Protestors gathered in downtown Van during the first set of Enbridge hearings
On Jan. 14, 2013 more than 4,500 protestors amassed outside the Sheraton Wall Centre to protest the eight day long hearings of Enbridge. Previous hearings throughout the province were held with full public access, but Vancouver and Victoria’s hearings have barred direct public access. The hearings are instead being broadcasted online through the panel’s website. After breaking the public -barred access during a Vancouver hearing on Jan. 15, six protestors, organized by Defend our Coast and supplemented with Idle No More participants, were arrested.
Rallies were held all over British Columbia, led by Aboriginal leaders and members of the opposition from both Ottawa and BC. “We are concerned about the project because of the risks that come along with it and the limited amount of benefits,” says Terry Teegee of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council during the rally in Prince George: “Our aboriginal rights, our human rights, and our rights as citizens of Canada, we have to stand up for that, it’s much more than just a project, we have to stand up for mother earth. . . .”
A major concern is the potential risk of an oil spill. Former BC Minister of Environment, David Anderson, stated, “it’s always been the same code, the coast is too fragile and the technology is inadequate to make this a safe proposition. Nothing has changed, except that with climate change getting more severe, the level of risk is getting higher.”
Tom Gunton a registered professional planner specializing in resource and environmental policy and professor at SFU stated that regardless of whoever operates the pipeline, a significant number of spills are an inevitable part of the pipeline transport system. Gunton explained that Enbridge has on average 70 spills per year, and the addition of the Northern Gateway pipeline could generate at least 11 further spills per year.
However, according to Enbridge’s website, “Spills are not inevitable and Northern Gateway has placed high priority on both the assessment of risks and the measures required to mitigate those risks, as well as response capabilities and the equipment and logistics support a rapid response would require.”
Enbridge’s “Marine assessment and our first response plan” states that Enbridge will “employ the highest worldwide safety and navigational standards” to prevent a spill. Additionally, Northern Gateway is participating in a voluntary assessment, the TERMPOL review process, (a set of extensive guidelines, which are to be considered when analyzing vessel safety and the risks associated with vessel maneuvers and operations). “Enbridge has stated that as a company it will not accept liability for risks that come with pipeline and oil spills,” Gunton states, “So my question to the public is, if Enbridge thinks the pipeline is so safe, why won’t they accept the responsibility for damages? If there are alternatives with no tanker spills and no risk, why even consider the pipeline?”
Long-term economic benefits are also widely debated. Enbridge claims economic development in BC and Canada will be a direct benefit of the pipeline, projecting new jobs and a combined tax revenue to local, provincial and national government of around $2.6 billion.
They also intend to expand further fuel trade to China. However, Gunton refutes this, stating that the project will only generate 80 direct jobs and 500 permanent ones. Additionally, 8,000–9,000 jobs currently held in BC will be negatively affected. Enbridge proposed the Northern Gateway Pipeline on May 27, 2012 to the National Energy Board. The project includes two 1,172 km pipes between Bruderheim AB and Kitimat Marine Terminal in BC. One pipe, 30 inches in diameter, will carry on average 525,000 barrels of crude oil per day to Kitimat, the other 20-inches diameter pipe will carry back 193,000 barrels of condensate per day to Bruderheim. The pipes will be buried on average one meter below ground, except in water crossings.
