Northern Gateway Blog Feed

Northern Gateway and energy infrastructure in the 21st Century

Mon, 14 May 2012 07:56:24 -0600

Janet Holder, Enbridge Executive Vice President, Western Access, recently gave a speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Outlined below are Janet's speaking notes from this event.

Thank you Jaime and good afternoon everyone. I'm happy to be back in Toronto, particularly at this beautiful time of year. I lived here during my tenure as President of Enbridge Gas Distribution. I recognize more than a few faces in the audience and I'm grateful for the opportunity to address the Canadian Club today. Of course now I'm back in my hometown of Prince George, BC, where I'm heading up Enbridge's Western Access program.

It is my pleasure to talk with you about what I believe is the most important energy infrastructure project for our nation in the 21st Century: Northern Gateway Pipelines.

In fact, let me remove a qualifier. Forget energy. I think Northern Gateway is Canada's most important infrastructure project today, period.

120 years ago, when the Canadian Club was founded, Canada had just completed another project vital to the well-being of our country, the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Like Northern Gateway, the CPR looked west and created an important transportation corridor to connect markets and resources. In doing so it helped to build and strengthen a fledgling nation.

Had the Canadian Club had been founded just a few years earlier, I am confident that the leaders of the day would have stood at this podium and talked about the importance of that thin band of steel extending to the West Coast and helping to bind and protect confederation.

Likewise, I'm sure the creation of the St. Lawrence Seaway, a little more than 50 years ago, attracted the attention of the Canadian Club. The Seaway proved to be an economic engine for Canada in the mid-20th century. Since 1959 it has seen the transit of nearly $400 billion worth of cargo, connecting the interior of North America to the markets of the world. ⁱ

Northern Gateway is as important to Canada as the CPR and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Its impact on our economy will be of similar magnitude and its benefits will reach down through several generations.

Today I'll discuss why we need to move forward with this project as a nation. I'll talk about why Torontonians should care about a pipeline whose closest point would lie nearly 3,000 km west of here. And I'll talk about how we can build it safely, respectfully and sustainably.

Northern Gateway will fundamentally change the energy industry in Canada. It will catapult our world-class energy resources onto the global energy market and will immediately diversify our customer base, a critical step towards a stronger economy in uncertain times.

But this will only happen if, as a nation, we have the courage and conviction to step out on the world energy stage.

Canada has a choice to make. We can wistfully gaze across the Pacific at the growing Asian economies and wish there was some way for us to fuel their growth with our abundant energy resources.

Or we can act. We can create a Northern Gateway.

Background

Let me provide a little background on Enbridge and on the project itself. Then I will give you the rationale for this ambitious undertaking.

First of all, Enbridge is a Canadian company. For example, we've been here in Toronto for more than 160 years and we employ about 2,100 people in the GTA region alone.

We operate the longest and most complex crude oil pipeline system in the world, safely and reliably delivering nearly 2.2 million barrels of oil every day to markets in Canada and the US. In fact, when you fill up your car here in Toronto, you are likely pumping fuel refined from crude oil Enbridge transported.

We are also the largest natural gas distributor in Canada, heating over 2 million homes. Our natural gas gathering, processing and transmission systems extend from Northern BC to the Gulf of Mexico and transport energy to consumers in nearly forty states and two provinces.

We own and operate a growing portfolio of renewable energy projects with a combined generating capacity of nearly 1,000 MW.

Every action we take adheres to our core values of Safety, Integrity and Respect and all of our relationships are based on that. Across North America, we deliver the energy people count on to live, work and prosper.

Northern Gateway is an extension of that commitment, built on the same core values that have made Enbridge a trusted company for decades.

It's a dual pipeline extending about 1,200 km from northeast of Edmonton, AB to the established deep-water port at Kitimat, BC. The westbound pipeline will carry 525,000 bbl/day of petroleum from the Alberta oil sands to Canada's west coast and the eastbound pipeline will carry 193,000 bbl/day of condensate back to Alberta where it will be used to dilute bitumen so that it can flow through the pipeline.

At Kitimat we will build a world-class marine terminal with two mooring berths for tankers and a total of 14 storage tanks.

I cannot overstate the importance of this maritime access. Today, Canada's proven oil reserves – the third largest in the world – are landlocked. With Northern Gateway and the port of Kitimat, this resource can be sold virtually anywhere in the world.

The Case for Gateway

Canada is a trading nation. In fact, of all the G8 nations, Canada is the one whose economy is most dependent on trade.

And our energy trade is the cornerstone of Canada's economy. In 2011 Canada's single largest export was crude oil; we exported $67 billion worth of it.

However, nearly all of Canada's crude oil exports, about 99 per cent, go to only one customer: the United States. US demand is dropping, in fact according to a TD Economics special report released earlier this month there has been a 30% net drop in their imports of oil and petroleum products since 2005 ⁱⁱ . Their domestic supply is growing and they do have a desire to be self-sufficient. Us finding another customer won't hurt their feelings.

Our most valuable export commodity, and only one market. Does anyone want to defend that business model?

At the same time, the US has a wide range of oil suppliers to choose from – 65 countries in fact ⁱⁱⁱ . The list includes such major petroleum exporters as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia.

That's a dangerous imbalance for Canada.

And we're feeling the impact of our landlocked crude oil every day.

Every day that we're not able to access tidewater is a day of lost opportunity on the world energy market.

When you hear that world oil is trading at a little over $100 per barrel, I want you to remember that's not the price that Canada gets for its oil. Canada's oil, because it is stuck in North America with no outlet to other markets, sells at a discount, up to $36 (as recently as March ^iv ). This discount is not only due to lack of market diversification but also as well as the bottlenecks in Oklahoma.

That's tens of millions of dollars a day and billions of dollars a year in foregone revenue for all of Canada.

What Gateway Delivers.

Northern Gateway will change that. At a single stroke, it will diversify Canada's energy markets and significantly boost the power of our nation's most important economic engine.

Here's what Northern Gateway will deliver:

Very conservatively, an immediate $2 to $3 uptick in the value of every barrel coming out of Western Canada. Some are suggesting now that number could be more like $8 to $10 for every barrel.
A diversified market for our most valuable export, with access to the energy-hungry economies of the Pacific Rim.
A $270 billion contribution to Canada's GDP over 30 years. If we just do the straight arithmetic, this will be a $9 billion contribution per year for three decades. Just to give you a sense of scale, based on 2011 GDP numbers this is slightly more than the entire contribution of the Canada's mining sector to our GDP ($8.6 billion in 2011) and nearly double what forestry and logging contribute. ($5.2 billion) ^v
Close to $1 billion in contracts, training, employment and equity for Aboriginal communities and businesses. (Including a 10 % equity stake in the project)
$2.6 billion in local, provincial and federal government tax revenues.
$4.3 billion in labour-related income.
Approximately 1,150 long-term jobs throughout the Canadian economy and thousands of jobs during construction.

That's a look at the impact across Canada. Now let's look at the potential impact here in Ontario.

We'll be buying our pipe in Canada, so there will be a tremendous impact on Ontario's steel mills and manufacturing centres.

It's a $5.5 billion project, so the Toronto–based financial and banking sector will be involved.

Northern Gateway, as I will mention later, has opposition due to its relationship with the oil sands. Here's what the oil sands deliver to Ontario:

Over the next 25 years, the oil sands industry is expected to purchase $63 billion worth of goods and services from companies in Ontario.^vi

Thousands of jobs. More than half of the employment related to the oil sands outside of Alberta is in Ontario and by 2035 seven per cent of all oil sands related jobs will be in this province. ^vii

According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, Ontario has the most to gain of any province other than Alberta.^viii In fact, CERI paints a remarkable picture of the impact Northern Gateway will have on the economy of Ontario:

It will create more than 16,000 person years of employment in the province. ^ix
It will generate more than $390 million in provincial tax receipts. ^x
It will generate $686 million in pay for Ontario workers ^xi
And it will boost Ontario's GDP by $1.2 billion. ^xii

And where are those jobs? From services to manufacturing, the oil sands bring benefits and jobs to Ontario. Northern Gateway is good for Canada and it's good for Ontario.

The controversy

Despite all these local, provincial and national benefits, the Northern Gateway project is subject to considerable controversy. I know you have seen the headlines and concerns in print. (Protests just last week)

Much of the controversy arises from that fact that this energy megaproject will occur in a region where oil pipelines have not existed for decades, which naturally gives rise to concerns among local residents about local environment. We welcome the opportunity to engage in the community.

We also know that the project is a lightning rod for opposition because of its connection to Canada's oil sands. Opponents in Canada and primarily abroad see stopping the pipeline as a way to stop oil sands development. The majority of opponents to the oil sands are not Canadian. And we have seen different types of opposition including, as media reports have suggested, millions and millions of dollars crossing the border to stop major Canadian development. As a country, we need to give serious thought to what is an appropriate balance – how do we increase transparency and fairness around processes that impact our country's future?

But in all of this, we are eager to listen and engage on those with a direct interest in the Project. There are concerns from First Nations and Métis communities – some near the proposed right-of-way and others from different regions in Canada.

For Enbridge, the controversy may be a challenge, but it is certainly no surprise. As one of the world's leading energy delivery companies, we know from long experience that it is not easy to build consensus around energy projects. When I was here in Toronto I experienced firsthand the controversial power generation project in Oakville. And, of course, Gateway has attracted its fair share of celebrity opposition. We've got everyone from Robert Redford to Kevin Bacon. It's amazing that people seem to believe that celebrities have more knowledge about the issue than the general public.

It is not easy whether we're talking about a new gas-fired electricity generating station, a 2 km upgrade to an existing natural gas pipeline in a populated area, or a new 1,200 km oil pipeline that will stretch across provinces. That is simply the reality of today's world and the reality of our operating environment.

Given the importance of energy infrastructure to Canada's current and future prosperity, we believe that citizens across the country should get involved in the discussion on Northern Gateway. They need to weigh the pros and cons, and assess Enbridge's approach to doing business, creating shared value in the community and being a good neighbour. The key, of course, is that the discussion needs to be based in fact.

And the facts about the project appear to be capturing the public's attention. Support is growing. But those in favour of the project need to speak up. An Ipsos poll of 1000 BC residents released earlier this year shows that nearly 50 per cent of British Columbians are in favour of the project, about 32 per cent are opposed and about 20 per cent are still undecided.

The percentage of those in favour jumps to 55 per cent in Northern BC, where pipeline is proposed to run.

This is a far cry from the majority opposition that activists claim in BC. It shows that most British Columbians are open-minded and willing to listen.

Most importantly, the poll demonstrates the validity of a time-honoured rule known as the "ABC" of communications: awareness leads to buy-in, and buy-in leads to commitment. The poll shows that the more people know the facts around Northern Gateway, the more likely they are to support it.

We're also seeing that the public's understanding of the importance of energy infrastructure development in Canada is growing. Earlier this month the Canadian Chamber of Commerce released the results of a poll conducted by Ipsos.

The results showed that, contrary to how the issue may be represented by opponents of energy projects, the Canadian public has a high level of support for energy infrastructure development.

For example, two-thirds of Canadians think it's possible to protect the environment while increasing oil and gas production.

Nearly twice as many Canadians (57 % agree to 29 % disagree) that the benefits of oil sands developments outweigh the negatives.

And most importantly for Northern Gateway, 75 per cent of Canadians think it's important that Canada does what is required to diversify our oil and gas markets away from our reliance on the United States.

Clearly, support for the project and for diversifying our oil markets is gaining traction across Canada.

Our approach

There are two reasons why support is growing. One is that the business case for the project is compelling. As the global economy continues to struggle, diversifying our crude oil market with Northern Gateway helps Canada insulate itself from the worst of the economic headwinds.

The second reason behind growing support is Enbridge's approach to the project and to its stakeholders, whether they are in favour or opposed. I am convinced this will be a decisive factor in the ultimate success of the initiative.

We work hard to be a good neighbour and to prove the quality of our character as a company each and every day.

We have been consulting with stakeholders, communities and First Nations along the proposed right of way for the past 10 years. We've held 2,500 public meetings, 123 open houses, 150 presentation and we've met with more than 17,000 people over that time frame. We have taken consultation to a whole new level.

Our approach is transparent and inclusive. We will talk to any stakeholder and respond to every concern. It's not enough for us to answer the regulator's questions. We must work to gain support in the community halls and schools, meeting rooms and kitchen tables all along the proposed route.

And we're working to do just that. We know we need to earn the trust and confidence of our stakeholders and we will do that the same way we have for more than 60 years, by being approachable, open and responsive, the way a good neighbour should be.

We're also going to great lengths to keep the pipeline and marine operations safe.

Here are a few examples among many:

Only pre-screened, double-hulled tankers will be allowed in the Douglas Channel, and they will be tethered to custom super-tugboats and navigated by certified, experienced BC pilots.
We will be adding navigational aids, radar and first response capacity to enhance the safety of the entire northwest coast.
We continue to review and test new technology as it relates to pipeline integrity, earlier detection of pipeline faults, and for emergency response.
We have also adjusted the proposed routing and waterway crossings along the pipeline right-of-way in response to community and stakeholder input.

The more people learn about Gateway and Enbridge, the more trust they will have in our commitment and ability to build and operate this vital link in Canada's energy supply chain in a safe, reliable and sustainable way.

And don't forget that pipelines have been shown to be the safest, most efficient way to transport oil, and oil tankers currently safely travel the Great Lakes and Canada's east and west coasts.

The regulatory process

Currently we are in the midst of a regulatory review by the Joint Review Panel, which operates under the auspices of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

We submitted our regulatory application two years ago.

We're now into our fifth month of community hearings, which are expected to continue until the end of the summer.

Formal hearings should begin in September and be completed by year-end. We hope to have a decision on Northern Gateway by the end of 2013. As you can tell, this is a long process.

The federal government has recently announced that it is working to streamline the regulatory process. We welcome all initiatives that provide certainty to the review process of projects like Northern Gateway.

But the bottom line for us is our commitment for consultation for those with an interest in the Project.

Aboriginal consultation

First Nations along the proposed right-of-way have a profound interest in the project and are a key focus of the consultation process.

Just as I am proud of the technological and engineering expertise that we bring to the project I am also proud of the innovative and collaborative approach that we are bringing to our interactions with these First Nations.

Working closely with Aboriginal communities along the right-of-way, sharing the benefits of pipeline construction and finding opportunities for them to participate in the project over the long term is not only responsible and respectful, it just makes sense.

The relationships that we are forging with these communities are critical to our success. We know that First Nations are more than stakeholders. We work hard to engage with them, understand their interests and concerns and find out where we can work together for mutual benefit.

Our 10 per cent equity offering in the project to Aboriginal communities along the proposed route is just one example of this approach. We are also assisting with the financing of these equity stakes so that these communities can reap the long-term benefits from Northern Gateway.

That's over and above the training and labour opportunities and the sourcing of goods and services before, during and after construction.

Wrapping up

Before I wrap up today, let me leave you with a few thoughts.

First, the case for Northern Gateway is very strong. It's hard to argue against the logic – the necessity – of diversifying the market for Canada's most important export. Gateway is the link between the world's third-largest petroleum reserves and the world's fastest-growing markets for energy. It will have a transformative impact on Canada's economy. Northern Gateway will bring thousands of jobs to Alberta, BC and the rest of Canada and help secure our future as an energy superpower.

Second, Enbridge is uniquely positioned to deliver on the promise of Northern Gateway. Our long-term success is based not only on our ability to safely build and operate energy infrastructure, but also on our ability to build respectful, stable and strong relationships with landowners, stakeholders and First Nations.

Third, the project faces significant opposition, but frankly the level of that opposition is often overstated by activists who use old public opinion data that is not even about the project. The number of people who support Northern Gateway is growing. The voices arguing against it will get louder over the next several months, but we will stay the course and invite Canadians to join in a civil and fact-based discussion of the pros and cons of the project.

Finally, Canada is well-equipped to make a prudent, thoughtful and balanced decision about Northern Gateway and about all our energy infrastructure development. Gateway is just one example of the smart, sustainable and strategic projects Canada can and should undertake to ensure that we get the best value for our natural resources in a competitive world market.

I hope my comments here today have helped build support for this game-changing project. At the very least, I hope I've encouraged you to join the conversation. And you'll find a lively discussion on our website at www.northerngateway.ca

Canada is ready to enter the global energy market, and Northern Gateway is the key that unlocks the door. But it is all Canadians – and that includes everyone in this room today – who hold the key in their hands.

Thank you very much for your time today.

ⁱ http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/seaway/facts/index.html
ⁱⁱ TD Economics; http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/lp0512_energy_independence.pdf
ⁱⁱⁱ EIA. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm
^iv Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USCSWCAS:IND
^v Statistics Canada; http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/prim03-eng.htm
^vi CAPP, The Oil Sands: Growing Ontario’s Economy, http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=176826&DT=NTV
^vii CAPP, The Oil Sands: Growing Ontario’s Economy, http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=176826&DT=NTV
^viii CERI, A Decade of Staged Oil Sands Growth (2010 – 2020) page xiii
^ix CERI, A Decade of Staged Oil Sands Growth (2010 – 2020) Table 1.13 – 1.8
^x CERI, A Decade of Staged Oil Sands Growth (2010 – 2020) Table 1.14 – 1.9
^xi CERI, A Decade of Staged Oil Sands Growth (2010 – 2020) Table 1.12-1.7
^xii CERI, A Decade of Staged Oil Sands Growth (2010 – 2020) Table 1.12-1.7

New poll confirms support for Gateway goals

Thu, 03 May 2012 13:52:18 -0600

Leading public opinion research firm Ipsos Reid, on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has released a poll about Canadians' views on the oil and gas industry and the environment.

Among the highlights, the poll confirms the results that another polling firm, Nanos, found back in early February 2012: 75 per cent of Canadians believe we need to open new markets for our oil and gas products--a goal Northern Gateway will meet, should we win approval to operate.

In 2010, Canada exported $50 billion worth of oil, with almost all of that going to the mid-west market of the USA. Currently this market has a large volume of supply, and a lack of infrastructure to move oil to other places. This situation has resulted in a deeply discounted price for Canadian oil compared to the global market price--a problem that the Bank of Canada has suggested could weigh on the entire Canadian economy.

The poll results demonstrate Canadians are aware of this problem and want it solved.

Amongst the findings of the Ipsos Reid poll released today:

Two-thirds (65%) of Canadians agree that “it is possible to increase oil and gas production while protecting the environment at the same time,” including one-quarter (26%) who ‘agree strongly’. One-quarter (25%) of Canadians disagree with this idea (9% ‘disagree strongly’)
Canadians say development of the oil sands is more positive than negative. Nearly twice as many Canadians agree (57%, including 21% who ‘agree strongly’) as disagree (29%, including 12% who ‘disagree strongly’) with the statement that "I think that overall the benefits of development of the oil sands in Canada outweigh the negatives.”
Three-quarters (75%, including 35% who ‘agree strongly’) of residents agree with the statement that "it is important that Canada does what it takes to access new markets for oil and gas exports in order to reduce the reliance on exports to the United States” (15% disagree, including 4% who ‘disagree strongly’)

Energy exports: who decides the national interest?

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:47:12 -0600

In a recent editorial article published in the Vancouver Sun on April 28, 2012, Paul Stanway, a veteran journalist and Enbridge communications consultant, asks: “who decides the national interest when it comes to our energy exports?”

There’s a robust debate occurring in Canada right now about energy exports. We at Enbridge believe this is a good thing. It’s the Canadian way: we achieve consensus through open discussion and conversation—a free-wheeling debate. It’s how we decide on major projects in Canada.

Northern Gateway expects to ship upgraded oil

Some Canadians don’t like the idea of shipping bitumen from the oil sands without upgrading it first. Others note that Alberta upgraders and refineries are currently operating at peak capacity and it could be some time before new upgrading capacity is built. Still others note there is a shortage of skilled workers already in the oil and gas industry, and while creating new jobs is certainly important, there are plenty of opportunities for qualified job seekers at this time.

Regardless of your position on the upgrading issue, that debate is peripheral to Northern Gateway—we expect to ship upgraded oil. Like most of Canada’s economic resources, from natural resources to human services, market demands play a large role in determining what is sold, where and when.

Crude oil was Canada’s most valuable export in 2010, amounting to $50 billion in exports. If we include all of Canada’s energy exports—a market worth $94 billion in 2010—nearly 25 per cent of all exports from Canada were energy products.

Canada isn’t getting full market value for its oil exports

Canadian producers currently sell almost all exported oil into the American mid-west market, an area experiencing an oil production boom of its own with supply outmatching demand. Our oil is priced at a discount to an already discounted US Mid-West price compared to the global market price for oil. This situation means Canadians aren’t capturing millions of dollars a day, adding up to billions of dollars per year, in royalties and taxes. That’s a lot of money that could be put towards the things all Canadians value, like education, healthcare and other universal services.

Demand for oil in the United States is also declining while demand is rising in the emerging economies of the Asia Pacific region. The International Energy Agency, a Paris-based independent think-tank says that by 2035, non-OECD economies will lead demand for energy and expects oil to be 29 per cent of the global energy mix.

As Stanway’s op-ed notes: “You don’t have to be an economist to understand that dependence on a single customer for our most valuable export cannot be in the national interest.”

Northern Gateway will contribute to the Canadian effort to fix the single-market situation—an economic problem that is of national concern as recently noted by the Bank of Canada.

It’s estimated that Northern Gateway will add $270 billion to the Canadian GDP over the first 30 years of its operation. Direct benefits include $2.6 billion in local, provincial and federal tax revenues, $4.3 billion in job-related income with $400 million worth of contracts and employment opportunities for First Nations people.

Is blocking pipeline construction in the national interest?

There’s been lots of talk in the media lately about a coordinated strategy to block Canadian oil sands exports. Some groups see the oil sands as an environmental issue that can only be solved by ending development altogether. Renowned climate science academics have noted the apocalyptic climate claims of those environmental activists aren’t supported by the science. Unfortunately the facts haven’t prevented a coordinated campaign to obstruct pipeline construction as a way to stop further oil sands development.

Canadians are faced with a choice: we can risk having our resource revenues choked off and continue to lose opportunities to capture billions in additional benefits from our single biggest export or we can ensure that new markets are opened safely while keeping environmental and human safety our top priority.

A February 2012 poll found that 75 per cent of Canadians believe Canada should diversify its energy export markets beyond the USA. We strongly urge you to stand up for your national interest, please join the conversation and make your views known.

It’s a path to…

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:48:52 -0600

The Northern Gateway pipeline is more than an energy infrastructure project. It’s also a path to…

Thousands of jobs nationwide…
Over 3,000 direct construction jobs will be created at the peak of construction. As well, 1,150 new long-term jobs will be generated across Canada—with 560 of those in BC.

Billions of dollars to help Canadian communities…
Over 30 years, more than $2.6 billion in local, provincial and federal tax revenue can be used to strengthen public services. Enbridge will also provide $100 million to support communities near the pipeline.

World-class safety standards…
Carefully planned and built to respect the terrain and wildlife, the pipeline will be monitored 24/7. To protect our waters and coastline, marine facilities will adopt additional navigation aids, increase emergency response capabilities, and implement new land-based radar so that Canada’s Northwest Coast is safer for all marine traffic.

A strong economy with new trade partners…
There will be more opportunities and towns will prosper. It will open up global markets for Canada’s energy exports and increase our nation’s Gross Domestic Product by $270 billion.

Northern Gateway is more than a pipeline. It’s an important national project. It’s a path to our future. 75 per cent of Canadians believe now is the time to diversify our energy export markets. Now is the time for you to have your voice heard. Online or in-person, please Join the Conversation. There are many ways to have your voice heard: leave a comment on our blogs, join the conversation on Facebook, tweet with us on Twitter, you can also comment on online newspaper articles or write a good old fashioned letter to the editor!

Lions spotted in Northern B.C.

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:57:24 -0600

Football stars Geroy Simon and Shawn Gore from the B.C. Lions doffed the pads to travel to Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and Prince George, handing off a valuable message to youths in those communities.

In 2010, the B.C. Lions in partnership with the B.C. government launched the Lions Pride program that inspires youth to be active, make positive choices in their lives and excel at whatever they do. Now in its third year, Enbridge has joined the Lions Pride team in a supportive role.

The program runs each spring with star Lions players like Slotback Geroy Simon visiting Grade 8 to 12 students in the B.C. Lower Mainland, as well as participating in an interior tour to the Prince George and Kamloops areas.

Simon and Gore spoke to youths at a Vanderhoof high school and engaged them in a 45-minute activity session stressing teamwork and the importance of having a positive attitude.

The Lions Pride program aims to help at-risk youth make positive choices in their lives and keep them from falling into gang activity.

“In the first year of the program I realized how important it is for the kids to connect with the players directly,” explained Geroy Simon. “We visited an alternative school in Prince George where we were able to connect with the kids in a much smaller group than the normal 600 or so we get in the gyms of the big high schools.”

In many communities in B.C., youth who find themselves in trouble at school or within their communities can be placed in an alternative learning program that provides opportunities for more specialized education and interaction in an effort to help guide them towards future opportunities.

“In talking with these teens directly, I realized that many of them, despite the challenges they’re dealing with in life today, have big goals and dreams for the future,” said Simon. “Sharing my personal journey of focusing on having a positive attitude, being a better teammate and changing some of the choices I was making in life in order to be successful at football will hopefully help them to recognize they can do the same things to achieve their goals and dreams.”

These youth couldn’t ask for a better role model. Simon’s coach recently said: “He is the kind of player every team wants to have and build around. Geroy will never be outworked or stop challenging himself or his teammates and that’s vital to our success.”

“It wasn’t always like this for me,” Simon said. “Success doesn’t come without hard work and a positive attitude. To get to where we are today, I had to learn how to be a better teammate, how to always bring a positive attitude to the football field and to learn how to make better choices away from the field so I could achieve my goals on it.”

Simon led all Lions receivers in 2011 and was second in the Canadian Football League with 1,350 yards, with 8 touchdowns on 84 catches. He was a league All Star for the sixth time in his 13-year career. Simon is just 66 yards shy of being the all-time receptions leader in the CFL.

“Enbridge is proud to partner with the B.C. Lions and the B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General on this important initiative,” said Janet Holder, Enbridge Executive Vice President Western Access. “The work that the B.C. Lions and Geroy Simon are doing away from the field will help create positive spirit in communities across B.C.

“We share the same positive vision for the communities we do business in and with.”

Alberta construction group urges support for Gateway

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:53:20 -0600

A workers association says Alberta NDP policy of opposing Northern Gateway because it will transport bitumen is a recipe to kill jobs and prosperity.

The Alberta Merit Contractors Association calls on the NDP to support both Gateway and Keystone XL, which proposes to transport Alberta oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast, as a way to boost viability of the oil sands – a big contributor to the provincial economy.

“Thousands of construction and energy industry jobs are currently tied to recovering bitumen. The NDP plan could result in these valuable resources being shut-in and would result in lost opportunities and jobs for Albertans," says Stephen Kushner, president of the Association that represents over 1,300 contractor firms employing over 40,000 workers in commercial, institutional and industrial construction sectors.

The NDP has said it is in favour of the pipelines, but only if they are exporting upgraded bitumen. What’s lost on the NDP is that Northern Gateway will be constructed so that it can carry both diluted bitumen and upgraded product.

The Association says it is a supporter of the “Refine it Where We Mine it” coalition dedicated to adding value to Alberta's energy resource chain by boosting oil sands crude oil refining capacity in the province.

The NDP’s policy of exporting only refined product is not achievable, says Kushner. And if Gateway and Keystone aren’t built, Albertans would be forced to “give up” tremendous benefits.

"Prevailing markets and economics are saying that fully realizing the goal of refining all of our resource products must be phased in over time.” Kushner stated in a recent news release. “The NDP's stand against moving forward on the pipeline projects, as soon as possible, means they want Albertans to give up tremendous opportunities that exist today. Their plan is merely a wishful hope that uncertain global conditions in the distant future will provide suitable economic conditions to attract the multi-billions of dollars of private investment needed to build each upgrader or refinery."

If you’ve been following the oil refining debate, as we have, you’d know that upgraders and refineries are running at, or near, peak capacity in Alberta.

Currently, oil exported from Canada is sold at a significant discount to the global price. Analysis by Scotiabank released March 28, 2012, as reported here, found that discount to be over $30 per barrel. That’s a lot of money left on the table for Canadian producers, their employees and investors, as well as for government programs funded in part by revenue generated through royalties and corporate taxes.

“Canada needs to increase export capability by building more pipeline capacity,” said Patricia Mohr, a Scotiabank analyst, in her monthly commodities index report. “Secondly, we need to diversify away from just the U.S. Midwest market [and] the third thing, which I'm beginning to be a little concerned about, is that the growth of U.S. petroleum demand is extremely slow. Last year it actually declined.”

It’s clear that Canada needs to open new markets for its oil exports in order to achieve maximum value. It’s also clear that Northern Gateway is an important step towards this goal.

One thing to remember that an argument in favour of boosting refining capacity in Alberta is NOT an argument against Northern Gateway, despite the proclamations by the NDP.

Northern Gateway will be able to ship both.

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore talks Gateway

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:21:09 -0600

“Oil is nearly one-third of energy and all transportation – you can’t just cut that off and expect (society) to continue.”

***

“I know we need oil now and into the future … we need to develop that oil in the most sustainable way.”

***

“We don’t want to suggest cures that are far worse than the disease and that’s where the environmental movement has lost credibility in my eyes.”

***

The source of the above quotes might surprise you.

Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and a veteran of the environmental movement. For four decades he’s travelled the world righting environmental wrongs.

But as a scientist, Dr. Moore says he became disillusioned with the activist organization when it began to take stands that weren’t rooted in sound science.

“To this day, I believe that all of the positions I’m taking on environmental issues are based on ecology and science and logic,” says Dr. Moore.

Dr. Moore has become an unapologetic critic of “mainstream environmental organizations” that espouse the unrealistic notion that the world can be run on alternative energy in relatively short order.

Dr. Moore isn’t alone in his belief that, for all of our efforts toward green energy and increased efficiency, oil will continue to represent a significant share of world energy demand for many years to come.

In a report released in September 2011, the International Energy Agency finds that demand for oil will continue to grow and remain an indispensable part of the mix for decades. The Paris-based energy think tank says oil will comprise 29% of world energy demand by 2035, driven by demand growth in non-OECD countries.

That rising demand, particularly in transportation sectors of developing countries, will boost unconventional oil production (i.e. oil sands) to form a very important part of the global energy portfolio by 2035, according to the IEA.

Dr. Moore says doomsday predictions by environmental organizations that oil sands development must inevitably lead to climate change Armageddon spurred him to travel to Fort McMurray to survey the industry for himself.

What he found was far different than the usual images portrayed by media and opponents of oil sands development.

“From my point of view, from an environmental point of view, we should develop that oil in the most sustainable way. That means not adopting a position of shutting it down or blocking it or banning it,” he says, pointing to Northern Gateway as a responsible, efficient and sustainable means of transporting the oil from where it is developed, to where it’s needed.

“There is no escaping the fact that seven billion people wake up every morning with real needs for food, energy and materials. Sustainability is partly about how to continue providing for those needs - maybe getting a little bit more food and energy for people in the developing countries - while at the same time, through changes in our behavior and our technologies, reducing our negative impact on the environment.”

Review matters

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:32:57 -0600

The Canadian federal government released their budget last week. Included in the budget are provisions to create defined timelines for federal environmental assessment processes and dollars to assist the impacted departments to balance stringent environmental review over an established period of time.

This announcement has been described by some pundits in the media as a significant change. Accordingly, there are organizations and individuals who have expressed concern and outright opposition to proposed changes. In many cases, opposition to establishing deadlines in environmental assessments is borne of the belief that “longer” somehow equals “better.”

Online channels have been, pardon the expression, all “a Twitter” about these plans since the budget was announced, with a wide variety of opinions expressed. One particular discussion stood out for us:

Andrew Leach, a professor based at the University of Alberta who is an expert economist with a focus on energy and the environment, very quickly after the budget was released, asked his Twitter followers:

“Can anyone provide a single piece of evidence that longer environmental processes, beyond a certain point, yield higher quality evaluation?”

As part of his summary of the responses he received, Leach sent several tweets including:

“Many people expressing concerns that reviews won’t be adequate, but connection between that and time limit is tenuous at best.”

“Remainder seem to be people who see the value of a longer process as a longer delay in projects they don't think should be built.”

“…Time limit is/should be a red herring. Argue for better, not longer, process.”

It’s a sentiment echoed by columnist Don Cayo in the Vancouver Sun:

“…it’s a spurious argument to try to link the efficiency of the regulatory process and the fairness of it. “Slow” is not a synonym for “good” nor is “faster” another word for “worse.” It does immense harm to the economy and no good to anyone at all, as history proves, to have a Byzantine process that is obscenely expensive for both the public and private sectors.”

Enbridge Northern Gateway supports the notion of having a thorough but efficient regulatory regime assess all large industrial projects—this is in the best interests of all Canadians. We believe the public interest is also best served by a timely process that provides predictability for companies proposing substantial investments in the Canadian economy, often in the billions of dollars.

At this time, there are only a few details known about the environmental assessment changes announced in the budget. Further legislation providing the working details of the announced changes will likely be presented soon.

Enbridge is supportive of measures in the federal budget that advocate the concept of “one project, one review” completed in a clearly defined time period. It makes great sense and would support developments that bring jobs and prosperity to Canadians. We will look with interest at forthcoming legislation stemming from the federal budget around streamlining the regulatory application process for major energy projects.

Gateway community hearings shift back to Alberta

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:56:21 -0600

Community hearings into the Northern Gateway project moved back into Alberta last week for the first time in nearly two months, with a noticeable change in atmosphere.

While B.C.’s coastal communities such as Kitkatla, Skidegate, Hartley Bay, and Prince Rupert are less familiar with pipelines, oil derricks, and refineries, the energy industry is more familiar to centres such as Grande Prairie, where the three-person Joint Review Panel (JRP) continued the public consultation process into Enbridge Inc.’s regulatory application for three days from March 26 to 28.

Northern Gateway, a $5.5-billion project, would include a twin pipeline of nearly 1,200 kilometres from the Edmonton area to Kitimat, B.C., with a new marine terminal at Kitimat servicing oil tankers using the Douglas Channel, one of the widest and deepest inland waterways on North America’s West Coast. The ultimate goal is to connect Canada’s oil sands with emerging energy markets in the Pacific Rim.

Enbridge’s calculations suggest Northern Gateway would mean $270 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product totals over a 30-year span. Enbridge is offering 10 per cent equity ownership in the project to eligible Aboriginal groups living near the project, a windfall of nearly $280 million over those same 30 years.

First Nations such as the Kelly Lake Cree Nation and Horse Lake First Nation, along with various Métis groups, took the mic in at Grande Prairie front of the JRP, whose representatives are appointed by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the federal Ministry of the Environment.

Some First Nations expressed concerns regarding the potential for pipeline spills, pipeline location, and sustainability issues with respect to its construction, while other Aboriginal groups expressed interest in employment opportunities and economic spinoffs.

Members of the Saulteau First Nation, just across the provincial border near Chetwynd, B.C., expressed a wish to have land near the proposed pipeline restored with natural grasses and berry bushes.

“We’re connected to the land in all ways — from the grass, plants and medicine, the herbs that heal our ailments,” said Saulteau Chief Harley Davis.

Grande Prairie also marked a shift in the lengthy Northern Gateway public consultation process — with the first registered speakers in the oral statements phase of the JRP community hearings.

While their names are similar, oral evidence and oral statements are different.

Up until now in the hearings, the focus for registered intervenors has been solely on oral evidence — provided largely by Aboriginal groups who have an oral history and tradition — based on personal experience, and the impact Northern Gateway may have on them and their community.

The oral statements stage imposes a 10-minute time limit for each speaker and allows registered participants to offer opinion and argument.

Delwin Slemp, a councillor with the nearby town of Valleyview, Alta., gave an oral statement in support of Northern Gateway, noting he’s worked in the oil and gas sector for years and understands the relative safety of transportation infrastructure — as well as Northern Gateway’s numerous provisions to heighten safety standards.

“I value the land out there, the Crown land,” said the avid outdoorsman. “If I didn’t believe that this was safe, if I thought there was undue risk, I would not be here endorsing it.”

Both oral evidence and oral statements will be heard over the next three weeks — including simultaneous sessions at Comox, B.C., and Klemtu, B.C. — until the oral evidence hearing schedule wraps up April 17 at Prince Rupert, B.C.

Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainability

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:10:00 -0600

On March 27, 2012, Enbridge and the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business joined forces to create new possibilities for corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The Centre, to which Enbridge donated $2.5 million, is housed at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business. With a mandate to advance corporate practices that help sustain our planet's people, environment and economy, it will be a hub for thought leadership in the area of CSR.

To meet its mandate, the Centre will fund innovative graduate student and faculty research, and will invite renowned academics and business leaders to come and share their knowledge. Based on its research and knowledge gathering work, the Centre will develop business practices focused on advancing sustainability, corporate citizenship and CSR.

The Centre will also oversee the Enbridge Research in Action seminar series, which will bring together leading academics and industry experts from a variety of disciplines, institutions and organizations to raise the level of dialogue on CSR-related topics.

For more information, please visit http://haskayne.ucalgary.ca/research/research-centres/ECCS.

Enbridge generates more solar power

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:32:57 -0600

While you may know Enbridge as an oil and gas transportation company — two core areas of our business — you may not be aware that Enbridge is recognized as a leader in North America for generating renewable energy.

The world will need oil and gas for decades to come — they are key ingredients in many of the products we rely on every day as well as providing much of the fuel we use for transportation. Despite this, Enbridge recognizes the importance of boosting capacity of renewable and alternative energy sources.

On March 22, 2012, Enbridge announced a 100 per cent stake in First Solar’s Nevada Solar Project. This project has the capacity to generate 50 megawatts (MW) of solar electricity — enough electricity to power 9,000 homes.

It’s an important step towards reducing carbon emissions. Fifty MW of ‘green’ power will displace about 42,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually, or about the same as taking 8,000 cars off the road.

The First Solar project is one of many included in Enbridge’s renewable energy generating portfolio, which includes eight wind farms, four solar projects, a hybrid fuel cell and four waste heat recovery facilities, which together generate almost 1,000 MW of renewable energy.

Enbridge has spent some $2 billion in the last 10 years on green power — but we aren’t resting on our laurels.

Enbridge’s Neutral Footprint program has provided us with a mandate to generate a kilowatt of renewable energy for each kilowatt of power we consume in our operations. In our most recent update, we announced that we’re well on our way to reaching this goal with over 2,166 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity generated thus far.

And Enbridge’s green thumb isn’t going unnoticed.

In an annual ranking of major companies around the world, Enbridge was deemed one of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations.

The group Corporate Knights looked at hundreds of corporations around the world and analyzed a variety of measures such as energy efficiency, CO2 emissions, and waste levels.

Enbridge joined just five other Canadian companies in the prestigious so-called “green capitalism” designation.

CBC Cross Country Check Up in Fort McMurray

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:54:26 -0600

You’ve likely heard a lot about Canada’s oil sands. But unless you live in Northern Alberta you probably haven’t heard from the people living and working in the region.

There’s no doubt that the oil sands are a hot button of debate in Canada. As Canadians, we need to find a balance in responsible development of one of our country’s greatest natural resources—from environmental and socio-economic perspectives.

There’s a staggering amount of global attention focused on the oil sands. Unfortunately, often lost in the stories are the perspectives of some of the most important people involved—those who live next to the development and those who work to responsibly develop this vital energy resource.

Rex Murphy is a well-known journalist in Canada. Hailing from Newfoundland, ‘The Rock’ as he likes to call it, Rex opines on all sorts of issues, political and otherwise, in a weekly column published in the National Post, on a weekly segment on CBC TV news show The National and he also runs a two-hour radio talk show on Sunday afternoons called Cross Country Check Up.

On Sunday, March 18, 2012, Rex took his radio show on the road to tell the story of the people and community of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

The city is as close to ‘ground zero’ as it gets in the oil sands debate, but the people who make up its vibrant and diverse community are rarely heard from. Rex is helping to change that.

In this two hour Cross Country Check Up show, Rex speaks to the Mayor of the Municipality of Wood Buffalo, local citizens, representatives from industry and aboriginal groups, a few callers from across Canada and an environmentalist whose views are likely very different than what you’d expect. Here are some notable quotes:

“The kind of people that are out here are some of the smartest people in the world. We’re one of the highest educated, we come from not only Alberta but Canada and the world… we’re not all men, we’re not all blue collar and we are all here to improve our life.” Mayor Melissa Blake

“There are a thousand researchers at the University of Alberta and throughout the educational networks in Alberta that are working on environmental issues and activities for the benefit of developing this oil sands play as well as other oil industry elements throughout the province.” Bill Ramsey, oil sands construction expert

“Are there issues? Absolutely, there are always issues with industrial projects of any sort. I also know there are people here working hard to address those issues… we are not ignorant of the issues we face in the industry or our community, we are working on them…” Theresa Wells, Fort McMurray lifestyle blogger

“Last year we celebrated planting our five millionth tree in our operation as part of our reclamation efforts… five or six years ago, environmentalists said that was impossible.” Mark Little, Executive Vice President, Suncor

“Aboriginal businesses have the opportunity to kind of evolve with the actual evolution of the oil sands industry…” Tyrone Brass, President of Northeastern Alberta Aboriginal Business Association

“The human ecology, the human community that is Fort McMurray is fantastic… there are 200 non-profit community associations operating in this town… The oil companies are doing everything they can, they’re pouring billions of dollars into research and development into how we can do this better…“ Howard Rensler, Master’s Degree in environmental studies, founder of Pollution Probe

These are just a few of a great many excellent comments from participants in Rex’s show. The perspectives are unique and provide insight into the local human ‘environment’ often overlooked in critiques of oil sands development.

Leading up to the show, Rex Murphy wrote an opinion column in the National Post, and ended it poignantly:

The environment is not just what you see on green posters. It is not just sunsets and tall trees. It is also the people living in it. And people need energy, and people need jobs. Projects such as the oilsands, which supplies both in abundance, should be celebrated for its cutting-edge technological and scientific prowess. It is Canada’s great national project for the 21st century.

Tanker traffic in Kitimat today

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:17:19 -0600

You’ve heard them…the myths stridently stated by environmental activists:

Northern Gateway’s plan, including 220 crude tankers annually into a marine terminal in Kitimat, would be introducing tankers to the Douglas and Principe Channels.
Northern Gateway would represent an end to a tanker moratorium along B.C.’s north coast.
It’s not ‘if’ a spill happens, but ‘when’ a spill happens.

What these activists will not tell you is that there has been plenty of ship traffic in and out of Kitimat already—without a catastrophe they claim is inevitable.

According to numbers from the Port of Kitimat, not only have vessels carrying industrial products been travelling the channels safely for some 35 years, but so too have ships carrying petroleum products—like the one featured arriving in the Port of Kitimat through the Douglas Channel in the picture above.

In fact, some 1,560 vessels carrying methanol and condensate called on Kitimat port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s over 3,100 transits of vessels dedicated to the transport of petroleum products.

When you add vessel traffic of all industrial activity into Kitimat port, the number jumps to 6,112.

To be clear…the number of ships servicing industry arriving at Kitimat port between 1978 and 2009 is 6,112. That’s 12,224 transits!

When you add traffic related to proposed liquified natural gas projects out of the Kitimat region that number is certain to rise even higher.

Suddenly, Northern Gateway’s plan to introduce 220 ships into Kitimat annually is put into proper perspective.

With the kind of traffic already occurring, wouldn’t it make sense to introduce measures that would heighten safety for everyone?

Northern Gateway’s marine plans include navigational aids such as beacons, buoys and lights throughout the channel. There would also be an advanced radar system with Automatic Identification System. The plan includes tethered tugboat escorts that have emergency response capabilities.

Northern Gateway would add additional emergency response equipment that will exceed regulation and will be available to all marine traffic in the event of an incident.

If a spill were to take place, emergency response personnel and equipment will be located at the Kitimat marine terminal and along the vessel routes to ensure the fastest response time possible.

Northern Gateway’s claim that our plan would enhance safety for all vessel traffic was recently independently verified. The TERMPOL report, led by Transport Canada and including input from Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada was filed with the National Energy Board regulators as part of the Joint Review Panel process.

Check out the video below to see our safety measures in action, and as always, give us your thoughts in the comments section:

Birdtail Sioux: Sustaining our People

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:33:05 -0600

Birdtail Sioux First Nation was once one of too many First Nations communities in Canada suffering the heartbreaking combination of alcoholism, school dropouts, hopelessness and suicide. But a transformation has taken root. Here is the story of Birdtail, the last in a four-part series of how a small First Nation found a path to a brighter future through partnership and collaboration.

Birdtail elder Hilliard Benn says he didn’t know Enbridge or whether the company should be trusted.

When Enbridge approached Birdtail Sioux First Nation prior to a pipeline expansion through territory they view as their traditional lands, Benn was skeptical. So was the community.

“I wasn’t quite sure really what Enbridge is or how they worked,” says Benn, remembering the early days when the community located in southwest Manitoba was getting acquainted with Enbridge.

At the time, Birdtail was battling some very difficult social issues of alcoholism, unemployment and a workforce that was largely uneducated. Birdtail had only graduated 4 people in 40 years.

Birdtail Chief Ken Chalmers saw a path to a brighter future, one that favoured partnership and collaboration over obstruction and confrontation. But it wasn’t just he who saw this path. It was a community decision to build partnerships with Corporate Canada.

“They were very apprehensive, our people,” says Chief Chalmers. “And my people decided, not chief and council.”

That early engagement built a relationship that has since set in motion a series of events involving other corporations, other businesses and various levels of government. The results are striking.

A school, a health clinic, a general store, renovated homes, a water treatment plant and a host of economic development initiatives both on and off the reservation are all either already achieved or what Chief Chalmers still has in store for Birdtail.

Engagement with industry and government has not always been popular with some of his First Nations neighbours but he’s convinced it’s the right direction.

Chief Chalmers is adamant, these initiatives have not resulted in a relinquishment of rights, and he’s resolute in his belief that his traditional territory and his culture have not been compromised.

“We’ve just finished our annual hunt for the reserve and now our fridges in just about every household are full of those meats,” says Chalmers.

He points to the picturesque Assiniboine River valley he says is in the direction of the rights of way of two pipelines, one of them Enbridge’s.

“We’re still doing the stuff we did a thousand years ago in our traditional territory.”

Banning oil tankers in B.C. coastal waters “All pain, little gain”: report

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:19:27 -0600

A new report by non-partisan think tank, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, shines a light on activists’ claims that oil tanker traffic will inevitably lead to environmental catastrophe.

The report, written by three experts in the areas of marine traffic, energy economics and international law, concludes that banning oil tankers from B.C.’s north coast are actually likely to have negative results.

The three experts took a look at the repercussions of a ban on oil tanker traffic in B.C. coastal waters, as recently proposed by a cluster of NDP MPs.

The report, Making oil and water mix: Oil tanker traffic on Canada’s West Coast, comprises three essays by leading experts who examined the environmental, economic and legal arguments in favour of an oil tanker ban.

In the end, they concluded: “These opposition bills would add little to the goal of environmental safety, directly damage the legitimate and profitable use of Canada’s petroleum resources, and open a Pandora’s Box of legal problems.”

In his analysis of the environmental effects of an oil tanker ban, Dr. Philip John sheds light on Canada’s enviable record in tanker transport. In Canada, oil spills have been driven downward from 18 in the 1980s to zero in the 2000s.

“The downward trend in oil spills demonstrates superior construction and regulatory standards and a keen sense of awareness, safety, and environmental consciousness,” writes John, Marine Fleet Manager of the Woodward Group of Companies of Newfoundland and Labrador.

John finds that banning oil tanker traffic in coastal waters (which would inevitably result in the end of the Northern Gateway project) will only force its delivery by other modes of transportation such as rail and truck resulting in an increase in its price and exacerbating environmental risk.

“Canada’s major oil-handling ports and the ecologically sensitive waterways leading to them are highly efficient, with extremely low-risk cargo movement procedures. All these ports and waterways have areas of environmental and ecological sensitivity within their boundaries as well as in their vicinity, which have remained pristine and unspoiled despite decades of oil-handling activity,” he writes.

Indeed, the Kitimat port – where Enbridge Northern Gateway proposes to construct a marine terminal – has been welcoming large vessel traffic for decades.

According to statistics from the Port of Kitimat, there have been over 1,500 vessels carrying petroleum products into port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s some 3,100 transits. What’s more, when you add all vessel traffic servicing industry into Kitimat, the number of vessel transits jumps to over 11,700!

Enbridge Northern Gateway would be adding approximately 220 vessels into Kitimat annually. Northern Gateway would also implement a marine plan that would enhance marine safety not just for oil tankers but for all vessels.

These measures include navigational aids such as beacons, buoys and lights throughout the channel. There would also be an advanced radar system with Automatic Identification System, and tethered tugboat escorts that have emergency response capabilities. Northern Gateway would add additional emergency response equipment that will exceed regulation.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute report follows an extensive independent review by a host of agencies of Northern Gateway’s marine plan. This review – called TERMPOL and prepared as part of Northern Gateway’s regulatory review – found that Northern Gateway’s marine plan is not only sound and comprehensive, but enhances safety for all marine traffic.

Please give us your thoughts on this and other issues related to Northern Gateway in the comments below.

UPDATE (March 15, 2012) - Several media outlets covered the MacDonald-Laurier Institute report today. Business News Network hasa video interview with Brian Lee Crowley from MLI and The Rutherford Show on Alberta radio did an extensive interview with report author Phillip John. That interview is available in the QR77 audio vault—it's in the 11AM to noon segment on March 15, 2012 and begins at the 8:00 minute mark on the player.

David Akin spoke to Phillip John on his news show: Daily Brief

Canadian oil and the Practical Man

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:02:54 -0600

In a column published March 13, 2012, Andrew Coyne at the National Post presents a new take on one point of view on the complex matters of refining oil and value-added economic concepts—one he calls the Practical Man.

Coyne’s definition of “Practical Man” is an ironic one. It includes those who “are quite convinced that, rather than pipe crude oil south or west for refining in foreign lands, we should be refining it here at home.”

But Coyne argues that it is more “practical” to pursue economic goals that are rooted in economics rather than to manufacture our raw materials merely for the sake of manufacturing our raw materials.

In other words, if producing raw bitumen for export provides a greater return to Canada than refining it here, why would we put all the money and effort into refining it here?

Coyne suggests Practical Man should pursue higher wages and living standards, and the way to get there is through greater productivity (higher efficiency of production), not necessarily refining the resource.

Despite Coyne’s economics-based critique, this debate is likely to carry on, and is equally likely to continue to influence public policy around energy and trade in Canada as it already has.

In 2008, the Government of Alberta established a goal of having one third of oil sands bitumen upgraded to synthetic crude oil and one third processed to oil-based products and petrochemicals in Alberta. That’s more than 60 per cent of oil sands products entering the so-called value added chain in Alberta.

Both government and oil sands producers are working to meet this goal.

In a recent blog post, Northern Gateway pointed out that an argument in favour of refining bitumen in Canada doesn’t mean you must also oppose the project, which will pipe diluted bitumen to the West Coast where it can then be shipped to Asian markets.

That’s because Northern Gateway will also have the capability of shipping upgraded crude as well, and the expectation is we will ship a large volume of upgraded product. Business is a key player on what gets shipped, when it gets shipped and where it gets shipped— it’s our shippers’ role to understand markets and meet their demands.

Coyne states in his column: “Refining bitumen is an expensive, capital-intensive business. If it were really wiser to refine it here than sell it to refiners elsewhere, investors are at least as capable of realizing it as anyone else.”

One of the great things about Canadian society is our ability to agree to disagree. No matter which position you find yourself agreeing to in the value-added debate, please remember that Northern Gateway will be able to ship Alberta’s oil products—upgraded or not.

As always, share your thoughts in the comments below.

Education wise use of oil revenue

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:10:22 -0600

One thing is for sure: there is no lack of debate about what Canadians should be doing with our oil resources. Some suggest all of it should be kept for Canadians to use exclusively. Others suggest only refined products should be sold outside of Canada. Others say let the markets decide where and what should be sold outside of the country.

Whichever side of the debate you might find yourself, many Canadians will agree that the revenues we generate now should be used, at least in part, to prepare for the future.

So how do we translate our strong natural resource economy into long term success? As Jeremy Torobin, a writer on the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab blog, notes, we must create “an adaptable, highly educated and highly skilled work force that can adapt quickly to fill a variety of needs.”

Some business leaders have called for a renewed focus on technical trade skills training and professional services education. An emphasis on developing the skills necessary for innovation, and to take advantage of opportunities presented by emerging markets, should lead to economic stability as our economy changes over time.

A new study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), examined by Torobin on the Economy Lab blog, stands tall in its praise for Canadians’ ability to use our oil resource gains to educate ourselves for the future.

The study looked at the results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and found that Canada, along with Australia and Norway, outperforms almost all of the other oil producing nations.

“Canada is among a select group of countries positioned to prosper even some time way down the road, when finite resources like oil start to become less important to the economy,” wrote Torobin.

It’s good that Canadians are focused on education for the future. As the study’s author originally noted: “Without sufficient investment in skills, people languish on the margins of society, technological progress does not translate into productivity growth, and countries can no longer compete in an increasingly knowledge-based global economy.”

Birdtail Sioux: A healthy community

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:48:39 -0600

Birdtail Sioux First Nation was once one of too many First Nations communities in Canada suffering the heartbreaking combination of alcoholism, school dropouts, hopelessness and suicide. But a transformation has taken root. Here is the story of Birdtail, the third of a four-part series of how a small First Nation found a path to a brighter future through partnership and collaboration.

There were 116 First Nations communities across Canada living under a drinking water advisory as of January of 2012. Birdtail was not one of them.

When Birdtail Sioux First Nation Chief Ken Chalmers was first elected to the community’s top office, he made it a priority to ensure the children in his community were educated, properly housed, and healthy.

For Chief Chalmers, a healthy community meant clean drinking water.

So while so many of his neighbours and First Nations across Canada grapple with “disease and flu epidemics,” Chief Chalmers says his does not.

“The water supply here I worried about so we built our water treatment plant,” says Chief Chalmers of the facility with enough excess capacity to handle population growth decades into the future.

Health is a major issue on many First Nations communities. The Aboriginal population has higher rates of chronic and contagious diseases as well as shorter life expectancy than the general population in Canada.

First Nations people also have a 1.5 times higher rate of heart disease and three to five times higher rate of Type 2 diabetes. Tuberculosis is also eight to 10 times higher.

Chief Chalmers, whose first job at Birdtail before his political career was as health centre administrator, has seen firsthand the inextricable link between a healthy population and a healthy community.

“I’m proud to say we are one of the First Nations that can show its accountability through transparency and we can show the success we’re having,” he says.

The water treatment plant on Birdtail, a maze of pipes, gauges and pumps, is clearly a facility requiring a staff with much training and expertise.

“It’s all totally First Nation run and owned. We have the qualified people to do it,” says the Chief.

This is Part Three of a Four Part blog series on the inspirational transformation of a First Nations community. Click to read Part One: Bringing back our Children and Part Two: Building for the Future.

Alberta mayors throw support behind Northern Gateway

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:05:31 -0700

Calling it a “regional action for a global opportunity”, mayors along the proposed Alberta corridor of Northern Gateway officially threw their support behind the project that promises to bring benefits not just to their region but to B.C. and the entire country.

Representing a million people, mayors of the greater Edmonton area – the Capital Region Board – virtually unanimously decided to pen a letter to the Joint Review Panel now assessing the regulatory application by Northern Gateway.

“The (Capital Region Board) is supportive of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project, and we urge you to approve the project,” reads the letter to be sent to the JRP.

“I’m going to call it a regional action for a global opportunity,” the Calgary Herald quoted Spruce Grove Mayor Stuart Houston, who spearheaded the Capital Region Board effort.

“We want to let our voice be heard in the region for a global opportunity. And that global opportunity is the ability to increase and improve Canada’s export of our national oil and national gas resources.”

The $5.5 billion Northern Gateway promises to bring substantial benefits to Alberta and B.C., where the pipeline crosses, as well as drive gross domestic product growth across Canada by $270 billion during the first 30 years of operation.

Northern Gateway will bring significant, lasting benefits to the economy including:

$400 million in employment and contracts for Aboriginal communities and businesses;
$4.3 billion of labour-related income across Canada during construction;
$2.6 billion in local, provincial and federal government tax revenues; and
1,150 long-term jobs throughout the Canadian economy.

And that’s just economic boost related to the project.

According to thinktank Canadian Energy Research Institute, jobs as a result of oil sands investments are expected to grow from 75,000 in 2010 to 905,000 in 2035. The oil sands are also expected to purchase some $117 billion in supplies and services from Canadian provinces outside Alberta over the next 25 years.

Currently, nearly all Canadian export crude goes to just one market – the U.S – where oil demand is flat or falling, where pipeline bottlenecks constrict transport, and where domestic supply is rising sharply.

This has brought into focus the need for Northern Gateway, which would give Canadian producers access to markets in Asia, where rapid economic expansion is fuelling demand.

Northern Gateway expects to ship upgraded oil

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:27:14 -0700

One of ongoing themes in the conversation around the Northern Gateway surrounds the issue of natural resource exports and usually leads to this question: why don’t we upgrade and refine all of our energy resources in Canada before we sell them to other nations?

It’s a question that can be viewed through both economic and political lenses. And it’s a question that is centred on the economic concept of “value added.” In the case of the oil business value added processes are typically upgrading and refining. However, the question is peripheral to the Northern Gateway pipeline.

First of all, some have argued against Northern Gateway because they’d like to see all of Canada’s crude upgraded here before it is exported. What those same folks either don’t know or won’t say is that Northern Gateway, as it’s proposed, would be able to ship BOTH diluted bitumen and upgraded crude. The pipeline is designed to handle a variety of crude products in batches. Individual shippers are expected to determine the product type for each batch request.

It’s important to note there are upgraders and refineries in Canada that process Canadian oil sands crude. While not all of Canada’s crude oil is upgraded and refined in Canada, a lot of it is. Crude oil imported from other nations is also refined in Canada—Natural Resources Canada has a list of Canadian refineries on their website if you want to know where the refineries are.

The Government of Alberta, on their Alberta Energy webpages, has a section on Value Added Development. There’s a great graphic outlining the hydrocarbon processes, you should definitely check it out to see some of the value added to Canada’s oil, in Canada.

The value added debate is part of a larger discussion that crosses all resource sectors and isn’t just limited to oil sands development. This is an important distinction. At its core, the question of value added applies to everything Canadians produce from our land. If you want to mandate that Canadian oil be refined in Canada, your argument could also easily be applied to Canadian wheat—should Canadian wheat only be made into bread and pasta in Canada and nowhere else?

Economics explains why this argument doesn’t always make sense.

Andrew Leach, an environmental economist at the University of Alberta, wrote a blog post recently: The ‘economics’ of upgrading. In that post, Leach takes a look at “value” in the oil sands crude conversation and writes: “The real question people should be asking is, ‘should we be willing to subsidize, either directly or through trade barriers, merchant upgraders and refineries in this country in order to export a higher value end-product?’”

His analysis of that question throughout the post leads him to conclude: “I simply don’t see why the value from our natural resource should go to subsidizing the processing of our natural resources. In my view, there are far better uses for that value.”

Granted, his is just one expert opinion on the subject, and if you disagree with his conclusion you will likely be able to source a different expert to support your own opinions on the subject.

If you want to read more on this issue, Suncor’s Oil Sands Questions and Answers blog (OSQAR) has a great post explaining the various actors and ‘camps’ in this ongoing discussion.

Oil sands companies launch environmental performance alliance

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:14:07 -0700

Canada’s oil sands producers have formed a new alliance, Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), focused on accelerating the pace of improving environmental performance in Canada’s oil sands.

CEOs of 12 companies have signed the alliance’s founding charter, committing to COSIA’s vision to “enable responsible and sustainable growth of Canada’s oil sands while delivering accelerated improvement in environmental performance through collaborative action and innovation.”

This is a positive step forward for the environment by oil sands producers—as COSIA says on their website:

Through COSIA, participating companies will capture, develop and share the most innovative approaches and best thinking to improve environmental performance in the oil sands, initially focusing on four Environmental Priority Areas (EPAs) – tailings, water, land and greenhouse gases.

COSIA will take innovation and environmental performance in the oil sands to the next level through a continued focus on collaboration and transparent exchange.

The participating companies are: BP Canada Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, ConocoPhillips Canada Resources, Devon Canada Corporation, Imperial Oil, Nexen, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy, Teck Resources and Total E&P Canada.

There is no doubt COSIA’s goals are both commendable and lofty. At the announcement of its launch, environment advocates Pembina Institute and Nature Conservancy of Canada, according to news reports, “applauded the goals of the initiative.” The Government of Alberta is also supportive.

COSIA will be led by CEO Dr. Dan Wicklum, who holds a PHD in Aquatic Ecology from the University of Montana.

Birdtail Sioux: building for the future

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:43:42 -0700

Birdtail Sioux First Nation was once one of too many First Nations communities in Canada suffering the heartbreaking combination of alcoholism, school dropouts, hopelessness and suicide. But a transformation has taken root. Here is the story of Birdtail, the second in a four-part series of how a small First Nation found a path to a brighter future through partnership and collaboration.

Marcel Benn returned home to Birdtail Sioux First Nation after 23 years of city life.

Life in this picturesque prairie community in southwest Manitoba offers an opportunity to reconnect with the land.

Deer, elk and moose are plentiful in the treed edges of the Assiniboine River valley, as are fish in its winding waters.

But at least as important to Benn is the other big reason he came back to Birdtail after so long a hiatus.

“I found work here, labour work and a lot of carpentry work,” says Benn, who proudly proclaims his family has recently grown by one to include his first granddaughter.

“I’m happy to have this job to support my daughter and my granddaughter.”

Benn is part of a construction troupe of about a dozen hired to construct a $1.3 million 4,000 sq.ft. general store and renovate over 100 homes in the community.

All of this construction work is part of Chief Ken Chalmers’ larger plan to take care of the foundation of his community – housing.

The ambitious project he started over a year ago is to renovate all the homes in the community – both inside and out.

The Chief points as he drives throughout his community to each home with a green roof, signifying that it has been outfitted with new windows, doors, insulation and roofs.

Now, his task is to refurbish interiors of all 115 homes to clean out mould and other remnants of the formerly leaky, drafty structures.

This mission is daunting enough. But there is another monumental challenge on the horizon for Chief Chalmers.

Birdtail School has 150 students from Kindergarten and Grade 5. This mini-population boom will require nearly that many new homes in about 10 years just to keep up.

“Good chiefs think seven generations ahead…seven generations from now,” he says. “For me to think about it, just a couple of generations ahead is huge.”

Building for the future, for Chief Chalmers, means ensuring the children of his community have the necessities of life now.

“What I worry about is our children having safe homes to live in while they go to school so they can concentrate on school without worrying about freezing,” says the Chief.

“If you don’t get these kids now, the ones that are in school, we’re going to have the same cycle repeating itself – alcoholism, no future, quitting school. There’s no future when you go to a home with no windows and doors.”

This is Part Two of a Four Part blog series on the inspirational transformation of a First Nations community. Click to read Part One: Bringing back our Children. Part Three is here: A healthy Community

Birdtail Sioux: bringing back our children

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:21:04 -0700

Birdtail Sioux First Nation was once one of too many First Nations communities in Canada suffering the heartbreaking combination of alcoholism, school dropouts, hopelessness and suicide. But a transformation has taken root. Here is the story of Birdtail, the first of a four-part series of how a small First Nation found a path to a brighter future through partnership and collaboration.

Chief Ken Chalmers of Birdtail Sioux First Nation stands before the new school he championed, holds his hand up to his ear and asks, “You hear that? That’s a sound we hadn’t heard for over a hundred years in our community.”

It is the sound of children’s laughter as they scamper around a playground at Birdtail School, a Kindergarten to Grade 12 facility the Chief lobbied hard to build a few years ago.

Bringing back the children is also something Chief Chalmers astutely viewed as critical to break the cycle of hardship and pain on the small reservation of about 300 near the Saskatchewan border in southern Manitoba.

Prior to Birdtail School, the children were bussed to the schools of neighbouring towns.

That wasn’t a strategy for success. Birdtail high school graduates numbered just four in the last 40 years.

And for decades prior to that, the children of his people were educated in residential schools.

“This is my most (crowning) achievement,” says the Chief, pointing to the grand structure replete with architectural symbolism that harken back to Birdtail’s Dakota roots.

“Every kid that should be in school is in school,” says Chief Chalmers. Birdtail will graduate 14 this year and 21 the next. Dakota language and culture is alive in the classrooms.

Children’s laughter feeds the soul for Chief Chalmers. The school filled with laughing children is also the most striking illustration of the transformation of Birdtail, from a community plagued by alcoholism, hopelessness and suicide to one that now boasts a health clinic, a general store, an adult education centre, over 100 freshly renovated homes and a host of economic development prospects on the horizon.

If you ask the Chief where the metamorphisis began, his one-word answer is “industry.”

He may point to his engagement with Enbridge and other corporations as the catalyst. But really, it would be more accurately attributed to the Chief himself. He made a decision a number of years ago that he was going to “do something different” for his community. He’d adopt a different strategy as he sought a better life for his people by foregoing obstruction and confrontation in favour of partnership and collaboration.

When Enbridge approached the Chief to discuss the expansion of its mainline pipeline system through Dakota traditional territory, the Chief was cautious but receptive. Those early discussions eventually paved a path of mutual respect, benefit and partnership. It has become a template, for Chief Chalmers, in his dealings with other corporations, businesses and the various levels of government.

“We’ll partner with everybody we can to make a better life for our people,” he says.

The Chief’s work is far from done. He’d say it has only just begun. Birdtail may have turned a corner but the Chief is still pursuing his vision for the community.

“I see business opportunities wherever I look and it’s my job to bring those children up so they have that chance. It is just great to have these young people that are excited about these opportunities.”

This is Part One of a Four Part blog series on the inspirational transformation of a First Nations community. Click to read Part Two: Building for the future and Part Three: A healthy Community.

The so-called ‘Dutch Disease’

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:25:50 -0700

The economic case for Northern Gateway is very strong. Canadians understand the need to diversify markets for our energy products—without this diversification, we don’t get full value for our exports.

Opponents of the oil sands and the Northern Gateway project are challenging the economic case with a claim that oil sands exports have led to an increase in the value of the Canadian currency. For many Canadians, an increased dollar value is typically viewed as a good thing; after all, our dollar trading higher on the currency market means the things we buy outside of Canada like vacations and cross border shopping trips cost less.

But there are a few Canadians, like some politicians and advocacy groups, who claim that the increased dollar value hurts our economy because it means our manufacturing exports are more expensive for non-Canadians. These folks point to the oil sands and say they’ve led Canada down the path towards Dutch Disease. Few economic experts agree with these claims, however.

Stephen Gordon, who is a professor of economics at l'Université Laval in Quebec City, is a regular writer on the Economy Lab blog at the Globe and Mail. Today he takes the Dutch Disease claims head on. In a nutshell, Gordon sums up the logic of those making the claims with a great quote from Yogi Berra: “’Nobody goes there anymore,’ he once said of a St. Louis restaurant, ‘it’s too crowded.’”

Gordon’s lessons for us non-economists are these:

What matters for Canadian economic welfare is consumption by Canadians, not manufacturing exports
The resource boom of 2002-2008 led to the lowest unemployment levels since 1976
Real median wages grew significantly between 2002-2008
Increases in labour demand in one sector increases wages for all

The next time you hear someone suggest that Canada has a case of Dutch Disease, ask them why they think lower unemployment, higher wages and more purchasing power is a disease?

Canada's oil boom

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:17:18 -0700

Both the federal government and the Alberta government have been staunch defenders of the oil sands – a resource that brings tremendous value to Canadians across the country.

Both have traveled in the U.S. and to Europe trying to correct myths about the carbon footprint related to crude derived from the oil sands.

And they’ve reaped some success on that front.

Now, Alberta Premier Allison Redford is enlisting the help of Canadians by issuing a call to action for them to become vocal advocates of a resource that brings tremendous benefits to all regions of this country.

“We in Alberta have a resource that matters to the rest of the country,” Ms. Redford was quoted in a Globe and Mail article.

Redford pointed to a study done by the Canadian Energy Research Institute that found that, as expected, Alberta draws the biggest benefits from the oil sands resource. But the think tank finds some pretty lofty sums of resource revenue going to the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia and Quebec as well.

“It’s not enough for Alberta to be talking about the importance of Keystone in the United States. We need the Premier of Ontario talking about that. We need the Premier of Quebec talking about that, and of course, we have the Prime Minister of Canada talking about that,” Redford was quoted in the Globe.

The oil sands isn’t Alberta’s oil boom, it is Canada’s oil boom.

You can help refute the myth that the oil sands is only about Alberta by sharing this infographic the Globe and Mail created from the data CERI made available.

2011 Business Summit attracted overflow crowd

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:51:53 -0700

A late boost in interest in the Summit held Nov. 1-3 had organizers quickly adjusting to accommodate an additional 150 to 200 delegates – including from some 30 First Nations communities from Alberta and B.C. The additional crowd was over the 200 scheduled to attend the event at the River Cree Resort on the Enoch First Nation near Edmonton.

“From the get-go at this event, it’s just been tremendous momentum and positive buzz.”

Building on the success of Enbridge’s first Northern Gateway Business Summit in 2010, the 2011 edition aimed to connect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members, leaders and businesses with industry.

The Northern Gateway Project, if approved, promises to generate 62,000-person years of employment during construction across both provinces and beyond. The 1,177-km pipeline and marine project connecting northern Alberta’s prolific oil sands region to a marine port at Kitimat, B.C. aims to have 15% of the construction workforce comprise of Aboriginal people.

The promise of parlaying well-paying construction jobs in the $5.5 billion Northern Gateway Project into long term careers is one of the things that attracted Elmer Derrick, Chief Negotiator for Gitxsan First Nation in B.C., to the event. Derrick, who is also the hereditary Chief of Gitsegukla First Nation, says it is incumbent upon First Nation leaders to seek out opportunities with industry.

“What I’m reminded of every day by young people is that we have to strive for more economic activities that they can become engaged in,” said Derrick.

Alfred Goodswimmer, Director of Operations for Sturgeon Lake First Nation, made the trip to learn opportunities in industrial support jobs such as trucking and construction but also in energy industry operations.

“As community leaders, we don’t go out and make demands on industry. We establish relationships, have dialogue, and come to agreement on how we are going to work together because it’s the people we want to make sure benefit from these projects,” said Goodswimmer.

Kelly Lendsay, President and CEO of the Aboriginal Human Resource Council, stressed the importance of inclusion of Aboriginals in the new economy – not just for the sake of good jobs today but for vibrant communities into the future.

Described as a resounding success, organizers hailed the delegate list that included members of some 30 First Nation and Metis communities from Alberta, B.C. and a number of signed agreements.

More and more Aboriginal groups are seeking information from industry to better their communities and offer opportunities for their people. Northern Gateway has held two Business Summits and both have been successful in bringing together people intent upon connecting Aboriginal people and the energy sector. The latest Business Summit, held in Edmonton in November of 2011, attracted an overflow crowd as representatives of some 35 Aboriginal communities across B.C. and Alberta came together to see how business connections could be made.

“People are seeing opportunity. We can no longer live in a world of shame and blame. It’s about how we collaborate, set targets for our communities and then achieve those targets together ,” said Kelly Lendsay, President and CEO of the Aboriginal Human Resource Council, who also stressed the importance of inclusion of Aboriginal people in the new economy – not just for the sake of good jobs today but for vibrant communities into the future.

“Success for me is measured in two ways. Success is measured by attendance and it’s measured by buzz,” said Morgan Yates, Enbridge Northern Gateway Vice President of Aboriginal and Stakeholder Relations.

“From the get-go at this event, it’s just been tremendous momentum and positive buzz.”

Transport Canada gives positive review of NGP

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:54:08 -0700

On February 23, 2012, Transport Canada filed a TERMPOL Review Process Report of Northern Gateway’s proposed marine operations. The study reviewed the marine operations associated with the Northern Gateway terminal and associated tanker traffic in Canadian waters. Based on the information supplied by Northern Gateway, the review finds “no regulatory concerns and no serious safety issues.” The review also makes a number of recommendations and findings regarding the operation of the Kitimat terminal and the safe passage of vessels in and out of the terminal.

Janet Holder, Enbridge’s Executive Vice-President of Western Access and the senior executive with responsibility for Northern Gateway, said “It is important for the public, particularly BC residents, to know that we’ve done our homework and that our marine plan has been thoroughly reviewed. I think the TERMPOL review underlines that what we are proposing is well planned and safe – and indeed would enhance safety for all shipping on BC’s north coast.”

Northern Gateway is encouraged by the positive conclusions of this technical review of the marine components of the project – including the safe operation of the Kitimat terminal and safe passage of tankers to and from the facility through Canadian waters.

Oil tanker traffic on the BC coast is not new. Over the past 25 years, more than 1,500 ships have safely travelled in and out of Kitimat, including oil tankers. In 2010, more than 70 oil tankers called at Port Metro Vancouver, and in 2011 Port Metro Vancouver shipped 6.6 million tonnes of petroleum products, of which 2.4 million tonnes were crude oil.

Here are some highlights of the findings contained in Transport Canada’s TERMPOL review:

The proponent’s commitment to fully implement its proposed Northern Gateway Project risk reduction strategy will help enhance the safety of the project’s marine transportation components.
The proponent’s commitment to vet oil tankers through its Tanker Acceptance Program will help ensure vessels exceed national legislation and international regulatory frameworks and meet high industry standards as promoted by Oil Companies International Marine Forum.
The proponent’s commitment to include environmental limits (weather and sea conditions) on oil tanker navigation in the Terminal Operations Manual and Port Information Book will enhance safety. It will help ensure the oil tankers remain within safe operating parameters while navigating to and from Kitimat.
The proponent’s commitment to implement a tug escort system for oil tankers that provides immediate and effective action will help mitigate risk if a tanker’s steering or propulsion system fails. The tug escort system will enhance tanker safety.

Transport Canada’s TERMPOL submission is available on the National Energy Board website.

You can learn more about Northern Gateway’s comprehensive marine safety planning by watching this video.

State-owned companies behave like other companies: study

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:45:06 -0700

The Prime Minister’s trade mission to China was criticized by some who see this pursuit as a compromise of Canadian economic sovereignty.

Other critics have asserted that investments by foreign state-owned firms into resource development in Canada will somehow weaken Canadian control and oversight over these resources.

The author of a recent study commissioned by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives attempts to calm fears Chinese state-owned firms are mere puppets of their central government.

Margaret Cornish, a Beijing-based ex-Canadian diplomat, argues that state-owned Chinese enterprises behave in a manner that isn’t all that different from that of corporations in free-market economies around the world.

Cornish’s observations of firms such as Sinopec and PetroChina, that have invested heavily into Canada’s energy sector in recent years, is that they are far more intent on the pursuit of their corporate goals and performance measures than on the political whims of their government.

Behaving in a manner that runs counter to a state-owned company’s financial goals and performance measures would be “putting at risk its corporate and financial integrity by undermining the good name and relationships that take decades to establish,” says Cornish’s paper quoted by Postmedia.

In her paper, Cornish calls on Canadian government “ to avoid politicization of the (foreign investment approval) process to the extent possible."

Coal far worse on climate than oil sands: report

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:02:19 -0700

The graphic above was created by the report authors, Swart and Weaver, and is made available on this webpage.

The oil sands shouldn’t be the energy pariah they’ve been made out to be – at least that’s the conclusion of a couple of B.C. climatologists in a recent study.

Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria, took a look at carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of Canada’s oil sands reserves and those of coal.

Weaver, and colleague Neil Swart, essentially asked the question of how much global warming would occur by burning a variety of fossil fuel resources. Here are their calculations.

Oil sands under active development: would add 0.01°C to world temperatures.
Economically-viable oil sands reserve: would add 0.03°C to world temperatures.
Total unconventional natural gas resource base: would add 2.86°C to world temperatures
Total coal resource base: would add 14.8°C to world temperatures

In other words: Coal presents a climate challenge 1,500 times greater than that presented by the oil sands.

Weaver and Swart certainly gained some attention in the media and in social media circles as more experts are beginning to take issue with environmentalists’ doomsday dogma that the pursuit of the oil sands resource is akin to charting a course to global climate change Armageddon.

Weaver and Swart do issue warnings that unmeasured pursuit of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy isn’t a competent response to climate change.

But certainly their study does bring a measure of context to the debate that shouldn’t be restricted to in-situ drilling, upgraders and pipelines.

Opposition to NGP ‘premature’: Terrace Chamber

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:17:35 -0700

The Terrace and District Chamber of Commerce calls for patience during the regulatory review of the Northern Gateway Pipelines project.

In a letter addressed to Northern Gateway and sent to the Terrace Standard newspaper, the Terrace Chamber expressed “concern” with Terrace city council’s official opposition to Northern Gateway.

“It is our position that this decision was premature and as a Chamber, we support economic development as it underpins all of our social programs be it education, health or infrastructure,” stated the Chamber in the letter.

The business group reacted to Terrace council’s recent vote to officially oppose Northern Gateway. The Chamber says it has taken a position of neutrality until the regulatory review completes its work.

“We want the objective panel of experts to assess the concerns of affected parties and contrast them with procedures and equipment being positioned to mitigate any and all perceived risks. It is important that all voices are heard and all questions are asked and answered,” says the letter.

The Chamber adds: “Terrace has been without major development for many years now and the Terrace business community has struggled. We are encouraged by the recent investments that have been approved and look forward to many more projects coming to our area that will continue to build our economic landscape.”

Despite Terrace’s stance, a number of city and town councils have pledged their support in letters to the Joint Review Panel now assessing the project application.

Support for Northern Gateway is solid in B.C. According to a recent Ipsos Reid poll, support for the project stood at 48% while those opposed lagged at 32%. In northern B.C., where familiarity in the project is strongest, support jumps to 55%.

Enbridge detects small oil release during maintenance work

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:53:26 -0700

On Wednesday, February 15, during a planned maintenance inspection and repair on Enbridge’s Line 5 in Arenac County, Michigan, near the village of Sterling some soil contamination was detected. Upon further investigation, a small release was identified.

The estimated volume of the release is less than 3 barrels.

The pipeline repair and clean up began immediately. We expect the repairs to be completed and the line to be restarted later today. We will work with our Shippers to assess the impact of the outage.
As a precaution, Enbridge is imposing a temporary incremental pressure restriction until a review of similar features from inspection tool runs has been conducted.
Line 1 has been shut down due to high inventories at Superior and will restart after Line 5 has started.
Line 5 carries light crude oil and natural gas liquids. It does not transport heavy oil.
Any release in our liquids pipeline network is of great concern to Enbridge. This incident can be viewed as an example of Enbridge’s pipeline integrity systems and clean-up procedures at work.
Enbridge invests heavily in safety through its pipeline and system integrity programs, which encompass the tools, technologies and strategies needed to ensure that pipelines and facilities are checked and inspected for safety and reliability. Since 2002, we have spent approximately $1 billion on our safety and maintenance programs for our Liquids Pipelines systems across North America.

Chief Vern Janvier of the Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation talks Northern Gateway

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:01:32 -0700

Chief Vern Janvier, of Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation in northern Alberta, says his people have not only learned to get along with the energy industry, but they've thrived.

In his interview with Sun TV, Chief Janvier says much of the band's income comes from oil and gas activities. And this symbiotic relationship has not hindered the ability of his people from practicing their traditions.

Watch the interview and tell us your thoughts about what Chief Janvier has to say in the comments.

Oil squeeze a big concern

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:23:56 -0700

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … I think Northern Gateway is one of, if not THE most important proposed infrastructure projects in Canada today.

That belief was bolstered again when I read in the Globe and Mail about something that serves to underscore what I’ve been saying for some time – Canadian oil producers need another outlet for their oil.

Oil prices for Canadian producers are getting “squeezed” and that’s not a good thing.

It’s not good for energy producers, for the thousands who work in the industry, for communities, for provinces and for the federal government. All of us rely to varying degrees on the viability of our energy sector.

Whether or not the current squeeze is temporary is a matter of debate, but it does underline something very worrisome.

What’s happening? Canada produces a lot of oil. We are also a net-exporter of oil valued at about $50 billion a year.

It has become our most valuable resource and a pillar of our national economy – but there is one catch, virtually all of the oil we export goes to just one market, the U.S.

America is a mature market and demand there isn’t what it once was. Combine that with soaring U.S. oil production, and you get the picture. It’s a potentially dangerous imbalance for Canada.

“On a logistical basis, it points to the vulnerability of having all our eggs in one basket as a nation. It makes more sense to diversify your customer base for crude oil,” Frank King, an analyst with First Energy Capital, says in the Globe.

This imbalance could also see us leave a lot of money on the table. By one estimate, it will cost the energy industry $8 billion a year if Northern Gateway isn’t built. It is already depriving governments of millions in lost royalties and tax revenues every single day.

Northern Gateway would give our energy industry other crucial trade outlets. Booming economies in Asia promise to give Canadians more competitive returns for our resource and shelter us from the vagaries of having a single oil export market.

An Enbridge-commissioned report (which was required of us as part of our regulatory application for Northern Gateway) estimates that this one project would boost Canadian GDP by $270 billion in the first 30 years of operation.

That’s tremendous wealth that would flow through our economy, create jobs and result in higher tax revenues that pay for hospitals, roads, schools – all the things that help make Canada the country it is.

I’m a proud British Columbian and a patriotic Canadian.

And the situation described in the Globe concerns me greatly.

"Is this really a good idea?"

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:34:35 -0700

Hi Alyssa, for the benefit of other readers, I'm quoting your comment you left on a different post so they'll better understand my response to you:

So, I'm a sixteen year old girl doing a project on the Enbridge Pipeline for my Socials Class. I live in Terrace.

I'm basing this project mainly on the people's opinions of Enbridge, but I want to know what you have to say. I don't actually know what I think on this Pipeline. I don't want an oil spill -- I've worked on my father's charter boat since I was ten. My father, during the winter, works for Northwest Fuels. I know the damage a gas spill can cause. And I know how much worse crude oil is. My father described it as 'thick, black tar that you have to scrape off the ground.'

What would you do if there was an oil spill? Will it harm the environment? How many animal habitats are going to be destroyed by this? How many trees torn down, forest floors ruined, animals disturbed? Even if there is no spill, just building this thing will cause terrible damage, am I right?

And if a tanker crashed... We've seen how many captains tend to get drunk and crash their ships -- it happened in Alaska, it happened with the Cruise ship two weeks ago. You could do everything right, and one person can still screw it up. What then?

You see alot of articles on the internet about this project, and they're all biased strongly one way another. Is this really a good idea? ~Alyssa

My name is Janet Holder. Like you, I live in BC's north. I've worked with Enbridge for a number of years and last June I asked to return to my hometown of Prince George to lead the Northern Gateway project. I strongly believe that the project is in the best interest of Canadians no matter where they live. Equally, I believe that British Columbians, once they learn more about the project and its benefits, will come to understand that there are significant benefits they will receive as well.

Thank you for taking the time to come to the Northern Gateway blogs to ask questions and provide your thoughts about the project. You're right, there's a lot of information out there about Northern Gateway, much of it strongly biased, and it can be quite a challenge to sort out the facts.

I'm glad that you feel motivated to do a school project on Northern Gateway. You'll find a lot of information about our proposed pipeline on this website. Please explore the website to find the information you need, and if you can't find what you're looking for, just leave a comment on this post and we'll point you in the right direction.

Like you, no one, and let me stress this emphatically, no one at Enbridge wants an oil spill to occur. When an oil spill happens, there are adverse effects to our environment. That's why safety is our number one priority at Enbridge. Preventing a spill from happening is the best way we can safeguard the environment. There are two aspects to our comprehensive pipeline integrity program at Enbridge: prevention and response.

Let's look at the way we've acted to prevent a spill from occurring first. Did you know that we've spent the past decade studying the proposed route? We've done this to satisfy our own safety concerns, to listen to and attempt to address the concerns of the people who live along the proposed pipeline route and to provide the National Energy Board with a comprehensive safety plan so they can best judge our application to build the pipeline.

During the route study, we looked at potential geotechnical concerns—we were looking for the most stable ground to build on. We want to leave as little to chance as practicable. I invite you to watch this video with Drum Cavers, an expert in the field, who discusses how we conducted our route study and planning.

You asked what we would do if there is a spill. I want to stress to you that the likelihood of a spill occurring is low. The proposed Northern Gateway pipelines will be designed according to exacting Canadian Standards guidelines. No pipeline ruptures have been reported on pipeline systems built in the last 25 years to these standards. But despite our best efforts to prevent spills, there is a chance of a spill, and you're right to be concerned with our emergency response planning.

This page outlines our emergency response planning. Forgive me for cutting and pasting here, but this best describes our response planning: If an incident should occur, Northern Gateway will be there quickly to control, contain and clean up. Here's another video we created to help you understand the way we prepare to respond to emergencies.

When we were preparing our application, we conducted a comprehensive study on the kind of wildlife and land that can be found along the proposed route. The findings of those studies can be found here in our technical data review. Some people might find reading those studies a bit overwhelming; they're detailed and very technical. We've written some fact sheets about environmental assessment and wildlife, you can find them here (they're under the heading Environmental Protection and Socio-Economic Assessment), but this blog post might also provide you with the answers you're looking for.

Let's address your next concern: adverse effects caused by constructing the pipeline. When people think about us building this pipeline, they might have visions of bulldozers ploughing through a thousand kilometres of pristine forest. That's certainly the painted picture opponents of the project try to create. Fortunately for the environment, it's simply not true.

Living in Terrace, you're likely familiar with other resource industries like forestry and mining. You may even be familiar with the Northwest Transmission Line that will bring much needed power to BC's northwest. These kinds of projects leave a footprint on our land. When we began planning our proposed route, we looked at existing development created by other industries—forest service roads, rights-of-way, forestry cut blocks, etc—and planned the route to follow alongside those areas and avoid, wherever practicable, impacting land that hadn't already been impacted.

As our manager of engineering stated recently "There are actually very few segments where we need to create right-of-way through ‘undisturbed’ forest. Minimizing impact to the environment is one of the first considerations Enbridge takes into account when planning pipeline routes."

We have a program at Enbridge we call Neutral Footprint. It outlines some of our environmental commitments to the land impacted by our operations. Whenever we disturb an acre of land, we make sure an acre is conserved somewhere else. We also make sure we replant a tree for every tree we cut down.

We've discussed our route safety, emergency response and route construction planning for the pipeline itself. You also have questions about the marine shipping. I invite you to watch this video describing our comprehensive marine safety program. It's almost 10 minutes long, and I know that might be longer than you'd like to watch, but please understand that our safety planning is comprehensive. So much so that compressing all of the marine route study, safety and emergency response planning into a short video is impossible.

I want to address your comments about the potential for human error directly. You correctly note that human error was at the root of the Exxon Valdez accident twenty years ago. Human error may have been involved in the cruise ship accident in the Mediterranean several weeks ago. These are extremely unfortunate, but also very isolated, examples of human error on the ocean.

If you watch the marine safety video linked above, you'll note that the ships involved with transporting oil and condensate into and out of Kitimat, will be tethered to tug boats. Neither the cruise ship nor the Exxon Valdez were tethered to tug boats when they struck ground. Did you know that since the Exxon Valdez ran aground 20 years ago, more than 11,000 oil tankers have safely transited the same channels into and out of Alaska, aided by tug boats?

There have been significant improvements in tanker design and operational safety since the Exxon Valdez accident. We've studied those improvements, and other port operations, and we are committed to ensuring that our proposed Kitimat terminal and marine operations are a global leader for safe operations. You can read more about our plans here.

You finished your comment by asking, is this really a good idea? I believe it is. A $5.5 billion dollar project creates a lot of economic benefits during construction for the towns along the right of way. There are other benefits for BC too. Northern Gateway will create lasting benefits for Canadians by opening new markets for Canadian energy products. Northern Gateway will allow Canadians to get more value than they currently do in return for their important energy resources. That value helps people fund their retirements, creates jobs, provides revenue for education and healthcare, and it also allows us to make investments in renewable energy and environmental protection.

Thanks Alyssa for joining the conversation and good luck with your school project.

Northern Gateway bad for economy? Not so say Economists

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:15:50 -0700

In a recent report, Robyn Allan argues against Enbridge’s assertions that Northern Gateway would be net-positive for the Canadian economy.

Allan, who was appointed CEO of ICBC in the early 1990s by the then BC NDP government, took a look at Enbridge’s regulatory filing from an economic perspective.

The filing includes commissioned economic studies demonstrating the economic effects of export market diversification—studies that must stand up to the scrutiny of the quasi-judicial Joint Review Panel (Appendixes A & B here).

Allan’s report, submitted to the JRP by the Alberta Federation of Labour, claims higher oil prices would fuel higher gasoline prices across Canada, causing a dampening effect to the entire economy.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach, an oft-quoted media source on energy and environmental economics, decided to test some of Allan’s claims against the realities of gas market economics.

On his blog, Leach debunks Allan’s claims that a $2-$3 per barrel increase for our resource will cause gasoline prices to jump across Canada. He points out that Canadian retail gas prices are already reflective of world oil prices, not the deflated WTI benchmark prices that most of Alberta’s oil sands production is sold at.

As Leach says “Think about this before you decide that blocking export pipelines and stranding crude in Canada, which will lead to a discounted Canadian crude oil price, will translate to savings at the pump in Canada.”

Leach also reminds us of some of the benefits of higher oil export prices in the form of higher royalties and government tax revenues to pay for universal programs like health care and education.

Other recently published independent studies also support the obvious need for diversifying markets for Canadian energy.

This University of Calgary study says “With better access and new pipeline capacity, oil producers will see more efficient access to international markets which can add up to $131 billion to Canada's GDP between 2016 and 2030.”

Another independent study suggests the cost to the Canadian economy would reach into the billions if Northern Gateway is not built.

Economists debate on CBC radio

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:53:23 -0700

Comments in the media that Northern Gateway would be bad for the Canadian economy were recently challenged by a University of Alberta economics professor.

In this CBC interview, Andrew Leach goes head to head with Robyn Allan, former head of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia on the issue of how higher returns for the energy industry affects the wider Canadian economy.

Leach presents a different take on the report by Allan, who was appointed to the ICBC post by the NDP government.

Allan argues in a recent report highlighted in this Vancouver Sun article that should Northern Gateway be built, and should it provide Canadian energy producers with a $2-3-a barrel boost in returns, gasoline prices would also rise.

The price of oil is constantly fluctuating. The price of West Texas Intermediate—the benchmark of Canadian crude—rose almost $1.50 on February 3, 2012. It can rise or fall $2 to $3 per barrel in a single trading session.

In its application to the regulators, Enbridge states that Northern Gateway would enable Canadian oil producers to tap lucrative offshore markets, causing higher returns to the energy sector and increased royalty and tax revenues for federal and provincial governments.

Those higher returns would boost investment and spinoff economic benefits.

Neutral Footprint creates lasting impact

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:22:32 -0700

In May 2009, at Enbridge's Annual General Meeting in Toronto, President & Chief Executive Officer Patrick D. Daniel announced an ambitious plan to stabilize Enbridge’s environmental footprint at January 2009 levels. Enbridge’s Neutral Footprint commitments are the result of that vision. They are designed to reduce the company’s environmental impact where it is felt most: on the trees we remove, the natural habitat we permanently impact, and the energy we consume to power our operations, within five years of the impacts occurring.

To conserve land, Enbridge has partnered with Nature Conservancy Canada to protect environmentally sensitive areas. One such partnership resulted in the purchase of 544 acres (220 hectares) of wetland, forest and shoreline habitat along Gauley Bay to conserve habitat for the globally rare wildflower Hill's Thistle.

"The Gauley Bay property is an important conservation project," said Paul Hunt, Director, Sustainability & Corporate Social Responsibility, for Enbridge. "In 2009, as part of our Neutral Footprint program, we committed to conserving an acre of natural habitat for every acre that our company impacts. Since then, we've been working with the Nature Conservancy of Canada to make that commitment a reality."

Enbridge’s commitment to the environment through Neutral Footprint doesn’t stop at land conservation efforts. We’re a recognized leader in renewable energy projects as well. This helps us achieve our Kilowatt for a Kilowatt commitment—for every kilowatt we use in our operations, we generate a kilowatt through renewable means.

By October 2011, Enbridge was generating almost 1,907 gigawatt hours of electricity through our renewable energy investments, including wind, solar and geothermal operations. Our generating capacity is continuously growing and is on target to meet our commitment.

School Plus helps First Nation students

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:10:43 -0700

The Enbridge School Plus Program was established in 2009 in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations to support enrichment programming and extracurricular activities in First Nations schools near major Enbridge pipeline routes and our wind farm in Ontario. About 50 First Nations schools are currently eligible for the program.

The overall goal of School Plus is to encourage First Nations youth to stay in school by funding enjoyable extra curricular programs to which students would not otherwise have access.

The School Plus Program provides substantial financial support each year to teachers who wish to undertake programs and activities that are not fully funded as part of each school's standard curriculum. Projects from all grade levels, from kindergarten through high school, are eligible for support. Teachers in eligible schools may apply for financial support, up to a maximum grant of $20,000 per project.

Over the last two years, the program has awarded over 1.3 million in School Plus funding and benefitted more than 6,500 First Nation students in Western Canada and Ontario.

The program expanded in 2010 to include initiatives that build strength and sustainability in Métis and urban Aboriginal communities. Enbridge is proud to partner with the following organizations:

Métis Child and Family Services in Edmonton to provide the Enbridge Hot Lunch program at Highlands School in inner city Edmonton.
The Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatchewan to support a teaching resource on the history of the Métis people for public and Catholic schools near our right-of-way.
The University of Winnipeg to fund the Enbridge Eco-Kids on Campus program to enable youth from two inner city schools in Winnipeg to receive enriched science programming at the University of Winnipeg once a week for 10 weeks.
Stardale Women’s Group to support the Honouring the Girls’ Stories program that builds mentoring relationships and nurtures artistic expression among Aboriginal girls in Calgary.

MacKenzie Art Gallery to support an urban outreach program that provides quality arts education to on-reserve and inner city students in Regina.

In addition to the current partnerships above, Enbridge also sponsored in 2010 the Gabriel Dumont Institute in support of a teaching resource on the history of the Métis people for public and Catholic schools near our right-of-way.

Poll: Canadians see need for energy market diversification

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:14:59 -0700

$50 billion.

That’s a big number… a lot of money.

That’s the value of Canada’s oil exports every single year.

In recent years, oil has become Canada’s most lucrative trade product.

But are Canadians aware that virtually all oil we export flows to just one market ?

Do Canadians know that our country—one of the most trade-dependent on the planet—is beholden to a single customer for this resource?

Some 99% of our export oil flows to the U.S. and only the U.S.

A new poll out shows Canadians are aware of this trade dependency... and the numbers suggest they don’t like it.

In a national random survey, Nanos Research concludes 75% of Canadians favour developing a diversified energy strategy to include more than just the U.S. market for our oil exports.

“In other words, three Canadians in four agree that Canada needs to develop the emerging markets of the Asia Pacific and other regions of the world,” writes Nanos in the latest issue of Policy Options.

“What Canadians are saying here is that while our relationship with the U.S. is very important, they see a diversified energy strategy as key to the long-term future prosperity of the country,” adds Nanos.

Is it smart, or logical, to put all of our eggs in a single basket when it comes to oil trade?

Judging from the results of this poll, it would appear Canadians are saying ‘no.’

Pipelines are safe and efficient

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:50:14 -0700

We continue to receive thoughtful questions and commentary on the Northern Gateway blogs. Thank you to readers and commentators alike. The following questions came to us recently by e-mail.

Will the proposed pipelines be insulated?

The buried sections of pipelines will not cool to the ambient air temperature during a line shutdown for normal operations or in emergency situations; as a result, the buried pipeline does not need to be insulated.

The pipe and equipment found above ground will be of a minimum design temperature of minus 45ºC and will be insulated and heat traced as required. Above ground piping will also be designed to be drained, if necessary, in the event of an extended shutdown.

Pipe used in the construction of Northern Gateway will be externally coated to protect against corrosion. During construction, rock shield, sand padding, wooden lagging or concrete coating will also be used, where needed, to provide additional mechanical protection for the pipe.

How much energy will be used to pump the oil in the two pipes and does that oil have to be heated?

The commodities we have proposed to transport do not require heat to be added to the system.

It’s expected that each pump will be 5,750 horse power (4,290 Kilowatts) and we anticipate 45 pumps will be used for the pipelines.

The pump horse power ratings and locations are described in Volume 3, Section 8.3 of our application which you can find here.

The number and horsepower of the pumps at each station to achieve the average annual capacity in the oil and condensate pipelines was determined during the hydraulic analyses (see Section 4 in the document linked above).

How many pumping stations are planned and what energy source will they use?

There are a total of 10 pump station sites planned. Each pump station will have numerous safety standard measures incorporated into its design to eliminate accidents and malfunctions or reduce their severity. This will be supported by:

remote monitoring
well trained personnel who will visit each site on a regular basis
appropriate maintenance and operational procedures for the safety and integrity of the facility

Power lines will be constructed to supply electrical power for the pump stations. These power lines will connect to existing transmission systems operated by various utility companies such as ATCO Power, AltaLink and BC Hydro. In British Columbia, Northern Gateway will be responsible for supplying connection facilities to BC Hydro, and in Alberta, the utility providers will supply the connection facilities. Provision for substations is included for each pump station.

Why do you assume different oil commodities for transport?

The Northern Gateway pipeline is designed to transport different types of oil commodities in batches. Based on discussions with shippers, Northern Gateway has assumed a variety of standard crude oil commodities for transport in the pipeline:

synbit, which are blends of refined synthetic oil and bitumen
dilbit, which are mixtures of condensate and bitumen
synthetic crude oils

Strong support for Northern Gateway: poll

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:44:03 -0700

In an Abacus Data poll released January 24, 2012, 38 per cent of respondents say they support the Northern Gateway pipeline project while 29 per cent say they don’t.

The Abacus poll, conducted exclusively for QMI Agency, shows results similar to an earlier Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge and released early in January 2012. That poll showed British Columbian respondents were more likely to support the project than oppose it, with nearly 50 per cent of respondents saying they support the project.

“This is a far cry from the majority opposition that activists claim in BC,” Janet Holder, Executive Vice President, Western Access, said in a speech to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. “It shows that most British Columbians are open minded and willing to listen—and most importantly that the more people know about what we’re proposing, and the decade of engineering and environmental study we’ve put into Northern Gateway, the more likely they are to support it.”

Media coverage on Enbridge's record doesn't tell full story

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:46:27 -0700

There have been a few stories in the media lately related to Enbridge’s incident history on its pipeline systems. Unfortunately, the stories don’t provide readers with many of the details they’d need to understand the complete story.

As Enbridge discloses annually in its Corporate Social Responsibility Report, the vast majority of the spills that Enbridge experiences are small, they occur within Enbridge facilities (and never leave the site), and are discovered very soon after they occur - allowing for rapid response and clean-up and resulting in low, or no environmental impact.

In three of the past 10 years, Enbridge had no significant off-property releases on our liquids pipeline system in Canada and the United States. In the other seven years, we experienced one significant release each in 2003, 2009 and 2011, two each in 2002 and 2004, three in 2010, and four in 2007.

Contrary to the impression left by some media stories, spills are rare relative to the volume of liquids products that Enbridge transports. As the stories correctly point out, Enbridge safely delivered over 99.99% of the volume we transported in 2010, when we shipped almost a billion barrels of petroleum products through our system.

Having said that, no spill is acceptable to Enbridge because our goal is zero incidents. Our number one priority is the safety and integrity of our operations and to prevent all spills, leaks and releases. Since 2002, we have spent approximately $1 billion on our safety and maintenance programs for our Liquids Pipelines systems across North America.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipelines will be designed according to exacting Canadian Standards guidelines. No pipeline ruptures have been reported on pipeline systems built to these standards in the last 25 years.

Just as Enbridge does for all its pipelines, Northern Gateway will implement mitigation measures during design, construction and operation of the pipelines to prevent releases and to quickly respond should the need arise. These measures include, among others, avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas and special design requirements for areas such as road, river and creek crossings.

Although pipelines have long been proven to be the safest way of transporting oil and gas, Enbridge is working constantly to ensure safety by increasing the reliability of our pipelines and facilities.

Our number one social responsibility is to deliver energy reliably and safely and we will always live up to that standard.

Answers to questions about benefits and the environment

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:40:19 -0700

We received a few questions and comments on our Facebook page the other day, thanks for these Dylan.

Dylan stated: “Very little revenue will actually go towards the First Nations who's lands you are apparently stealing and that most of the jobs are only temporary construction jobs lasting one or two years.”

Dylan, respectfully we disagree with the assertions in this comment. Northern Gateway is offering Aboriginal people a 10% share in a $5.5 billion project. The long-term financial benefits for participating Aboriginal shareholders will be significant. Aggregate equity ownership is expected to generate approximately $280 million in net income to neighbouring Aboriginal communities, over the first 30 years.

Becoming an owner in this project means Aboriginal groups are going to see cash flow within the first year of operations. Through equity ownership, Aboriginal people will be able to generate a significant new revenue stream that could help achieve the priorities of their people – such as improved health care, education and housing.

Dylan also showed his concern for the environment when he said: “the presence of tankers and heavy marine traffic will highly disturb wildlife in the area, including a humpback whale population which has only recently recovered from two digit populations and the spirit bear, which has been reported in the video by opponents of this plan to be almost if not equally as rare as the panda.”

Dylan, we agree protecting the environment and the animals is very important. The Northern Gateway Project understands the long-term success of the project depends on our ability to construct the project in an environmentally responsible way. A team of over 200 environmental experts and scientists have conducted a comprehensive analysis throughout the project area in aspects such as marine biology, wildlife, water resources, fish and others. The findings of this analysis have been incorporated into our planning to ensure that construction proceeds safely and responsibly and that our environmental impact is minimized throughout the operational life of the project.

To best address the wildlife issues Dylan raised, we’ve organized them in two parts: marine mammals and land animals.

Here are some of the specific measures we propose to reduce potential effects for marine mammals:

Using specified vessel transit approaches, taking into account navigational safety, so that acoustical disturbances are constrained to similar and predictable areas during marine transportation
Reducing vessel speed to 10 to 12 knots throughout the channels to the terminal
Reducing vessel speed to 8 to 10 knots, unless otherwise required for safe navigation, in the core humpback whale area during May to November.
In the initial years of operation, introducing a whale-monitoring vessel during months of peak humpback whale abundance in the core humpback whale area.
Investigating the use of remote detection techniques. This would be used to support the visual observation program from the whale-monitoring vessel.
Using the best commercially available technology at the time of design/construction of the tugs (primarily in engine vibration reduction and propeller design) so that escort and harbor tugs produce the least underwater noise possible.
Develop and implement a marine mammal protection plan specific to the Project that would outline measures to limit the effects of underwater noise on humpback whales and other large marine mammals in the shipping channels.
Operators of project-related vessels will report all sightings of whales in the shipping channels via a ship communication system, so other marine traffic is made aware of whale locations.
Implementing cooperative planning and research to address important data gaps.

With regards to the Spirit Bear, it’s important to note that the proposed pipeline route does not go through the area environmental groups call the Great Bear Rainforest. That said, there are some potential effects on wildlife wherever the right-of-way (ROW) is built. To reduce the risk of these effects occurring, Enbridge Northern Gateway will implement the following mitigation measures:

Reduce disturbance by routing the ROW along areas where other infrastructure development already exists (e.g., roads, seismic lines and pipelines)
Use existing access roads wherever possible
Limit the area cleared for temporary workspace and then re-vegetate these areas using native species
Protect wetlands using a variety of measures:
- using existing water course crossings where possible
- minimizing disturbance of soil and sedimentation
- reclaiming areas to the pre-construction profile
- allowing wetlands to regenerate naturally
- monitoring effectiveness of wetland reclamation, making adjustments as necessary
Survey important wildlife habitat features (grizzly bear dens, nests of sensitive bird species, dens of other animals, mineral licks [i.e. salt licks], and elk migratory paths) and implement measures such as construction setbacks to avoid them
Maintain habitat connections between key forested areas, where possible, by placing coarse woody debris on the ROW after construction or facilitating the re-growth of vegetation along the ROW
Track and report all wildlife incidents (wildlife vehicle collisions, bear encounters or problems) and engage the appropriate wildlife authority as required

Kitimat resident speaks in support of Gateway

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:40:37 -0700

According to a Canadian Press report, longtime Kitimat resident Peter King called on the regulatory body assessing the Northern Gateway project to consider benefits connected to the proposal.

Peter King addressed the Joint Review Panel on the second day of hearings in the Haisla Nation community of Kitamaat Village, near Kitimat, B.C.

"For us to sit back in Canada where we're blessed and say that other people in India and so on like that can't enjoy the benefits of what we have, I have a problem with that," he was quoted in the Canadian Press.

Columnist calls for pragmatism

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:10:30 -0700

Michael Den Tandt, a columnist with Post Media, took exception to some politicking recently by Skeena – Bulkley Valley MP, and NDP leadership hopeful, Nathan Cullen, in a recent column—it’s well worth a read.

Den Tandt highlights some important facts about Canada’s oil and gas industry and points out just how valuable it is to all Canadians, coast to coast to coast:

“Tax revenue from oilsands development [is] projected to be $307 billion across Canada over the next 25 years, with $187 billion accruing to the federal government”

That’s an important part of the Northern Gateway conversation. As Canadians, we all receive benefits as a result of our tax system—things we value, like subsidized education and health care, along with other important social programs.

When our elected representatives stand up in opposition of an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and provides billions of dollars in tax revenue to all levels of government, without explaining to Canadians how they plan to replace those jobs and revenue, as Den Tandt suggests, we can:

“…call it ‘symbolism,’ because that's precisely what it is. Neither Cullen, nor the Sierra Club, nor actor Robert Redford, nor any of their political fellow travellers, appear concerned with finding pragmatic solutions that address environmental concerns, while still allowing Alberta oil to flow to market.”

There is no question that Canada’s oil and gas industry has a responsibility to Canadians and our environment. It’s a responsibility that industry has said they accept, acknowledge and act upon. If you haven’t read the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ most recent Responsible Canadian Energy report, please do.

You should also check out Enbridge’s Corporate Social Responsibility actions. We’re proud of our commitment to the people, communities and environment wherever our operations exist.

Let’s have a fact-based conversation about Northern Gateway, and dismiss the political rhetoric for the empty symbolism Den Tandt exposes it to be.

Oral hearings begin in Kitimaat Village

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:22:38 -0700

The Joint Review Panel oral hearings began today in Kitimaat Village, part of the Haisla First Nation community. Enbridge Northern Gateway’s role in the hearings is observational. We’re committed to the National Energy Board’s process, and we’re keenly interested in hearing what all stakeholders have to say about the proposed project to build twin pipelines between Bruderheim, A.B. and Kitimat, B.C.

The oral hearings are one step in an extremely comprehensive public regulatory process. The current hearings, scheduled to wrap-up in early April 2012, are to allow registered interveners an opportunity to present oral evidence to the three-member JRP. These oral hearing sessions will hear evidence from First Nation communities located close to the proposed right-of-way, and other registered interveners.

Out of respect for the process, Enbridge Northern Gateway will not comment on any evidence presented at the hearings. We support the JRP decision to ensure a comprehensive public input component into the regulatory process.

How many visits to the marine terminal?

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:14:35 -0700

There’s been some great discussion in these blogs since we launched them just a few short weeks ago. Thanks for joining the conversation!

A Twitter user asked us a marine related question recently, so we turned to our marine expert, Chris Anderson, to provide us with the answer. The following is a summary of the question and Chris’ response:

Q: Will the tankers used to import condensate be used to export bitumen?

In Enbridge Northern Gateway’s submission to the Joint Review Panel that is reviewing the project proposal and conducting the environmental assessment, we estimate the tanker traffic volume to be 225 “calls” to the Kitimat terminal each year. To arrive at this conservative estimate, Enbridge Northern Gateway has assumed that tankers bringing condensate for Canadian import will not be used to transport diluted bitumen and other oil products away from Kitimat.

Tankers are generally capable of transporting any class of hydrocarbon, but like many industries, the transportation of energy is highly specialized.

New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:26:43 -0700

A new poll out suggests solid support among B.C. residents for Northern Gateway and opposition far lower than often suggested by environmental activists.

A survey by leading polling firm Ipsos Reid done on behalf of Enbridge found support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project at 48% while those opposed at 32%.

“Clearly such statements by environmental activists that there is overwhelming opposition in B.C. to Northern Gateway are inaccurate,” said Paul Stanway, Manager of Communications for Northern Gateway.

“Judging by this poll, the people of B.C. are far more open-minded on Northern Gateway than the activists would give them credit for.”

Of the 48% in support, 14% indicated they “strongly” support Northern Gateway.

Of the 32% who oppose, 13% said they are “strongly” opposed. Two-in-10 are undecided about the project.

“Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups,” Ipsos Reid stated in a news release.

Ipsos Reid also measured B.C. residents’ familiarity with Northern Gateway.

Respondents who are either “not at all familiar” (25%) or “not very familiar” (30%) stood at 55%, according to the poll.

Those who said they are either “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) stood at 42%.

“It will be incumbent upon us to continue to work hard at getting the facts out to British Columbians so that they can come to an informed opinion on the project,” added Stanway.

The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted Dec. 12 - 15, 2011. Ipsos Reid estimates a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual B.C. population according to 2006 Census data.

The poll can be found here.

A news article on the poll can be found on the Vancouver Sun website.

Pipeline emergency response

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:17:06 -0700

Since we launched these blogs just a few short weeks ago, we’ve had some great commentary and questions asked by people who decided to join the Northern Gateway conversation. Thank you!

Brad from Victoria recently asked some pipeline safety related questions:

Will you install cameras like web cams at environmentally sensitive areas like rivers and stream crossings and monitor them 24-7-365?
Will there be containers at these sensitive locations loaded with oil containment booms, pumps, absorbent oil pads and emergency phones?

These are great questions. Enbridge Northern Gateway is committed to ensuring our pipeline integrity is monitored around the clock, every day of the year. We have a state of the art computerized monitoring system, headquartered in Edmonton, monitoring all of our existing pipelines—should Northern gateway be built, this same system will be employed to ensure it is maintained and operated safely. In addition to round-the-clock monitoring, a system of regular pipeline inspection is put in place to ensure pipeline integrity: we’ve developed internal inspection technology (called PIGs) that travel down the pipeline on scheduled maintenance cycles to look for any potential pipeline integrity issues.

At environmentally sensitive areas, like stream and river crossings, safety shut-off valves will be installed to ensure fast response to any leaks and prevent large-volume discharges. A series of fast acting, emergency response stations will be located at strategic points along the entire route of the pipeline, located near access points and areas where spill response can be initiated quickly. Each of these stations will be equipped with containment booms, absorbent pads and other safety related gear. Crews that operate these stations undergo rigorous training; you can see one of these crews in action in our Emergency Response Exercise video below.

Answers to your questions

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:59:27 -0700

We’ve been receiving lots of great questions from a wide variety of people since we launched these blogs just a few short weeks ago. It’s great to see this level of interest and we thank you all for joining the conversation.

Stu D asked a few oil and gas related questions:

What is the difference between bitumen and crude delivery?
Which has more environmental impact and can your pipeline deliver both?
What is the annual mix of these products?
Which is easier to recover from a spill?
What about the condensate?

We also were asked a similar set of questions about the proposed pipeline and the products we intend to deliver through it by someone on Twitter:

What percentage of the dilbit (diluted bitumen) will be bitumen and what percentage will be condensate?
Where will the condensate be sourced from?

Oil extracted from Canada’s oilsands is known as bitumen. Bitumen is a form of heavy crude oil that resembles molasses when it’s first separated from the sand and clay it’s found in. In order for bitumen to flow through a pipeline, it needs to be mixed with diluents, called condensate. The condensate Enbridge will use in the Northern Gateway pipeline is expected to be liquids extracted from the natural gas liquefaction process. These liquids will be sourced from the global market, most often from Asia and other Pacific Rim producers.

Condensate will be delivered to Kitimat by tanker where it will be shipped via pipeline to Bruderheim. The condensate will then be mixed with the bitumen to create a product commonly called dilbit (diluted bitumen) for transport by a separate, larger pipeline, back to Kitimat. Typically the ratio of condensate to bitumen for pipeline transportation is in the range of 25-30% condensate to 70-75% bitumen.

Northern Gateway has assumed four standard crude oil commodities for transport in the pipeline: synbit, which is a blend of refined synthetic oil and bitumen; two types of dilbit (mixtures of condensate and bitumen); and synthetic oil. The storage tanks planned for Kitimat will be able to accommodate these products.

It’s important to note that transporting dilbit in pipelines is not a new activity—dilbit has been shipped safely in pipelines across North America for almost 30 years. Enbridge has a 99.99% pipeline safety record. And while we’re an industry leader when it comes to safe and reliable pipeline infrastructure, we’re not satisfied with 99.99% safety and we’ve invested billions of dollars to make our pipeline system the safest in the world, with a goal of 100% safety. Please check out our Pipeline Integrity Program for more information. If a dilbit spill were to occur, the environmental restoration process is very similar to other crude oil clean-up procedures.

Community hearings to open in Haisla First Nation

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:05:06 -0700

You may have heard a lot about Enbridge Northern Gateway in recent weeks.

In the coming weeks, you’re likely to hear a lot more about our project, a $5.5 billion 1,177-km dual pipeline and marine terminal connecting Canada’s oil sands to lucrative markets in the Pacific Rim.

That’s because a very important phase in the regulatory process is about to begin. The oral community hearings kick off Jan. 10 in Kitamaat Village, a Haisla First Nation community on the West Coast adjacent to the town of Kitimat.

Let’s be frank. There are some strong feelings on either side of the debate on whether Enbridge and its partners should build Northern Gateway, the largest private-sector infrastructure project British Columbia has ever seen.

Some of those strong feelings will likely get expressed during these hearings. But this is an important part of the regulatory process to scrutinize and test our assurances that Northern Gateway can be built safely and in an environmentally sustainable way, and that it is in the public interest.

These hearings give those who have signed up to speak an opportunity to participate in a very real and tangible way. They also give the public the opportunity to view the proceedings and the media the freedom to observe and report on this very transparent process.

It’s important to note that these hearings are not being organized by Enbridge. They are being held as part of Canada’s stringent public regulatory regime.

It is the Joint Review Panel – a three-member body struck under the auspices of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board – that is in charge of this process.

It is a process dedicated to fulsome but factual dialogue related to this proposed project.

We encourage all those interested in Enbridge Northern Gateway to become engaged, but do so armed with the facts, with an open mind and in keeping with Canada’s long tradition of compromise, openness and dialogue.

Here is a recent announcement on the schedule for community oral hearings.

Please note that the JRP has shifted the Jan. 10-11 hearings in Kitimat, B.C. to Kitamaat Village.

You can read the JRP announcement here.

Billions at stake if Northern Gateway not built: new report

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:00:00 -0700

There are billions at stake for Canadian oil producers should Northern Gateway not get built, says new economic analysis.

A report filed just before Christmas to the Joint Review Panel – the regulatory body assessing the application of Enbridge Northern Gateway – details some eye-popping numbers that support the notion that there is a compelling business case for the project.

Currently, Canada’s only oil export market is the U.S. But if Northern Gateway were to be built, giving producers more oil export market options such as China, producers would see some striking financial benefits.

“Canadian producers not having sufficient access to premium heavy crude refining markets could lose about $8/bbl (per barrel) for every Canadian heavy crude barrel, with a revenue impact averaging C$8 billion per year for 2017 to 2025,” writes Harold York, Ph.D. of Economics and vice president of Houston consulting firm, Wood Mackenzie.

The full report, commissioned by the Alberta provincial government and filed for consideration as part of the regulatory review of Enbridge Northern Gateway, can be found here.

Revenues that flow to oil producers also translate into some big benefits for Canadians.

According to estimates by the Oil Sands Developers Group, development of the oil sands has the potential to generate more than $483 billion in royalty and tax revenues for Canada’s federal and provincial governments over the next 25 years.

Oil sands investment will generate $1.7 trillion in economic activity and 456,000 jobs will be directly and indirectly linked to construction and operation of oil sands facilities over that same time frame, says the group.

For another take on this important issue, you can also read an Edmonton Journal article on the Wood Mackenzie report.

Northern Gateway a ‘nation building’ project

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:04:49 -0700

In her year-end media interviews, Alberta Premier Allison Redford described Northern Gateway as a “nation building” project.

Others have likened Northern Gateway to the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The parallels of the two projects are obvious. Canada corrected a transportation bottleneck to burgeoning post-war Europe by conceiving and constructing the seaway in the 1950s.

Since then, 260,000 vessels have travelled up and down the channel, moving 2.3 billion tonnes of goods totaling $350 billion, according to reports. The seaway supports 75,000 jobs in Canada and another 150,000 in the U.S.

Commerce on the system generates $4.3 billion in personal income per year.

Fast forward to the present…

Canada’s most lucrative export is now oil and it is sold at a deep discount from crudes traded elsewhere merely because there isn’t the infrastructure to get it to high-demand markets such as Asia. Canada’s economy may, in effect, be constrained unless a solution is found.

But if Northern Gateway and other proposed pipelines were built to relieve pipeline bottlenecks, Canada and Canadians would be huge beneficiaries, according to a group of deep thinkers at the University of Calgary.

In a research paper released in December for the university’s School of Public Policy, it is estimated that if pipeline capacity is built connecting to high-demand markets, federal, provincial and municipal governments would reap extra tax receipts of a whopping $26 billion from 2016 to 2030.

That’s a lot of money that can be spent on all those things Canadians hold dear – hospitals, schools, roads, public transit etc.

This heightened energy trade would also spur a boon in jobs as well. The learned group says the new pipeline infrastructure would create 649,000 person-years of employment.

“Most every single province and territory will realize fiscal and economic gains from the distribution and sale of products reflecting reduced cost and increased access to refineries for heavy oil,” says the 71-page report you can find here.

As the paper concludes, these facts and figures show the “rewards are too great to ignore.”

Northern Gateway: who decides?

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:27:58 -0700

How is it decided whether Northern Gateway is in the public interest? Who makes the call?

An independent Joint Review Panel, with representatives appointed by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the federal Ministry of the Environment, will hold a transparent and thorough review of the Northern Gateway project as part of the public regulatory process.

The mandate of the JRP, which operates under the auspices of the NEB and the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, is to assess the potential environmental impact of the Northern Gateway project, and determine whether it’s in the public interest.

The JRP process, held in public, will test all of Enbridge’s assurances about Northern Gateway, as well as our planning, project design, and safety procedures, in careful detail.

This public process will begin in January 2012 and last for more than a year, and involve a series of community hearings and oral statements from registered participants. The process allows everyone with a stake in Northern Gateway to have their questions answered and their concerns addressed. And we at Enbridge believe people’s concerns over the project will abate once they learn the facts about what we’re proposing—and our commitment to safeguard the environment and the interests of all stakeholders.

Energy responsibility

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:21:44 -0700

Even though Enbridge ships the oil, doesn’t it care about its part of the oil sands negative effect on the global environment?

Energy literacy is the most important part of a constructive public discussion, and that’s certainly applicable in the case of Alberta’s oil sands.

Let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Final combustion—specifically, from the exhaust pipe of your vehicle—is responsible for 70 to 80 per cent of the lifecycle emissions of oil (this is also called the well-to-wheels model, which includes production, refining, transport, and end-use combustion). And those numbers are consistent, regardless of the source of crude oil that produced your vehicle’s gasoline.

We can all make an effort in our own way—by using our cars less, or driving vehicles that are more fuel-efficient. At Enbridge, we’ve got a substantial and growing investment in green and renewable energy, but it will likely take many years to develop enough renewable energy to satisfy the growing global demand.

Now, we don’t believe for a minute that an emotionally charged argument passes for constructive discourse. Nor do we believe that two polarized groups entrenching themselves and slinging rhetoric constitutes a debate. In a perfect world, the oil sands would not exist because of our endless supply of free and clean energy.

But it’s not a perfect world. Our world needs energy. It powers our homes and our lives, and provides the foundation of our modern economy. And we need to work together to maximize the benefits and reduce the negative impacts.

Aboriginal partnership is key

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:10:42 -0700

How can we justify this pipeline’s approval when so many First Nations are opposing it crossing their traditional territory?

There’s no other way to say it—partnership with the Aboriginal community is key to the success of Northern Gateway. At the end of the day, we want Aboriginal groups to benefit from this project. We are working hard to understand and appreciate the potential concerns of all Aboriginal groups with a vested interest in Northern Gateway — and these communications represent one of Enbridge’s most important ongoing discussions regarding the project.

We’ve spent 60-plus years successfully operating pipelines, and we also have a long history of working harmoniously with Aboriginal communities. In other words, we’re committed to Aboriginal consultation. We’re familiar with Aboriginal rights, as set out in Canada’s Constitution, and Treaty rights, where applicable — and we already have in place a detailed, inclusive Aboriginal Peoples policy that identifies paths to mutual success.

We want to accommodate the interests and objectives of all Aboriginal groups all the way along the pipeline corridor, including those in coastal communities.

Some First Nations have expressed opposition to the Northern Gateway project. We respect those positions, but we want to continue the dialogue. We began reaching out to all Aboriginal groups along the pipeline route back in 2002, and we intend to continue the consultation throughout the entire life of the Northern Gateway project.

Through our Aboriginal engagement program, we’re committed to providing project information, answering project-related questions, identifying and addressing issues and concerns, and gathering community input into our project plans. To date, we’re encouraged by the response we’ve received from First Nations — and we look forward to a fruitful partnership in the long term.

Pipeline spill risks are low

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:56:51 -0700

It is not possible to guarantee that a spill won’t occur, but with modern pipeline design and mitigation measures, the risks are very low.

Does Line 6B ring a bell? Everyone knows what happened in Michigan. How do you know it won’t happen with Northern Gateway?

What we can say is that at Enbridge, we take our responsibility very seriously. An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure, but we certainly don’t stop at an ounce. We adhere to the best safety practices available, and we pay close attention to pipeline integrity.

And just so we’re clear, no spill is acceptable at Enbridge. When things go wrong, as they did in Michigan in July 2010, we act immediately and decisively, we don’t stop until we make things right, and we learn from our mistakes.

First, the prevention. Enbridge is an industry leader in internal pipeline inspection. We invest heavily in innovative leak detection technology. We’ve spent about $2.3 billion on pipeline system integrity since 2002. Typically, Enbridge safely delivers over 99.99 per cent of the volume it ships in any given year, including in 2010. Most of our spills have been small, and contained within our facilities — so we’ve been able to clean them up quickly, with no environmental impact.

By no means, however, are we patting ourselves on the back. We were, frankly, humbled by the events in Michigan. Enbridge has always assumed full responsibility for the leak in Line 6B, which saw oil enter Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River.

There is simply no way of guaranteeing that an accident won’t happen. However, our goal is always zero spills. And every aspect of project design and planning for Northern Gateway has been driven by measures for minimizing risks and mitigating any potential effects.

What are the benefits to Canada?

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:55:51 -0700

While it's true the pipeline route is between Alberta and British Columbia, many Canadians from coast to coast can expect to see economic benefits.

Why should the rest of Canada care about this Western Canadian issue?

We’re talking about a transformational injection of new economic opportunity for Canada, from coast to coast, for an entire generation. Northern Gateway’s impact, for Canadians, is an estimated $270 billion boost to Canada’s gross domestic product over a 30-year period.

Here are the results of more Northern Gateway number crunching from a national perspective—62,000 person-years of employment and $4.3 billion in labour income during the construction phase, 1,150 long-term jobs totaling $68 million a year in income, and $2.6 billion in total tax revenue for the three levels of government.

These are significant, lasting benefits to the Canadian economy.

Here’s a news report about a recent University of Calgary study on the subject you might find interesting.

Port safety is paramount

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:38:30 -0700

From our frequently asked question files:

Q: What marine safety precautions are you employing? Won’t the traffic congestion caused by so many oil tankers almost certainly cause a collision at the Kitimat Marine Terminal?

The majority of the world’s petroleum products are transported by sea every year, and Canada itself sees about 20,000 oil tanker movements annually. The Northern Gateway Project plans for about 220 tankers to call at the Port of Kitimat each year—less than one per day. Even when all current and future projects in Douglas Channel involving commercial shipping (some of which also incorporate tanker traffic) are taken into account; ship traffic volumes would still be at modest levels in comparison to other ports.

While traffic volumes may be lower than many other Ports in the world, marine and terminal operations will be managed to some of the highest industry standards. We are committed to reducing the chances of an oil spill to as close to zero as practicable.

Check out this video which explains some of our planning process to ensure safe travel of tankers into and out of the Port of Kitimat.

Marine safety expert answers your questions

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:23:56 -0700

In yesterday's Marine Safety blog post, Are BC's waters too dangerous?, there were some thoughtful comments that touched on really important issues and asked really good questions. To best answer them, we've engaged the help of Chris Anderson. Chris is a Master Mariner and the lead Marine Advisor for the Northern Gateway project.

Richmond and Harold both asked simliar questions about weather, night travel on the waterways and additional safety measures. Here are Chris' responses, in italics:

Hi Richmond and Harold. My name is Chris Anderson a Master Mariner and the lead Marine Advisor for the Northern Gateway Project. Thanks for adding your comments and questions. Because both of your comments are very similar, I’ve decided to answer them together.

Richmond, regarding your inquiry about the safety measures other than double hull tankers and pilots that the project will have in place, I invite you to watch our video, if you haven't already, that provides an extensive overview of the proposed marine safety initiatives, by clicking here. While some items such as double hulls and the use of pilots are required under Canadian statutes, Northern Gateway has also voluntarily committed to

using escort tugs,
upgrading navigation infrastructure, and
to providing spill response resources outside Kitimat Terminal.

Admittedly, our video is long, but there are a lot of safety measures in place that are worth learning about.

Harold and Richmond, you are quite right in your comments on daylight hours. Northern Gateway clarified its position on this matter in recent communications with the Joint Review Panel. Comments in our Application to the effect that “Transits of the CCAA will usually occur during daylight hours” were made in error. That said, with the navigation technology onboard modern tankers, assisted by planned upgrades to navigation aids and the addition of land based radar, the marine channels can be safely transited during both daylight and at night. Marine terminals in northern latitudes such as Kitimat, Scotland, Sweden, Norway and Alaska have operated for decades under similar conditions.

There are some differences between Port Metro Vancouver and Douglas Channel; however, we do not believe weather is one. Weather conditions in the open waters of Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance, as is the case with waters off the West Coast of Vancouver Island leading to Port Metro Vancouver, can be severe and need to be taken into consideration for marine operations.

Conditions along the BC Coast are definitely no worse than other parts of the world with a long history of tanker transits, such as the North Sea or the waters off Japan. Similarly conditions in the marine channels leading to and from Kitimat are not that different from that of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. Tanker transits to and from Kitimat, like Port Metro Vancouver, include passage through marine channels and a risk of grounding, which is why both Port Metro Vancouver and Northern Gateway support the use of tug escorts.

The tug escorts proposed by Northern Gateway will be much more powerful than any tug currently available on the BC Coast and will be able to assist tankers in the open waters if required. One key difference between the Port of Kitimat and Port Metro Vancouver and Puget Sound area is that the risk of collision is much lower in the Kitimat area due to the much lower traffic density.

Another commentator, Ron, asked a question about our spill response plans should a tanker incident occur. Here's Chris' answer for Ron:

Ron, we do not disagree that while mitigation measures, such as tug escorts, may lower the risk so far as is reasonably practicable, a spill could still occur. That is why Northern Gateway has committed to implementing a response capability that would exceed Canadian requirements and increase the response capability for the entire Canadian west coast.

Despite the significant investment that this response preparedness would require, we would hope never to see it used for an actual spill. Historic marine spill incidents have resulted in extraordinary improvements to tanker design, construction and operation, and in oil spill response requirements and capability.

Northern Gateway believes learning from other incidents from around the globe is critical to the safety and success of the Northern Gateway Project. In the years following the Exxon Valdez incident, over 11,000 tankers have been safely escorted by tugs through Prince William Sound.

Norway, one of the world’s leading seafood producers, is also one of the largest oil producers (some terminals see more than 2000 visits per year). Norway’s marine terminals, like those of Scotland and Sweden, have operated safely for decades without a major tanker incident, in part, because these countries employ many of the same strict safety protocols and risk mitigation measures being proposed by Northern Gateway.

Why open new markets?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:23:54 -0700

Q: Why is this project so critical to the Canadian economy?

Think of it this way. The energy needs of the United States of America with a population of over 300 million people have flatlined. The energy needs of the Pacific Rim, population three billion, are growing dramatically.

Without putting too fine a point on it, Northern Gateway is the key that could unlock a new economic reality—and help transform Canada into a global energy superpower. Northern Gateway represents Canada’s energy crossroads. One path would see us remain landlocked in North America, selling our energy resources at a significant discount. The other path would see us responsibly and safely create the infrastructure to tap into the world’s fastest-growing and most important new energy markets.

Northern Gateway is Canada’s 21^st-century equivalent of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It’s a nation-building opportunity, a chance to build for the future, a pathway to connect our most valuable export to the developing markets that need it, an opportunity to provide jobs and prosperity for future generations of Canadians.

Other countries can always provide energy for the burgeoning Pacific Rim economies. Northern Gateway can take Canada from the sidelines to the playing field.

What about carbon emissions?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:59:07 -0700

Q: If Enbridge is increasing the flow of (dirty) oil from the oil sands, how do you justify our role in increasing carbon emissions?

Alberta’s oil sands have become an emotionally charged topic in recent years. But let’s take a moment to focus on the facts.

Alberta’s oil sands account for one-tenth of one per cent (0.1%) of the world’s global greenhouse gas emissions, and produce one per cent of the GHGs emitted by coal-fired power generation in the United States.

And it’s also important to note that oil sands companies have curtailed per-barrel GHG emissions by more than 30 per cent since 1990, thanks to increasingly efficient technologies. Some facilities have reached reductions of as much as 45 per cent.

There’s a bigger story about the oil sands that doesn’t make it into your local newspaper. Investigate the oil sands further and you’ll soon understand that environmental responsibility is a top priority. But don’t just take our word for it. Here’s some links where you will find useful information about the oil sands.

Are there reasons for First Nations to support Gateway?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:45:53 -0700

Q: Would Northern Gateway really make a meaningful difference to Aboriginal groups given their opposition based on environmental concerns?

The economic opportunities are plentiful. One of our most fervent wishes at Enbridge is for Aboriginal communities to reap some meaningful benefit from Northern Gateway—not just in the short term, but through the entire life of the project.

Put simply, we want Aboriginal economic participation in this project. We’ve used the input we received from Aboriginal communities to develop a package of economic and social commitments—creating local and regional opportunities, and enabling long-term sustainability.

Enbridge is offering 10 per cent equity ownership in the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project to eligible Aboriginal groups. And for those groups who don’t have the wherewithal to finance an equity partnership, Enbridge is finding their financing for them—allowing them to share in the net income. That equity ownership is expected to generate about $280 million, in total, to Aboriginal communities through the first 30 years of the pipeline’s operation, and Aboriginal shareholders will see cash flow within the first year of operation.

Enbridge is also committed to hiring local residents to build the Northern Gateway project, and Aboriginal workers, we anticipate, will make up about 15 per cent of the construction labour force. We’ll be identifying direct and indirect employment opportunities for residents of neighbouring Aboriginal communities, and we’ll be helping to provide access to education and training for all Aboriginal communities in the project area.

We’ll also be depositing one per cent of annual pre-tax earnings into the Northern Gateway Community Trust—which will generate more than $100 million through the pipeline’s 30-year economic lifetime, and fund community initiatives in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities alike.

Are there any benefits for British Columbians?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:34:26 -0700

Q: The Gateway pipeline represents so much environmental risk to so many British Columbians, with benefits to so few. Why are you so convinced that the people of B.C. will support it?

The people of British Columbia are proud of their province, and rightly so. The Northern Gateway has the potential to make B.C. an even better place to live, thanks to a sizable impact on the provincial economy.

With an estimated cost of $5.5 billion, Northern Gateway represents the largest private investment of capital in British Columbia history. And we’ve also taken the philosophical stance that the people of B.C. should benefit from such an ambitious undertaking.

While the twin pipeline system and the Kitimat Marine Terminal are being built, Northern Gateway is expected to generate 4,100 person-years of employment on-site, and 31,300 more off-site. That includes more than 400 workers to build the marine terminal, and its related infrastructure, during the peak construction period. In total, Northern Gateway’s three-year construction phase will result in an estimated $2.5 billion in total labour income, including $165 in tax revenue to the provincial government.

As for the long term? About 560 permanent jobs in B.C., creating $32 million a year in labour-related income. That includes 165 permanent jobs at Kitimat, taking into account the terminal, marine services, tug fleet, and environmental monitors, for a total of about $17 million a year in wages. The provincial government will also collect $1.2 billion in tax revenue for 30 years after construction.

Should this project receive regulatory approval, we want to make sure that Northern Gateway creates a lasting legacy of local investment, jobs, and tax revenue for British Columbians. More than half a century ago, Quebec and Ontario benefited from the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and this is B.C.’s chance to grasp the same sort of opportunity.

Is the Pipeline route too remote to safely monitor?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:21:32 -0700

Q: It seems virtually impossible to be able to oversee safety on a pipeline that runs for hundreds of miles, much of it through remote wilderness regions?

A dedicated computer system will enable 24/7 monitoring of the Northern Gateway pipeline, and allow for immediate response to abnormal conditions. Our plans also call for the installation of isolation valves on either side of major water crossings, ensuring a quick shutdown if necessary. Those crossings have all been individually engineered to provide enhanced pipe protection (such as concrete coatings, etc) and buried with increased depth of cover.

Emergency response personnel and equipment will also be stationed at several locations along the pipeline system. We’ll be training local emergency responders to help with any potential spill scenario, and we’ll be holding full-scale response exercises every year.

We’re also enlisting the most modern technologies to make sure the Northern Gateway pipeline is protected from natural disasters, such as avalanches. Where the pipeline crosses terrain that is exposed to slope hazards, we’re looking at special measures such as tunnels, special pipe design, and a particularly deep burial of the pipe to prevent a spill.

For more information about pipeline route safety, watch this interview with Drum Cavers. Drum is a Principal Engineer with AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure and has been consulting for the project since the beginning.

Are BC's waters too dangerous?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:01:41 -0700

Q: I've heard B.C.’s North Coast has some of the most treacherous coastal waters in the world. Isn’t it simply too dangerous to allow oil tankers in and out of the port of Kitimat?

The short answer is no. Similar environmental conditions are experienced in other parts of the world, and it’s not too dangerous. Here’s why.

The Port of Kitimat lies at the head of the Douglas Channel. We proposed this location because the Douglas Channel is, simply put, one of the widest and deepest inland waterways on the West Coast of North America.

It’s important to also understand that over the past 25 years, more than 6,000 ships including 1,500 tankers have travelled in and out of the Port of Kitimat.

The transportation and movement of hydrocarbons is not new to Canada’s west coast. About 250 tankers—50 to 60 of them carrying crude oil—dock annually at the Port Metro Vancouver. In 2009, for example, approximately 55 million barrels of petroleum products (25 million of those crude oil) moved through the Port Metro Vancouver to various destinations, via tanker vessels.

As with all shipping activities weather concerns are legitimate. As is standard practice at ports and marine terminals worldwide, oil tankers would only transit coastal waters when conditions are safe and within operational limits.

We recently produced a video that outlines the marine operations and safety measures proposed for the Northern Gateway Project. The information and animations in the video represent an accurate description of the proposed marine operations.

Join the conversation

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:56:12 -0700

We recently launched this blog to provide a place to engage in a fact-based conversation about the Northern Gateway Project. We have kicked off the conversation by responding to a few frequently asked questions we receive from the media and from our direct engagement with the people who live along the proposed route—you'll see this in the next blog post, so check back soon.