Category Archives: Great Bear Rainforest Part I: Oil Sands

View Great Bear Rainforest in a larger map. Click areas to see their labels. The light green shaded area shows the Great Bear Rainforest. The red line shows the proposed pipelines’ routes to and from Kitimat and Bruderheim. The blue, yellow, and green lines show proposed tanker routes. All designations are approximate. Dark green areas along the Pacific Northwest Coast depict the Pacific temperate rainforest region.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project is in the proposal stage, and would involve building  parallel 1,172 km pipelines between Bruderheim, Alberta and Kitimat, BC. The eastbound pipeline would import natural gas condensate (the chemical/petroleum based mixture used to dilute tar sands), and the westbound pipeline would export crude oil extracted from the tar sands in Alberta. This project was proposed a few years ago, but was postponed a few times before it has finally settled in application to the National Energy Board. Good news right now, for those of you who don’t like it, you can do something about it. As of May 5, 2011, a hearing order was issued for the project, and you can:

• Submit a letter of comment (deadline: March 13, 2012)
• Make an oral statement (deadline: October 6, 2011)
• Become an intervenor (deadline: July 14, 2011)
• Become a government participant (deadline: July 14, 2011)

A project advisory team is available for assistance if you need it. Toll-free number: 1-866-582-1884. Or e-mail them at GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca. An independent panel, the Joint Review Panel, will be providing an environmental assessment and a regulatory process. In January of this year, they requested more information from Enbridge.

Criticism of the project:

Laying these pipelines will disrupt over 1,000 streams and rivers in northern BC and call for big tankers on the west coast, which is already a delicate area due to industry, development, and dwindling numbers of salmon and other fish. The oil extracted from Alberta tar sands already serves the U.S. and southern Canada by way of inland pipes. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would specifically serve Asia, or PetroChina.

The process of tar sands oil extraction is a dirty one.

A couple autumns ago, on a nice cool evening in Burnaby, I headed to an evening speaker event at Burnaby’s Shadbolt Center, held by Andrew Nikiforuk, who wrote the W.O. Mitchell Book Prize winner, Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, and Ian McAllister, who wrote The Great Bear Rainforest: Canada’s Forgotten Coast. Andrew presented the dirty oil side, while Ian spoke of his work in the Great Bear Rainforest, and how disruptive and negative the Enbridge proposal would be.

Andrew laid it out, and a sample chapter is available here, so you can read it for yourself. He gives a lot of figures, but the dirty process of extracting this oil is worrisome. The tar sands are found in quantity in Canada and Venezuela. They are known as oil sands or bitimunous sands, and contain sand, clay, water, and a particular viscous and heavy form of petroleum that looks like tar, and is called bitumen. Alberta’s oil sands are the biggest reserves of this type of oil in the world, an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff. The sands must be mined and processed in order to extract the bitumen, which is then refined into oil. This extraction is more complex than conventional pumping of lighter-weight oil due to the separation processes to get the bitumen from the sand and clay. And then this bitumen needs to be upgraded. Because it is naturally so heavy and thick, it must be diluted by lighter hydrocarbons in order to make it transportable through the pipelines. The process to create oil from the resource found in the sands is:

1. Open pit mining with hydraulic and electric shovels. For areas where the bitumen is too deep to mine, steam injection, solvent injection, and firefloods are used.
2. Tar sands are sent via large trucks generally to an extraction plant.
3. Hot water processes separate the bitumen from sand and clay. A process called conditioning separates the small pieces of oil sand.
4. This bitumen is upgraded to a lighter substance, when combined with warm water, to form a slurry. Large amounts of water and energy are used to extract the bitumen and condition it.
5. Leftover water from mining is stored in tailings ponds.

About TWO TONS of tar sands are used to make ONE BARREL of oil. About 75% of the bitumen can be recovered from the sand. Only 20% is recoverable by surface mining (less than 75m). Andrew Nikiforuk stated, “Each barrel of bitumen produces three times as much greenhouse gas as one barrel of oil. Getting it out of the ground (think sucking cold maple syrup through a straw) requires immense amounts of water, terribly destructive collection methods, and intensive alterations to the environment (through pollution, infrastructure, etc.).”

The Athabasca River, linked to oil sands mining, is already degraded, thanks to current tar sands processes. See this 2006 report about the shrinking glacier that feeds the river.

One of the tar sands in Canada is known as the Athabasca oil sands. Alberta researchers found unsafe and exceeding levels of cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc, and other elements in water and snow near or downstream from the oil sands area. The researchers from the University of Alberta, Erin Kelly and David Schindler, designed a model to single out naturally occurring elements as opposed to elements coming from the tar sands area. Other researchers from Queens University in Ontario, and the Alaskan Oceana non-profit, contributed to the report. This report was published in the National Academy of Sciences last August.

About 65% of the water used in tar sands mining processes come from the Athabasca and its tributaries. 90% of this water cannot be returned to the river. Pollutants continue to contaminate the river. For every barrel of synthetic crude produced, between 2 and 4.5 barrels of water are needed. The existing tar sands projects are already allowed to withdraw 349 million cubic meters of water per year. Source: Connecting the Drops.

According to Energy Bulletin, oil sands use more water than the city of Calgary, there is an urgent need for water-sharing deals, and water is polluted in the extraction process. Just today, the Winnipeg Free Press reported that hydrocarbon chemicals known to be toxic to fish and suspected of causing cancer in humans, increased by 40% between 1999 and 2009. This report is from yesterday’s Environmental Science and Technology. In this article, ecologist Kevin Timoney found that “the more bitumen was mined, the more chemicals were likely to be found in the following year’s sediments.” He notes that the levels of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) found in sediments are already at levels that “can cause liver disease, reproductive impairment, and stunted growth in fish.”

Tankers on the coast

For a long time there has been a federal moratorium that has protected BC’s coast from crude oil tankers. Of course, if the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project goes through, this all will change. According to West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL), 525,000 barrels a day of crude oil would be shipped from Alberta to Kitimat, BC, resulting in 225 oil tankers a year on BC’s northern coast, at the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest. Because these waters are difficult and dangerous to navigate, tanker accidents and spills are likely. WCEL stated that, according to a report from Simon Fraser University, BC would have the probability of many small spills each year and a catastrophic spill of over 10,000 barrels every 12 years. British Columbia would also be vulnerable to an oil spill disaster on the scale of Exxon Valdez, which would devastate the coast for generations.

Pipeline disrupting thousands of rivers and streams, and other ecology, in British Columbia

The two parallel pipelines, one carrying condensate to Alberta, and the other carrying crude oil to Kitimat, BC, would cross, or run parallel to, over 1,000 streams and rivers in BC. The Pembina Insitute’s report says that these rivers are major salmon rivers in the Upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat watersheds. It’s not just salmon, but other fish, wildlife, bird species, plant life, and so on that would be affected. Salmon ecosystems are already stressed in British Columbia, as are forests. Spills and leaks from the pipes could be devastating. The Pembina report says:

The greatest impact on salmon during pipeline construction occurs when a pipeline is built across a stream or river. Runoff and discharge — from excavating and draining trenches, disposing of fill material, and testing pipes — can end up in rivers and streams. This raises water temperatures and results in increased levels of sediment, including pollutants such as total dissolved solids. Increased sediment in rivers and streams can reduce the availability of food, smother spawning habitat, and irritate the gills of fish, making it more difficult for them to breathe.

Generally, these problems are most severe during pipeline construction and can be minimized by scheduling construction during times when salmon may be less affected. However, the proposed pipelines would cross or run parallel to rivers and streams where millions of salmon fry and juvenile fish, such as coho, chinook and steelhead, reside year-round.

Pipelines fail due to erosion, stress, avalanches, mudslides, and other events. The National Energy Board found that there is an average of one rupture every 16 years for every 1,000 km of pipeline in Canada. A similar study by the Alberta Energy Utilities Board found that in 2005 there were 2.4 failures for every 1,000 km of pipeline in Alberta.

The Great Bear Rainforest area, which would be foremost effected, is a 2-million hectare home to thousands of species of birds, animals, and plants. The area is a beautiful one of mountains, fjords, rivers, streams, lakes, and forests. There are 1,000 year old cedar trees and tall old Sitka spruces. There are rich salmon streams and entire ecosystems surrounding not just salmon but the way of life, including orcas, eagles, black bears, grizzlies, the mysterious white Kermode (spirit) bear, and marine-diet wolves. This is one of that largest temperate rainforests in the world, a large carbon sink, and one of the last standing original coastal temperate rainforests, as close to 60% have been destroyed. Already there is stress due to clearcut logging, logging roads, and other development.

The oil sands project also uses a lot of water, as shown above. Water conservation is becoming more of an issue since supplies are limited and water quality is being degraded everywhere across the world. A recent article by David Suzuki on Cnews said:

The consequences of water shortages and contamination are severe and numerous. Many of us remember the tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, when seven people died and as many as 2,300 became ill after drinking from wells containing high levels of E. coli bacteria. It’s an issue that many First Nations people here have to deal with every day. In fact, around the world, water-related illness is one of the leading causes of death, mainly in the developing world. Health authorities estimate that unclean water kills three million people a year, including close to two million children who die of diarrhea because of bad water. Worldwide, researchers estimate that as many as half of the people in hospital are there because of waterborne diseases.

Water shortages also mean less is available for irrigation, which has a severe impact on our ability to grow food. University of Alberta ecology professor David Schindler has argued that “Water scarcity will become one of the most important economic and environmental issues of the 21st century in the western prairie provinces.” A Senate report last year concluded that summer flows in many Alberta rivers are already down by about 40 per cent from where they were a century ago.

We must also consider what will become of people as water becomes more scarce and contaminated. Along with the other issues around climate change, this could trigger massive refugee crises.

First Nations and the tar sands industry clash

There are at least 17 First Nations territories in the Great Bear Rainforest and the Haida Gwaii, according to Nature.org. The total population is estimated at 18,000 – 20,000, and many of them have homes that are accessible only by sea.

Last May, Chief Donny Testawich of the Duncan’s First Nation joined with a Horse Lake First Nation’s lawyer to present at the Supreme Court in the matter of the Carrier Sekani and the Rio Tinto case, which determines how Canada’s energy regulators are to deal with conflict between First Nations’ rights and major energy projects. Just recently, First Nations of the Yinka Dene Alliance representation warned CIC to not continue to finance the Enbridge project. It is clear that First Nations groups in Alberta are fighting against existing and potential Athabascan projects, and are also against the proposed Enbridge project.

With Stephen Harper’s recent election win and the hearing order, many are concerned about just where the pipeline is going. The Times Colonist reported yesterday that First Nations are hoping Harper follows through on some of his previous promises, especially with settling land claims, rights, and implementing treaties. “More than 80 First Nations have objected to the proposal, but the Conservatives, unlike other major political parties, do not want a tanker ban in areas such as Hecate Strait, Douglas Channel and Queen Charlotte Sound.”

U.S. Enbridge has already broken environmental laws or has caused environmental problems, harming wildlife and health of nearby residents.

In 2002, a cracked pipe in Wisconsin spilled 1,200 barrels of oil. In 2002, a rupture in Minnesota leaked 6,000 barrels. In 2009, 4,000 barrels spilled in Edmonton, Alberta. In July of 2010, there was an Enbridge pipeline break that spilled three million litres of crude oil in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to the a report by the Polaris Institute, between 1999 and 2009, there were 713 spills that released close to 134,000 barrels (21.3 million litres) of hydrocarbons into the environment.

In 2009, Enbridge agreed to pay 1.1 million in fines for violating Wisconsin’s waterway and wetland protection and stormwater laws. According to Oil Sands Review, there were numerous and widespread violations and Enbridge “was penalized for allowing more than 500 documented environmental violations including 282 wetland violations (soil mixing, rutting, unauthorized clearing, improper restoration), and 176 land disturbance and erosion control violations near navigable waters and wetlands.” These included sediments ending up in streams, unnecessary clearing of wooded wetlands, and disposal of trench soils in wetlands.

In 2008, 1,600 ducks died from complications arising out of landing in one of Syncrude’s tailings pond. Hundreds of other waterfowl have met similar catastrophe.

With their power, Enbridge has also been able to negotiate ROWs (right of way agreements) and MOUs (memorandums of understanding) with private landowners and First Nations. The Polaris Report lists their own lawsuits as well.

Corporate greed

I will only post a few numbers here, taken from the Polaris Institute report mentioned above.

• President & Chief Executive Officer: 2009 salary was $6,021,930.
• Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Corporate Development: 2009 salary, $2,021,640.
• Executive VP, Gas Transportation & International: 2009 salary, $2,345,343.

I think you get the idea, and doubt I need to say anything else about this subject.

Oil is not a sustainable energy

China would have to invest quite a bit in the Enbridge oil sands project, and it’s not really clear if that investment would be worth it financially, even if you don’t consider all the other negative impacts of the proposed pipeline. But you have to consider ecological effects because those are included in any long-term sustainable action that would produce such a heavy oil that costs more, both ecologically and economically, than the lighter oil found in other reserves, such as in Saudi Arabia (the first big oil reserve; the bitumen in Canada comes in second).

According to Green Energy Investors, the three main oil sands in Canada could supply total world needs for up to 15 years (this report is a few years old). The oil sands are already supplying the U.S. and parts of Canada. Recently, Shell announced that it would increase its Scotford expansion capacity from 100,000 barrels per day to 255,000. So, whether or not the new pipelines are built to BC, Canada’s got something that everyone wants.

However, most people realize that while there may be plenty of reserves of oil left in the world, the cheaper oil supplies have been or are being depleted. Drilling deep or mining/extracting from soil and sands are expensive methods of retrieving this resource that everyone’s dependent on. The oil that’s harder to get to, that’s getting attractive to some buyers, is called marginal oil, and as cheaper reserves run out, higher oil prices are here to stay, regardless of claims of “endless” resources in the oil sands or in deep-drilling.

This has led to researchers trying to find greener energy alternatives. If such resources take over in the future, it may not be a wise investment, strictly financially speaking, for China or any other country to invest in another oil sands pipeline project when newer and different energy sources must be found anyway.

I wrote this not to reach out to lawmakers, rich CEOs, or anyone else but the common reader, like me, who cares something for our planet and could feel empowered to make changes in their own lives so that the ecology of our world, of one of our last great temperate rainforests, isn’t damaged forever. Forever is one of those forever words. Meaning, once you screw it up enough, there’s no going back. How does that fare for our future generations? Let’s put the pocket book away. Let’s put our wagging fingers away. Let’s put for now the blame game away. As consumers and voters, we individually have the power to change the course of the future. It starts with us. Whether we stop driving so much, walk more, take transit, bicycle more, or become active in hearings within our communities — we are driving, pardon the pun, the way of the future. We can do something, bit by bit.

Other resources:

Royal Society of Canada report