The Canadian Press Posted: 06/11/2012

RED DEER, Alta. – A Wildrose MLA says a public hearing of a transmission project should be adjourned. The Alberta Utilities Commission’s hearing into the route of the Western Transmission Line began today in Red Deer. The line, which will run from west of Edmonton to east of Calgary, is one of five that were approved under Bill 50.

Joe Anglin says hearings for this and four others approved under the bill shouldn’t go ahead until the Court of Appeal rules on the commission’s jurisdiction.

Wildrose and other critics of the approved transmission lines, which will be paid for by electricity users, are a massive overbuild at ratepayers’ expense. “The transmission projects approved under Bill 50 never went through an independent needs assessment,” Anglin said.

“We need to know if the AUC can hear evidence and make a fair and impartial ruling at these hearings and until we do, the hearings absolutely should not go ahead.”

  As you may have heard, the Alberta Utilities Commission hearings for the second Bill 50 line (WATL) are underway in Red Deer.

A couple of weeks ago, lawyers for landowners asked the AUC to adjourn the WATL hearing until after the Court of Appeal rules on the Heartland Appeal  (Shaw  v.  Alberta (Utilities Commission) and Altalink).

That appeal will decide whether the Commission can turn down a Bill 50 line on public interest grounds.  If the evidence put to the Commission at a hearing shows that a proposed Bill 50 line will do more social and economic harm than good, the Commission must deny the line.  It has to deny the line because building the line is not in the public interest.

 To better understand the legal grounds for the Heartland Appeal go to this link:  http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/Shaw_Court%20of%20Appeal_Written%20Brief_Execerpts_Feb%203-2012.pdf

 If the Court of Appeal rules in our favour on the Heartland, it would mean that landowners and industry groups can put the evidence in front of the Commission that shows that neither WATL or EATL are in the public interest—just like landowners and industry did in the AUC Heartland hearing.

 There is overwhelming evidence proving there is no demand and no electricity for these massive new lines.  To see some of that evidence go to these links:  http://www.landownersagainstbills.com/Appendix%202_Evidence%20of%20Church%20and%20MacCormack_Sept%202011.Highlighted.pdf

http://www.landownersagainstbills.com/Alberta%20Landowners%20Council_ALC_Submissions%20to%20the%20CRTC%20IR%20Requests_January%206-2012.pdf

In the May 12, 2012 Calgary Herald, Mayor Nenshi made some interesting statements about the Bill 50 transmission lines—they are not needed but the government is going to force them on us anyway.  Here’s an excerpt from the Calgary Herald story:

 Although it appears the war’s been fought and lost, Mayor Naheed Nenshi railed Friday against the province’s move to build north-south power transmission lines and vowed to continue pressing for a way to shield Calgarians from surcharges for the lines.

At the annual general meeting of Enmax — the first one for new CEO Gianna Manes — the mayor called the $3-billion twin power lines a “terrible” idea that won’t be needed because of the city-owned utility’s own project, a $1-billion gas-fired power plant in the Shepard district.

“And to build both of them and to put those costs on everyone, even the ratepayers in Calgary who, once the Shepard Energy Centre is built, actually won’t be using them very much, strikes me as very, very strange public policy,” the mayor told reporters after the meeting.

Alberta’s major industries are frustrated too.  The Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta (IPCAA) has not given up and is also hoping that the Court avenue will help stop the Bill 50 madness.

 We have posted the request from lawyer Gavin Fitch for the WATL hearing to be adjourned on our website at this link:

 http://www.albertalandownerscouncil.com/566%20Corridor%20Group%20Motion.pdf

 Here are some excerpts from what the lawyers for landowners and industry said to the Commission when they asked the WATL hearing be adjourned until the outcome of the Heartland Appeal:

 Lawyer Gavin Fitch:  The present motion [for adjournment] is advanced on the following related grounds:

The Court of Appeal’s granting of leave on the question of the Commission’s interpretation of its public interest assessment in the case of CTI projects, such as WATL, casts significant doubt as to the correctness of the Commission’s approach to its consideration of CTI projects; and

 The outcome of the Shaw appeal may result in a broadening of the scope of the Commission’s public interest assessment such that interveners in the WATL proceeding may, and likely would need to file additional evidence addressing the broader socio-economic impacts associated with approval of the WATL line;

 The 566 Corridor Group submits that any prejudice to AltaLink would be minimal. Conversely, interveners to the current proceeding would be significantly prejudiced should the hearing proceed as scheduled as they would be forced to participate in a hearing that may need to later be re-opened as a result of a decision from the Court of Appeal granting the Shaw Appeal

 Furthermore, the Commission has, in other cases opined that local interveners should not be compelled to dedicate their time to prepare for and attend a hearing unless the Commission could be in a position to rule on the application

 In our respectful submission, the granting of leave to appeal on such a critical jurisdictional question suggests that the Commission is not currently in a position to rule on the application and on this basis should properly adjourn the proceeding pending the outcome the Shaw appeal.

Lawyer John Gruber:  The Midway Group supports the Motion. We have reviewed the written submission of the 566 Corridor Group and concur with its contents.

The legislation deeming the subject matter of certain utility transmission applications to be Critical Transmission Infrastructure represents a departure from how applications for utility transmission infrastructure were considered in the past. Given the nature of this change, the scope of these projects, and the resulting impact on rural landowners, it is imperative that the jurisdiction of the AUC in these applications be correctly understood.

The Motion is premised on the Court of Appeal granting leave to appeal a jurisdictional question arising from the Heartland Decision. Such leave is not granted lightly.  The issue subject to leave in the Heartland Decision is at the core of the WATL application.

The time for certainty as to jurisdiction is before the hearing – not during or subsequent.  Should the AUC proceed with WATL on a jurisdictional understanding that is ultimately not shared by the Court of Appeal, it is likely that the process would have to essentially be repeated. Going forward in the absence of certainty would mean that landowner interveners would be participating with the knowledge that there is a reasonable prospect that they will have to do it all over again.

 ENMAX lawyers:  The Alberta Court of Appeal has made it clear that “in the interests of certainty and consistency” it must review the legislative interpretation made by the Commission in the Heartland Decision. As the Commission well understands certainty and consistency are two of the hallmarks of a fair impartial administrative process. Where serious jurisdictional questions exist the necessary element of certainty can not be achieved by this or any other tribunal. Put simply, the AUC’s ability to consider a significant portion of the issues which will arise in the WATL process is currently uncertain.  In the absence of this certainty, both Intervener and Applicant alike are placed in an unfair position in both understanding the case that must be meet and in preparing the case it intends to put forward.

Lawyer Jim Laycraft for the WCG landowner group:  The WCG submits that Justice Berger’s leave decision in Shaw makes it clear that the Court of Appeal considers the scope of the Commission’s public interest jurisdiction in CTI cases to be an important question and, as Mr. Fitch has noted, Justice Berger has gone as far as to state that it is “imperative” that his court consider the issue.

 The Commission should adjourn this hearing pending clarification.  Proceeding with the hearing may create unfairness for parties, and will certainly cause a waste of time and resources in the event the Court of Appeal ultimately takes a different view on the Commission’s public interest jurisdiction.

Attached are some newspaper stories about the adjournment request for WATL that you should read.

 In the end, here is what the Commission decided to do:

           Ruling on the motion of 566 Corridor Group to adjourn — The Commission has considered the submissions of all the parties and denies the motion to adjourn filed by the 566 Corridor Group.  Proceeding now is not a waste of time, it allows examination of the evidence already filed and will ultimately save time and reduce the prejudice to landowners who have had to wait many years for a resolution of the Western Alberta Transmission Line Project.  The parties are ready to go, the evidence is relevant regardless of the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, so the hearing will reconvene on Thursday June 14, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. at the Winspear Room at the Holiday Inn 67 Street in Red Deer.

 So much for the Commission being concerned about fairness to landowners and ratepayers.

 ____________________________________

Update re Shaw (Heartland) Appeal to the Court of Appeal

 Significant progress has been made getting the appeal ready for the Court to hear the case.

The Shaw’s lawyer, Keith Wilson, has obtained a number of Court Orders to move the appeal forward and has completed the major steps in terms of Appeal Records needed to have the case heard.

 Attached is letter that describes some of the steps.

 Copies of the Court documents filed by Wilson are posted on our website under the heading Heartland Hearing.

 We will update you on timing and other important developments shortly.

 If we can win the Heartland appeal, we might be able to stop all of the Bill 50 madness. 

 Thanks for your support on this important appeal.

 Alberta Landowners Council

By Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.com June 21, 2012

EDMONTON – Premier Alison Redford has asked the province’s seven new associate ministers to develop transparency legislation, reduce the number of children born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and find new ways to borrow money for capital spending.

They will also review Alberta’s international offices, establish a council to look at municipal financing and implement $500 tax credits for children and seniors who engage in physical activity.

In the past, Redford has written a mandate letter for each minister in her cabinet, this time she has issued letters for each associate minister and a single “cabinet mandate” for the ministers.

“There are a few critical areas where special attention, discipline and effort are required to drive meaningful change and results,” Redford wrote in the cabinet mandate. “The success of this government and cabinet will be evaluated on the basis of our collective progress in delivering on the following priority initiatives.”

The priorities Redford listed include early childhood development, primary health care, education and entrepreneurship, fiscal framework, resources and market access.

The mandate letters were dated June 4, and were released by the premier’s office on June 21.

Redford last issued individual letters to ministers on Nov. 3, shortly after taking office. The Nov. 3 letters have been removed from government websites.

Redford again trumpeted her government’s commitment to transparency in her cabinet mandate, and asked Accountability and Transparency Associate Minister Don Scott to recommend changes to Alberta’s access and privacy, and to develop transparency legislation for Alberta.

Scott will be responsible for writing Alberta’s new whistleblower law and said Thursday he plans to review every major piece of legislation with a view to increasing government transparency.

“It’s always a balancing act,” Scott said. “So you’re always balancing the need to get more information into the public (domain) and the need to protect certain interests.”

Redford has also asked associate finance minister Kyle Fawcett to review “opportunities to borrow for capital expenditures.”

“This isn’t a significant departure from where we’ve been,” Fawcett said. “In 2009 there was some borrowing for capital purposes in that fiscal plan. There were bonds issued to build seniors facilities. We have in the past utilized P3 projects for both the ring roads and schools.

“We need to evaluate whether those were appropriate and what kind of value they provided us.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/ablegreporter

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Dan Healing, Calgary Herald June 21, 2012 8:26 AM

CALGARY – Canada’s biggest natural gas producer is accelerating its move into the liquids game with a $600-million increase in spending on 10 North American plays where higher-value products like oil, propane and condensate are produced with the gas.

It said its investment will exceed cash flow for at least 18 months but will allow it to increase liquids output for 2012 by seven per cent to 30,000 barrels per day by drilling 115 to 120 wells, 75 more than were originally envisioned.

“Our stated goal is to transition to a more balanced portfolio of production and cash flow generation and to do so as prudently as we can,” said Randy Eresman, president and chief executive, on a webcast from the company’s investor day event in New York Thursday morning.

“We plan to increase the pace at which we develop our liquids-rich natural gas and oil plays while minimizing our investment in dry natural gas plays to largely preserve their value. We also plan to maintain our finanical strength through multiple joint ventures and divestitures.”

The company has already closed $2 billion in transactions this year and will aim to close another $2 billion to $2.5 billion by the end of 2013, he said, noting that the assets targeted for sale or partnership will include some of the same liquids-rich plays it has identified for heavier investment – such as the Alberta Duvernay ‑ and dry gas plays that might provide feedstock for liquefied natural gas projects.

Analyst Andrew Potter of CIBC World Markets gave the plans a “mixed” rating in a note to investors, noting that Encana is bucking the trend in industry by increasing spending as oil prices fall and gas remains locked in the price basement.
“On the positive side, Encana is clearly seeing good results from its liquids plays and has the ability to ramp-up quicker than we expected,” he wrote.
“However, on the negative side, the high spending strategy in a declining price environment (at least in the short-term) raises the risk profile of the company.”

He estimated Encana’s production in 2013 could averaged 3.39 billion cubic feet equivalent per day in 2013, composed of three bcf/d of natural gas plus 60,000-70,000 bpd of liquids, up about six per cent over 2012 estimated production.

Encana’s 2012 capital program will jump from $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion and in 2013 it plans to spend $4.5 billion. At the investor day, Eresman said the spending will depend on the success of the third party deals.

The company is expecting to drill approximately 350 oil and liquids rich wells in 2013, taking production to 60,000 to 70,000 bpd, about 40 per cent of which is expected to be comprised of oil and field condensate.

Encana is targeting 10 plays including the west central Alberta Duvernay play, where it holds 160,000 net hectares of drilling rights, and will drill 10 wells in 2012.

It said it is getting 50 to 60 degree API gravity field condensate yields ranging from 120 to 200 barrels per million cubic feet in the play and its most recent tied-in well delivered 1,200 barrels per day of condensate and 3.5 million cubic feet per day of natural gas during its first two days on stream.

Encana’s other oil-rich plays are the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale, Eaglebine, Mississippian Lime, Utica/Collingwood, San Juan, DJ Niobrara and Clearwater Liquids.

dhealing@calgaryherald.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

By Gemma Karstens-Smith, edmontonjournal.com June 20, 2012

EDMONTON – A faulty gasket is to blame for the 230,000 litres of oil discovered Monday spilling from Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline, says a spokesman for the Energy Resources Conservation Board.

About 1,445 barrels of heavy crude oil leaked out of the pump station where the gasket was located. The 541-kilometre pipeline stretches from the Fort McMurray oilsands to Hardisty and has a capacity of 345,000 barrels per day.

Enbridge spokesman Graham White said it is not possible to offer an estimate of the area affected by the spill because “some areas are more affected than others.”

“The area affected is our pump station site, some area along the pipeline right-of-way that is also (owned by) Enbridge and part of a local field,” White said in an email Wednesday. “The vast majority of the spill is on the site and there is no impact to waterways or wildlife.”

About 180 barrels of oil spread on to a neighbouring landowner’s property, said Darin Barter, spokesman for Energy Resources Conservation Board.

White said the company is keeping the site closed to reporters because of “safety and operational issues.”

He could not say how long it will take to clean up the spill site, about 24 kilometres southeast of Elk Point.

Clean-up and investigation crews have been on-site since Monday.

Barter said leaks in pump stations are “fairly rare,” and investigators will look into “less obvious” reasons behind the release, such as operating pressure.

The pipeline was shut down early Monday and the pumping station fenced in.

The pump station has been decommissioned and the pipeline has been reopened, Barter said.

Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline spill is the third major pipeline break in Alberta in two months — breaks in a Plains Midstream line near Sundre and a Pace Oil and Gas Ltd. well in northern Alberta are also being cleaned up.

Having the incidents so close together is unusual and “not indicative of Alberta’s level of safety,” Barter said.

“Given the enormous amount of oil and gas infrastructure in this province, it’s a very safe system.”

He said the recent spills are “very different incidents.”

Mike Deising, press secretary for Alberta Energy Minister Ken Hughes, said the province has a “good” pipeline system.

“The problem is we have 400,000 kilometres of pipeline and occasionally, we will have a spill,” Deising said.

Premier Alison Redford said pipeline spills “happen sometimes” and are part of balancing social and economic factors.

“I think people have a pretty good appreciation of the fact that there does need to be a balance and it is unfortunate when these things happen,” Redford said.

The province is backing the construction of the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, intended to transport Alberta bitumen from Hardisty to Kitimat, B.C. If built, the pipeline would allow Alberta to sell its oil to booming Asian markets.

The project has faced fierce opposition and Art Sterritt, executive director of Coastal First Nations, said the latest spill underlines their concerns.

“We don’t like to say we told you so, but we did,” Sterritt said.

“Folks out here are not taking any great pleasure in the fact that there’s oil spills all over Alberta. However, the industry itself is demonstrating to British Columbians that they don’t have their act together and B.C.ers are not going to allow the same thing to happen here.”

Enbridge maintains such spills are rare, however. To critics who draw a link between the nearby spill and potential breaks in a future Northern Gateway pipeline, White noted this particular spill was quickly found, likely not related to pipeline integrity, and “appropriate, immediate and effective actions (were taken) to contain the product and mobilize response crews for cleanup, inspection and assessment.”

— With files from Trish Audette

[email protected]

Twitter.com/gkarstenssmith

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

THE CANADIAN PRESS — RED DEER, ALTA.

Lethbridge Herald June 20 2012.

Critics of a proposed power line that would run through central Alberta have told a hearing that they are worried about tornadoes. Lawyer Raymond Bastedo, who speaks for a group of landowners, said they have concerns about what impact twisters or other severe weather would have.

He said it’s important which route AltaLink’s proposed $1.4-billion transmission line would take.

AltaLink’s preferred option runs through an area that already has a lot of power lines. Bastedo said that a tornado in an area with a number of twinned lines could have a severe mpact on service.

The Alberta Utilities Commission is hearing arguments for and against the AltaLink proposal for a line between the Edmonton and Calgary areas.

Bastedo questioned AltaLink representatives over whether they had enough data about the probability of tornadoes. AltaLink said it chose its route because it “most effectively minimizes or mitigates impacts” by crossing the least amount of cultivated land, having a low environmental impact and parallels 211 kilometres of existing lines.

By Ryan Parker

Posted 4 days ago

Right up until Altalink’s open house held in Hillspring on Wed, June 6, 2012, people like Anne Stevick and others had been hearing a lot of rumours about the proposed Goose Lake to Etzikom Coulee Transmission Project. Stevick, as well as others, had heard that some residents who had had face-to-face consultations with Altalink employees may have signed a kind of letter of intent that if the line did cross their property in the suture they would receive $10,000.

At the open house, Leanne Niblock, Altalink Media Relations, and other Altalink employees listened to questions and set the record straight. At this point in the project it is far too early for anyone to signing anything with the promise of money. Right now the only thing those who have been given consultations are signing is a form that states that the project details have been discussed, and whether or not that person would be willing to enter into a land easement. A land easement being a binding agreement that the landowner retains ownership of the land and is compensated for having a line on it, but restricts things like building close to the line.

“What we are doing right now is consultation meetings with people, chatting and getting information,” Niblock said. “People do agree with what they discuss and its accuracy, that is all that we are doing at this point. We do not compensate for consultations, we speak to thousands of people and we don’t want there to be the idea that we are paying someone for their information.”

The confusion most likely came from a misconception of a $10,000 early access and routing consent payment. This payment is made to landowners for access to their property for things like surveys. This payment can be made prior to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) decision on the transmission line’s actual route, but Altalink must first determine a preferred route, which they have not done yet.

“It gives us the opportunity to go in and do extra work, and this wasn’t in the first newsletter because it’s so early on in the process,” Niblock said. “It will be in subsequent newsletters but right now it’s so early then we have these multiple options that come out later in the process.”

In fact, Altalink had on display at their open house another proposed transmission line option which runs through the Blood Reserve. As of now, the discussions regarding the transmission line going across the Blood Reserve are still ongoing with the Band.

Right now, new newsletters should be on their way to those who could be affected by the proposed project with updated line options and a landowner compensation section.

By Mariam Ibrahim and Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.com June 20, 2012 Comments (50)

EDMONTON – Cleanup is underway after an oil spill Monday along Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline, southeast of Elk Point, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board says.

The company estimates about 230,000 litres of heavy crude oil spilled from a pumping station along the surface pipeline about 24 kilometres southeast of Elk Point, the board said Tuesday.

The spill was reported to the appropriate agencies on Monday, said ERCB spokesman Darin Barter.

“It does take some time to assess the site, get our field folks on-site, determine the extent of the spill, talk to the company and see what they estimate the volume at,” Barter said. “This one is significant enough that we issued a news release on it.”

The pipeline was shut down early Monday and the pumping station was fenced in. The company restarted the line Monday afternoon but shut it down again after bring ordered to by the ERCB.

“The oil has not affected either running or standing water,” Barter said.

He could not provide more detailed information on the terrain where the spill happened.

Barter said it’s too early to say what caused the spill.

In a statement, Enbridge said the cause “appears to be a failure of a flange gasket” in the pumping station. A flange gasket seals two pipe components together. The company said scare cannons have been set up as a deterrent to prevent birds from landing in the spill.

The majority of the spill was confined to Enbridge’s site, but about 30,000 litres spilled on a landowner’s field, the company said.

ERCB inspectors arrived at the site Monday, Barter said.

“We’re on-site with our field surveillance (people) who have expertise in spill cleanup in pipeline operations. Our pipeline operations folks will be on-site and ensuring the company takes every appropriate measure to clean up the oil off the ground,” Barter said.

“At the same time, we’ll start an investigation. Our incident investigators essentially go out there and they start measuring, taking pictures and doing what it is that investigators do that will formulate ultimately what exactly happened and if there’s enforcement action that’s required.”

It is up to Enbridge to pay for and complete the cleanup, he said.

“If we believe the company needs to have additional equipment or needs to move faster in some responses, we’ll direct them to do that. We oversee; we don’t participate.”

The 541-kilometre pipeline stretches from the Fort McMurray oilsands to Hardisty and has a capacity of 345,000 barrels per day. The company wants to expand that to 570,000 barrels per day with the addition of new pumping stations. Construction of the pipeline was completed in 1999.

The spill was the third in the past two months. Asked about the implications for Alberta’s reputation abroad, Energy Minister Ken Hughes urged Canadians to think of the broader context.

“Canadians buy gas at their local gas station. If they thought about it at all, they’d realize that gas generally gets there by one means of transportation or another, and it involves a lot of pipelines.

“They make the choice to buy gasoline.”

Hughes emphasized that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and that Alberta has rules requiring pipeline operators to tell the public about leaks and to clean them up immediately.

“I believe our reputation as a province … is governed by how we respond when incidents like this happen, how industry responds, how responsible they are,” Hughes said.

“In that respect, Alberta has a very good reputation and has very high standards.”

Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema said in a statement the spill underscores the need for a safety assessment of Alberta’s pipelines.

“At minimum we need an independent assessment of Alberta’s pipeline safety to show the deficits in management, oversight, enforcement and infrastructure.”

The province is backing the construction of the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline intended to transport Alberta bitumen from Hardisty to Kitimat, B.C. If built, the pipeline would allow Alberta to sell its oil to booming Asian markets.

Polls consistently show the majority of B.C. residents are opposed to the pipeline, in part because they fear that leaks will damage the environment.

Repeated leaks in Alberta could give critics ammunition, but Hughes said pipeline technology has “improved dramatically” in the past 50 years. He also highlighted the economic benefits of the Gateway project.

“There are two sides to the coin,” Hughes said. “One is that a strong western Canadian economy, driven by the energy industry, is good for all of Canada and particularly good for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

“The economic opportunities in Western Canada are exceptional.”

[email protected]

Twitter.com/mariam_di

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Original source article: Elk Point pipeline spill releases 230,000 litres of heavy crude: Enbridge

Transmission line hearing could end up costing taxpayers big: Anglin

EDMONTON, AB (June 14, 2012): Alberta taxpayers could be on hook for millions of dollars if the Alberta Utilities Commission’s hearing into the Western Alberta Transmission Line forges ahead, Wildrose Utilities Critic Joe Anglin said today.

In 2010, the AUC paid $35 million in taxpayer dollars to AltaLink after a 2007 transmission line hearing was declared a mistrial. The money was intended to recoup AltaLink’s costs for participating in the compromised hearing.

Yesterday, the AUC decided to forge ahead with the current WATL hearing despite a forthcoming Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that could change the entire scope of the hearing.

The Court will rule on whether or not the AUC has the authority to overturn the proposed line. Currently, the AUC claims it only has the power to decide where the line will go.

“We know this ruling could force this process to start all over again at Day 1. If so, it will fall on taxpayers – again – to compensate AltaLink,” Anglin said. “They’re making the same mistake again – and it’s Alberta families and businesses who will end up paying for it.”

When the hearing began on Monday, Anglin asked that the proceedings be adjourned until the Court of Appeal makes its ruling on the AUC’s jurisdiction. Yesterday, the AUC denied the adjournment.

“When a higher court is hearing an issue, the lower court doesn’t jump into the mix. It just isn’t done, but that’s what’s happening here,” Anglin said.

Wildrose.ca June 14,2012

By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News June 17, 2012

A spokeswoman for Enbridge said an updated oil spill response plan, submitted in March 2011 to a panel reviewing the project, provides updated information that the government would not have known about at the time of the meeting.

But representatives from Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Canada, formerly known as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, expressed concerns that Enbridge gave “insufficient information on the general oil spill response plan and pipeline route through reserve lands,” said notes from the Nov. 25, 2010 meeting, released by the fisheries department through access to information legislation.

The teleconference came a few months after federal biologists expressed concerns that Enbridge was not making significant efforts to avoid “sensitive areas” along approximately 1,000 waterways crossed on the proposed route. One fisheries department scientist said that in some cases, Enbridge was “pushing for the cheapest option,” the Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News reported last week.

Representatives from all departments reached a “general consensus” at the November 2010 meeting that “Enbridge had not submitted enough information on the pipeline route,” noting that its proposed one kilometre corridor was too broad for an adequate evaluation of areas of concern.

Officials from Natural Resources Canada also expressed concerns at the meeting about “preliminary management and safety plans for (the) operation of (the) pipeline,” as well as a lack of information on the company’s land and water resource management plan. Environment Canada representatives also raised concerns that the company needed to do more research regarding wildlife potentially affected by the project.

The Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Affairs Department was not immediately able to say whether Enbridge had addressed all of its concerns.

The federal government also was warned in November 2010 that the courts could overrule the review process of the project because of “unreasonable” consultation with aboriginal communities.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responded in its last budget by offering $13.6 million over two years to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support consultations with aboriginal communities.

The Harper government, which had been heavily lobbied by Enbridge over concerns about DFO demands, tabled Fisheries Act amendments in its budget implementation legislation, bill C-38, in April.

Those changes, which according to critics would “gut” DFO’s ability to protect habitat, became a flashpoint in the opposition’s battle against C-38.

A spokesman from Natural Resources Canada, Paul Duchesne, said department specialists were doing their job prior to making formal information requests that the company responded to in October and November of 2011.

He said the department subsequently recommended, through a government submission to the review panel in December 2011, that Enbridge make commitments for “additional studies and considerations during detailed design and project implementation.” These requests must now be addressed by the panel.

“NRCan’s expert scientists, as well as those at Environment Canada, are dedicated to ensuring that Canadians’ interests are protected through the evaluation of rigorous mitigation plans to protect our environment in every review,” said Duchesne.

At a cost of about $7 billion, the Northern Gateway Pipeline would be nearly 1,200 km in length from Edmonton to Kitimat on the west coast of British Columbia. It would carry an average of 525,000 barrels of petroleum per day to the west, and an average of 193,000 barrels of condensate, used to thin petroleum products for pipeline transport, per day to the east.

The proposed pipeline, crossing through B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest, would also benefit oilsands companies, opening the door to new markets in Asia, allowing them to sell their heavy oil at higher prices than they now get from U.S. markets. But internal records also have suggested that the shipping routes of oil tankers that would transport the oil from the coasts could threaten critical habitat of species such as humpback whales and fin whales.

Enbridge’s March 2011 oil spill response plan indicated that the company was meeting or exceeding Canadian standards and that further operational spill response plans would be completed six months before the commissioning of the project with appropriate details to support the “emergency response along the right-of-way of the pipeline and its shipping routes in Canadian waters.”

Enbridge’s director of corporate and business communications, Jennifer Varey, said that the company always has had an “aggressive emergency response” drill and training program with comprehensive plans in place to respond to spills.

She said the company also created a special cross-business response team in 2011 “to respond to large-scale events anywhere in North America that would require more resources that a single region, or business unit, could provide.

“All of the company’s operating facilities maintain regular contact with communities and first responder organizations to keep them up to date and co-ordinated with Enbridge’s operations and contingency plans,” she said. “In addition, Enbridge works closely with landowners, regulatory agencies and other concerned parties to develop remediation and monitoring plans.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/mikedesouza

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News