Karen Campbell — June 29, 2010
As the Enbridge Gateway oilsands pipeline proposal lurches toward the environmental assessment process, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell is on record saying: "Enbridge has a proposal which is going through a process . . . It will include the most rigorous environmental regime there is anywhere in North America."
While it sounds nice, the reality is that the increasingly controversial pipeline will be reviewed by a Joint Review Panel established by the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. And if the Mackenzie Gas Project is any indication, there are some very real problems with how the federal government is making decisions about major energy projects.
There's good reason opponents of the Enbridge project are wary of trusting the environmental assessment process. To illustrate why, let's look at the Joint Review Panel tasked with reviewing the Mackenzie Gas Project, a 1,300-kilometre natural gas pipeline in the Northwest Territories.
The panel consisted of seven diverse members, including four from the Northwest Territories, who spent six years conducting research and hearings before issuing 176 recommendations to mitigate harmful environmental and socio-economic effects. But guess what? Of the 115 of those recommendations directed at the federal and territorial governments, only 10 have been fully accepted.
In other words, even after a comprehensive hearing process, it appears the federal government is going to disregard the advice of its panel. And given that the panel developed these recommendations after considering the input of Aboriginal peoples, local citizens and more, this disrespect extends to them, too.
In the case of the Enbridge Gateway oilsands pipeline, however, the
situation is much worse to start off with. The Joint Review Panel only consists
of three people — none of whom are from B.C. Two are from Calgary; the third is
a First Nations person from northern Ontario.
So, let's get this straight: a 1,300-km natural gas pipeline project gets reviewed by a diverse seven-member panel, some of whom have a first-hand understanding of northern issues, but a twin 1,170-km oilsands pipeline (2,340 km in total), which opens B.C.'s North Coast to crude oil tankers only gets reviewed by a panel of three people with no first-hand knowledge of the region?
This is starting to sound like a bad political satire. Unfortunately, it's real life — and the consequences of rubber-stamping the Enbridge pipeline are tremendous.
While Enbridge may claim the chance of a major oil tanker spill due to this project is "minimal," keep in mind that BP also said the chance of a spill in the Gulf was "unlikely." To top it off, Enbridge ultimately bears no responsibility beyond the tanker port anyway. It's easy to make promises you don't have to keep.
Unlike BP's Deepwater Horizion rig, which was exempted from a formal environmental impact analysis, at least the Enbridge Gateway oilsands pipeline will undergo an environmental assessment, but the credibility of this assessment is starting out on shaky ground, and the panel hasn't even started its hearings yet.
Download our full
comparison of the review process for the Mackenzie Gas Project and the Enbridge
oilsands pipeline.
Learn more about Pembina's Work in Alberta, Pembina's Work in British Columbia.
Read more blogs relating to Oilsands, Alberta, British Columbia, Federal Action, Pipelines, Provincial Action.
More...
Karen Campbell — Jul 05, 2010 - 01:41 PM MT
Thanks Tim. That is a good suggestion. A sustainability assessment, in terms of identifying the project’s net contribution to sustainability, would be interesting, and I would guess, quite challenging given the risks associated with the project, and the threats to more sustainable employment opportunities (such as tourism and fisheries), posed by a possible oil spill. The MGP review was conducted through the lens of a sustainability assessment, so there is a precedent for major pipeline project review using this approach.
In response to the government’s proposed environmental assessment changes in the omnibus budget bill there is a Facebook group called “Save Canada’s Environmental Laws." Efforts are underway to draw additional attention to the challenges posed by these changes.
John — Jul 01, 2010 - 08:46 AM MT
the process is flawed all the way down to the actual data collected to produce the Environmental assessment so how can one not question the the inability of a panel to come to the proper decisions. In the Enbridge situation as with the Mackenzie pipeline process..it was more a matter of incompetency and misinformation that produced the document than acurate and sound information. Accountability should take place at all steps, not just the top end. Maybe if the right information was given the decisions would be better managed.
Timothy Petrou — Jun 29, 2010 - 12:20 PM MT
Perhaps someone should be advocating for the use of a Sustainability Assessment in place of an Environmental Assessment governed by CEAA, given the recent the developments with the CEAA amendments inserted into the budget. The policy direction of the Federal government that this amendment implies illustrates that environmental interests are at best ancillary to this government when it is convenient.
Post new comment