 17% from 2005 levels. Instead, the OECD reports, the drop has been 2%.It's worthy to note that the previous Harper government backed out of the Kyoto accord (ratified by Jean Chretien's Liberal government), when it was clear that Canada could not meet Canada's commitment to that agreement. The Trudeau government is jeopardizing our Paris climate accord commitments by pushing this pipeline expansion project.
4. Canada should not export raw tar sands bitumen, we should refine it in Canada
The Communications, Energy and Paperworker’s Union estimate that 18,000 Canadian jobs are lost for every 400,000 barrels of bitumen that are exported. The expanded KM pipeline will export thousands of jobs mostly to Asia where environmental regulation of refineries and worker rights are weaker.Proponents of the pipeline expansion argue that Canada does not have existing capacity to refine more tar sands oil and that refinery expansion is too expensive. Yet the Irving Oil Refinery in New Brunswick had capacity to refine some of the increased Alberta bitumen production. BC businessman David Black was spearheading investment of $22 billion for the construction of a new state-of-the-art low emission refinery in Kitimat in Northwest BC. That refinery would also support Alberta's need for a pipeline to salt water and would have enabled refined oil to be exported rather than raw bitumen. It's estimated that refining adds $20 to the value of each barrel. The Trudeau government rejected this proposal.
5. The environmental risk of a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic and the doubling of land based tank farms is too high for Metro Vancouver and BC's Southwest coast
a) The terminus in Burnaby is in the middle of a densely populated Metro Vancouver, Canada's second largest city. A residential neighborhood and elementary school are located within 400 meters of the existing terminus and storage tank farms. The terminus currently has 13 huge storage tanks at the base of Simon Fraser University (SFU). Pipeline expansion will double the size of the tank farm increasing risk to SFU and communities nearby.b) Burrard Inlet is overburdened with heavy industry. It supports chemical manufacturing, container shipping, oil refining, a coal terminal, a sulfur terminal, a cement factory, and a natural gas powered hydro generation facility. In 2002, the Georgia Strait Alliance found that 25 industries and municipalities were licensed to discharge effluent on a continual basis into Burrard Inlet. The Burrard Inlet is suffering from the current level of industrialization it supports.
c) The risk of spill is high over 30 years. Currently, approximately 60 oil tankers move through Burrard Inlet each year. The KM project would see this number increased to over 400 larger oil tankers per year. The tanker route will be through tricky waters. They will travel 148 kilometers through the narrow, busy waterways of Burrard Inlet and Georgia Straight / Salish Sea before reaching open ocean. Tankers must navigate under Vancouver's Lions Gate Bridge, a narrow crossing with rapid tidal rips adjacent to Stanley Park, the jewel of the city.
d) The jury is still out on the "Will it sink or will it float" question. We might not have the ability to clean up a spill. When oilsands bitumen comes out of the ground, it is practically a solid and must be diluted before it can be sent through a pipeline, hence the term dilbit. Oil companies add a variety of chemicals such as gasoline, naphtha and others to reduce the viscosity. In a spill, those lighter compounds evaporate and the dense, solid bitumen remains. A spokesperson for the US Environmental Protection Agency said researchers have found that unlike conventional oil, which tends to float on the surface, dilbit often sinks to the bottom. Shouldn't we demonstrate the ability to cleanup a spill before we take on additional risk?
e) Both wild Salmon stocks and Orca whale pod sizes on BC Southwest coast are threatened. We really don't know why but habitat loss and climate change are considered two main causes in population declines. Both of these wild stocks play a huge role in our economy and identity, especially for First Nations. Do our brothers & sisters in Alberta and our national leaders in Ottawa have the right to increase risks to these species?
f) Vancouver's vision is to be the greenest city in the world by 2020, not an industrial city. Vancouver has bet its economy on clean jobs: tourism, film, and knowledge industries. Do our brothers & sisters in Alberta and our national leaders in Ottawa have the right to veto our vision for the future?
g) Approval agreements = “Bribery in plain sight" according to Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Kinder Morgan's chances of obtaining federal approval would be strengthened if they obtained approval from the many governing bodies along the pipeline route. They were able to buy that approval by negotiating community benefit agreements with municipalities to the tune of $8.5 million and mutual benefit agreements valued at $400 million with 40 First Nations.
Examples of community benefits agreements (from the Vancouver Sun):
- Abbotsford: $1.3 million to revitalize Ledgeview golf course.
- Chilliwack: $1.2 million for a walking bridge over the Vedder River.
- Barriere: $290,000 for a splash park
- Clearwater: $390,000 for education
- Coquitlam: $1 million to improve Mackin Park
Governing organizations on the shores of Burrard Inlet where the risks are highest are unanimous in their strong opposition to the Kinder Morgan Expansion. This includes: The Tsleil-Waututh & Squamish Nations, City of Vancouver, City of Burnaby, Port Moody, District of North Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, Bowen Island and Victoria. Washington State is supporting BC in its opposition to the KM expansion project.
6. The Trudeau government shafted Metro Vancouver by approving the Kinder Morgan proposal under an old NEB pipeline review process that it knew was flawed.
The National Energy Board (NEB), under rules in place before Trudeau was elected, was prohibited from considering jobs or any risks after oil left the pipeline including impact of wild fish stocks as part of their assessment. The pro oil industry NEB process was limited to examining impacts on the pipeline route only. They were prohibited from looking at the bigger picture upstream or downstream of the pipeline.Trudeau understood this was wrong and when running for office in 2015, campaigned that he would reform the pipeline review process. BC trusted his campaign promise and rewarded him for his bold vision of transparency by electing a record number of Liberals seats including 5 in Metro Vancouver. Only one year later, Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan expansion based on NEB review recommendations that were constrained by the same old flawed process.
7. The Trudeau government shafted Metro Vancouver (big time!) when it changed the NEB review process such that an alternative pipeline proposal, Energy East would be withdrawn
The Liberals campaigned that policy must be based on objective science yet they changed the NEB review process in 2018 such that TransCanada Corp, who was the proponent of the Energy East pipeline, would be required to consider indirect upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in their approval submissions. TransCanada stated: "After careful review of changed circumstances, we will be informing the National Energy Board that we will no longer be proceeding with our Energy East proposal".The Kinder Morgan proposal, approved by Trudeau just months earlier, was not required to meet this stricter criteria. The Prime Minister has sole authority to approve these alternative pipeline proposals after reviewing NEB recommendations.
Why did Trudeau stack the deck against BC in favour of the Kinder Morgan proposal? Why not evaluate both proposals under that same revised rule book? The answer is Power and Politics, not objective science. The Liberals changed the rules on TransCanada to avoid a strong Quebec opposition that had formed. The Energy East pipeline would have passed through Montreal terminating in New Brunswick, a salt water port where the Canadian owned Irving Oil refinery is located. The Irving Oil refinery had capacity to refine some of the product and thereby creating more jobs in Canada.
Local support for a terminus in Saint Johns, New Brunswick was strong. It's mayor was quoted over the loss of the pipeline as saying "This is a disappointment. It's an economic blow. I'm frustrated". The New Brunswick Premier also stated his provincial government is “disappointed”. Why would Trudeau deny a pipeline terminus to Saint Johns, NB that wants one badly, but force Metro Vancouver who does not want an expanded terminus, to accept one?
The Liberals need Quebec votes more than BC votes to retain power (Liberals won 40 seats in Quebec vs 17 in BC in the 2015 election) and there is always a risk to Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa forces Quebec to accept something it does not want. If Canada had to build one pipeline to salt water, the TransCanada Energy East pipeline was a better pipeline option in many ways. If transitional jobs and nation building are the reasons we need pipeline expansion, why wouldn't we refine and add value to the Alberta product here in Canada instead of exporting refinery jobs overseas? It should also be noted that TransCanada Corp is a Canadian Corporation based in Calgary. Kinder Morgan is an American Company headquartered in Texas. Despite what appears to be a better pipeline for Canadians, Liberals choose to export raw product and create refinery jobs in China.
8. Trudeau government shafted BC (big time!) in selling their national carbon tax to Alberta
B.C. implemented Canada's first levy on carbon emissions in 2008. 10 years later, the Trudeau government introduced a national carbon tax, something they strongly feel is necessary for Canada to meet our Paris Accord CO2 emission commitments. Since BC was long ago sold on the value of carbon taxes and Alberta not, the Trudeau government offered Alberta a deal: If Alberta agreed to implement the federal carbon tax, the Government of Canada would give them their long desired pipeline to salt water in BC. And what did BC get out of this deal: nothing. Worse than nothing. Metro Vancouver was to be forced to accept an expanded pipeline terminus & increase tanker traffic, things they do not want.9. Kinder Morgan and the Alberta Oil Industry cannot be trusted to clean up after themselves
When the sunsets on the tar sands business model (expected in the next 20-30 years), producers and pipeline companies will likely abandon their assets leaving British Columbia to cleanup, decommission and restore Kinder Morgan storage tanks, pumping stations, and pressure relief chambers. We'll also likely need to cleanup and restore the expanded Westridge Terminal on the Burnaby waterfront. This is happening now in Alberta. After the price of oil collapsed in 2007, wells and pipeline segments that suddenly were no longer economically viable were abandoned in a wave of bankruptcies. Even larger operators with profitable assets sold off their money losing assets to a Chinese company, Sequoia Resources, in some cases for as low as $1. Sequoia Resources recently filed for creditor protection. Alberta might be on the hook for billions of dollars in cleanup costs as the distressed industry shrank.10. We need to listen, respect and reconcile with First Nations, especially the Tsleil-Waututh.
Ever since technologically advanced Europeans colonized North America, the First Nations who welcomed them have been marginalized and their way of life judged as primitive. Many descendants of colonialists can't comprehend why descendants of First Nations don't buy into our fast moving and dynamic market economy that was built not only on hard work and innovation, but also on the exploration of natural resources and reckless environmental stewardship.We're discovering now, just 300 years after the European industrial revolution started, that our economic system must change quickly before self-imposed risks materialize. Many climate scientists warn that we are on the path of our own extinction if we do not change our ways. We are finally listening to First Nations who have lived in BC for as long as 20,000 years, learning from them how to respect the water, air and land that sustained them for many years.
Tsleil-Waututh Nation traditional territory is on the waters of Burrard Inlet. TWN recognize there is no going back but they recall the days, just three generations ago, when they could bathe in all streams and rivers that feed Burrard Inlet and they recall that they could dig and eat clams from the sandy beaches of what is now Maplewood Flats. They want to ensure that future decisions restores the environment, the KM expansion project does not do this.
The time is right to place the environment ahead of economic exploitation of resources and we should support the Tsleil-Waututh Nation.
Thanks for this Willy, I also don't see where are the Asian buyers willing to pay the world price. According to former CIBC oil analyst Jeff Rubin's recent policy brief, Mexican Maya a comparable heavy crude sells in Asian markets at $8 less than what US refineries are paying and the Cargo Stats from the Port of Vancouver website (From a recent Tyee article) indicate that all crude shipments from Burrard inlet 99% have gone to the US. It is more likely that it is about keeping their options open if the market recovers, which given the competition from the more nimble and cheaper US frackers is doubtful (ie. at one point they shut down 80% of the fracking rigs and production went up by the same amount). Combine that the dropping cost curve of electric, battery/grid storage will disrupt the ICE car economy. Tony Seba's talk on clean disruption on youtube predicts the disruption tipping point within 7-8years.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Aliso Canyon natural gas blowout led to grid shortage problems California made the utility install grid storage and Tesla installed 100mw in 88 days (that would never happen with coal or peaking plants). Dubai recently had a bid for Solar at 2.9cents per kwh that is the lowest anywere and frankly there is no other energy in the world that is cheaper (gas coal or nuclear) Cheers Peter Kratoska
Great summary, Willy. I wish I could have been at the KM protest too! Maybe BC should separate from Canada and gain some autonomy; do the right thing for global climate change?
ReplyDelete