The fate of Enbridge's proposed $4.5-billion pipeline in northern B.C. hinges on a federal regulatory process, which is overseen by a three-member review panel.
Two of the review panel members are from Calgary; another is from an Ojibway First Nation community in Ontario.
Expect a lengthy process to examine the Northern Gateway pipeline that will also likely include hearings in communities along the route, possibly in Prince George and perhaps in some remote First Nations villages.
The quasi-judicial hearings will sometimes be technical -- examining the engineering of the project and rates charged to ship oil -- but do allow the public to give input. In fact, people can apply for federal funding to help review and comment on the project, which includes participating in hearings.
High-level federal review panels rarely say no to natural resource projects.
A review panel established by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency said no in 2007 to the proposed $200 million expansion of Northgate's gold and copper mine operation in northern B.C.
In 2004, the National Energy Board said no to the construction of a power line for the Sumas 2 natural gas-fired power plant just south of Abbotsford on the American side of the border.
But the rejections were highly unusual.
Normally, the review panels approve projects with conditions.
For example, when the NEB approved Enbridge's more-than-$3-billion Alberta Clipper pipeline expansion to the U.S., a number of conditions were attached, including that the company hold emergency response exercises on a South Saskatchewan River crossing.
Although the Northern Gateway pipeline has been in the planning stages since 2003, it's unclear when the official review process will start.
Enbridge must first submit its application, delayed several times already since last year, but expected to take place before the end of March. Until then, the proceedings are considered to be preliminary in nature.
The energy firm's application, expected to run into the thousands of pages, will first be checked by the panel for completeness.
If it's deemed complete, the panel can proceed to the hearing stage; if not, Enbridge will have to make changes and resubmit its application.
While it's expected that there will be public hearings in communities along the 1,170-km route, that's a decision the panel has yet to make. The panel could decide to hold written hearings.
There are no hard timelines but the process could last as long as two years.
The federal government Major Projects Management Office suggests a timeline of 18 months once the application is submitted, but the Sumas 2 project, which garnered massive widespread opposition, had a review process that lasted four years.
The scope of the review of the Enbridge project has been determined, and includes the oil and condensate pipeline, marine terminal and the transport of oil and condensate along the coast.
The review will consider the environmental effects of the project, including the possibility of malfunctions and accidents, as well as cumulative impacts with other projects or activities that have or will take place.
The review will also consider comments from the public and aboriginal peoples, plus measures that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project.
The need for the project will also be examined.
From a broader perspective, the review is meant to determine, "all things considered," whether the project is in the public interest, says Paul Lackoff, a spokesman for the National Energy Board.
The criteria for determining the public interest includes a question of whether the project is economically efficient and viable. The panel must also answer whether the pipeline can be built safely and will it be harmful to the environment.
The project has already attracted opposing views, which are likely to be aired during the review.
Enbridge and its supporters -- which include some northern B.C. municipal, business and First Nations leaders -- say the project will bring a much-needed economic injection to northern B.C. through contract opportunities and jobs.
Enbridge has also argued the project has merit because it opens up a new market in Asia for Alberta's oil sands. Virtually all tar sands oil is transported to the U.S.
Opponents -- which include environmental, community and some First Nations groups -- argue the risks of a spill along the pipeline route and from oceangoing tankers outweigh any economic benefit.
Those who believe the pipeline presents an economic opportunity have faith in the federal panel review.
"I'm confident in the processes that have been outlined by the joint review panel that there will be both an opportunity to identify those concerns and, secondly, to come up with some response to how those concerns will or won't be addressed," says Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers, who sits on a community advisory board set up by Enbridge to gather input on the pipeline project.
There is, however, an array of groups that don't believe the panel review is adequate to examine the complex issues involved in the pipeline project. They want, instead, a broad public inquiry that addresses big-picture questions, noting that the inquiry will not consider the impacts of increased Alberta oil sands production, for example.
There is also a concern that the review panel -- notwithstanding information that will come from a technical Transport Canada marine and shipment review -- does not have the expertise to examine the issue of tanker traffic.
The critics also stress the review process virtually never says no and, as a result, approval is a foregone conclusion.
The critics include northern B.C.-based environmental groups like Friends of Wild Salmon, the Douglas Channel Watch, the Headwaters Initiative, Northwest Watch and the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.
"Northern communities have to fully understand the risks of this project, or else we'll all be in the dark when a decision is made," said Dieter Wagner, co-ordinator of Douglas Channel Watch.
There was a public inquiry in 1977 sparked by a proposal to build an oil port in Kitimat and a pipeline to Edmonton.
The inquiry was adjourned after the company pulled the plug on its proposal but commissioner Andrew Thompson did deliver a report in 1978 that found widespread concern among coastal community members over the endeavour. First Nations have also criticized the formation of the federal review of the Enbridge pipeline.
"Investors should be very nervous. First Nations are not adequately consulted through these flawed processes," said Takla Lake First Nation chief Dolly Abraham.
Some groups, like the Prince George-based Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance, have pointed to the panel reviewing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as a more appropriate model. That seven-member panel includes four First Nations representatives from along the pipeline route, a NEB member and two others with experience in natural resource projects, one from Vancouver and one from Ottawa.
The three-member review panel for the Northern Gateway pipeline includes two NEB members from Calgary and a third temporary member, from an Ojibway community in Ontario, who has experience in natural resources. There are no members on the panel who are from along the pipeline route.
Enbridge argues that the federal review panel would be more rigorous than a public inquiry. Public inquiries are less structured and may leave some interested parties under-represented, says the company.
"You may end up picking a process that is not what you are looking for," said Roger Harris, Enbridge's vice-president of aboriginal and community partners.
THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL
SHEILA LEGGETT, CHAIR
Has been a member of the NEB since 2006, and is currently vice-chair. Before joining the NEB, Leggett was a member of the Natural Resources Conservation Board, which conducts hearings into resource projects in Alberta. She has also been a board member of Alberta Ecotrust, a joint industry-environmental initiative. She has a master's degree in biology from the University of Calgary, worked for several consulting firms and has a background in assessing and remediating soils impacts from industrial operations, especially on agricultural land. She lives in Calgary.
HANS MATTHEWS
Matthews is a professional geologist with more than 25 years experience in the mining, minerals and resource management industries. He is a temporary member of the NEB, appointed earlier this year.
Matthews has a Bachelor of Science in Geology from Brock University, and has worked since 1991 with aboriginal communities in supporting economic development initiatives. He has been president of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association. Matthews is a member of the Wahnapitae First Nation in Ontario, where he resides.
KENNETH BATEMAN
Bateman is a Canadian energy lawyer and former vice-president of Legal Affairs for Enmax, a large energy distribution, supply and service company.
He joined the NEB in 2006.
He has experience in the energy sector, but also in sustainable energy projects like wind farms.
He holds a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Alberta and a Master's degree of International Business Management from the American Graduate School of International Management. He lives in Calgary.
ONLINE
Documents that are part of the federal review of Enbridge's $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline can be found at public registries on the websites of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
- NEB: bit.ly/aAArZz
- CEAA: bit.ly/9ce43E
TOMORROW: Inside the pipeline public relations battle
