Invited Testimony to the Canadfian Senate, April 4, 2019 re “Bill C-69, Review of Pipelines In Canada”

Invited Testimony to the Canadian Senate, April 3, 2019 re “Bill C-48, Tanker Ban on the west coast of Canada”

September 6, 2018

Subject: Canada at a Cross Road, Bills C-48 and C-69

As disastrous as the TMX legal decision is, sober thought by the Senate and the responsible Ministers is essential to kill C-48 (Tanker Moratorium) and C-69 (replacing the NEB). Reasons:

1. Bill C-48. You have concluded, with your approval of TMX, that tanker operations can be done safely. Yet Bill C-48 claims the opposite from low-traffic ports such as Kitimat and Prince Rupert. Provide a path forward for the Indigenous-backed Eagle Spirit Pipeline. See Valdez Alaska’s safe tanker operations for the last 30 years (Attachment 1).

2. Bill C-69. Your “talking points” promoting the benefits of this Bill lack all credibility (Attachment 2). The approval pathway with Bill C-69 will be rife with never ending challenges – Applicants brave enough to test the waters of Bill C-69 will drown in a sea of extra challenges such as climate change and gender equity.

3. Modernize the NEB, Don’t Destroy It. An agency “respected internationally” and employing “among the most stringent of regulatory regimes.” (your Expert Panel) should be tweaked and updated, not destroyed. My proposed 10 Step Modernization Plan is provided (Attachment 3).

4. History, the Best Teacher. In 1971-1973 Alaska was at a cross road. They chose land claim settlements, Prudhoe Bay and the TransAlaska oil pipeline. The result – First Nations leading the Alaska economy and an excellent 40 year record of environmental and wildlife protection (Attachment 4). Don’t take my word for this. The 21 member native organization currently unanimously supports ANWR drilling and exploration because “..resource development and ecological preservation can co-exist….”.

We are at a crossroad. I hope you chose the path that maintains Canada as a beacon of opportunity and economic strength.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly

Wim M. Veldman, M.Sc., FEIC, P.Eng.

July 10, 2018

The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., MP
Minister of Transport
mintc@tc.gc.ca

Subject: Bill C-48, Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

The Honourable Marc Garneau:

Thank you for your expeditious June 27, 2018 email response to my May 11, 2018 submission (both attached).

You state the reasons for and the impact of Bill C-48, namely it “…will protect the environment and livelihood of northern British Columbia coastal communities” and that you are “…demonstrating that a clean environment and a strong economy can go hand-inhand” and further you state that the $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan will create “…jobs for middle class Canadians…”.

This selective tanker traffic ban and its serious negative economic impacts on western and in fact all of Canada, has been detailed by many national and provincial politicians.

In your previous life as an astronaut–I am a huge fan and have seen three Space Shuttle launches–you accepted risks knowing that all possible design and operational measures were undertaken to minimize the risk. Does tanker traffic have zero risk? No. Can the risks be minimized to an acceptable level? Yes.

Current operational protocol and equipment to support oil tanker operations from the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) terminal in Valdez, Alaska, post the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, clearly demonstrate that, for 30 years in a similar, or even more challenging coastal environment, tanker operations can be done safely.

Key highlights from the Valdez operations are: (see www.alyeska-pipeline.com):

• a Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS) consisting of a 250 person workforce, 5 Escort Tugs, 5 General Purpose Tugs, 9 Oil Recovery Barges, and 108 Skimming Units and 80k of booms.

• 2 Escort tugs, each with more than 12,000 horsepower, accompany each loaded tanker. New Tugs were just commissioned this month,

• the system is overseen by the 18 member Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, wholly funded by Alyeska but “absolutely independent” (www.pwsrcac.org).

As demonstrated a tanker moratorium is not necessary to protect the environment.

And please, to put it bluntly, do not insult the intelligence of the public by claiming that shutting down tanker traffic and thus future oil developments and pipelines, results in a “strong economy” and “jobs for middle class Canadians.”

Wim M. Veldman, M.Sc., FEIC, P.Eng.

Alaska – Actions

• In 1971 the U.S. Federal Government passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which gave the natives the right to select 44 million acres plus nearly $1 billion. This groundbreaking Act paved the way for the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in 1973. The rest is history.
• In 2012 the Obama Administration approved drilling in the Chukchi sea, about 120 off Alaska’s northwest coast.
• In 2017, the Trump Administration opened a narrow zone in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to exploratory drilling.
• The State of Alaska is presently spearheading a multi-year application process for a proposed natural gas line for LNG export.

Alaska – Impacts

What has been the economic and environmental impact of oil development in Alaska since the seventies:

• Alaska residents, as a result of oil revenues, pay no state taxes and in fact are paid to be residents,
• the Alaska Native Corporations have thrived. In 2016 their combined annual revenue of the corporations was $11 billion, three times the combined revenue of all other Alaska-based businesses,
• the “Voice of the Arctic Inupiat,” a 21 member organization in northern Alaska unanimously supports ANWR drilling. They note that Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in the Americas “…has demonstrated for four decades that resource development and ecological preservation can co-exist in the Arctic.” The Central Arctic Caribou herd several years ago had a population ten times greater than at the start-up of Prudhoe Bay.

July 10, 2018

The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., MP
Minister of Transport
mintc@tc.gc.ca

Subject: Bill C-48, Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

The Honourable Marc Garneau:

Thank you for your expeditious June 27, 2018 email response to my May 11, 2018 submission (both attached).

You state the reasons for and the impact of Bill C-48, namely it “…will protect the environment and livelihood of northern British Columbia coastal communities” and that you are “…demonstrating that a clean environment and a strong economy can go hand-inhand” and further you state that the $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan will create “…jobs for middle class Canadians…”.

This selective tanker traffic ban and its serious negative economic impacts on western and in fact all of Canada, has been detailed by many national and provincial politicians.

In your previous life as an astronaut–I am a huge fan and have seen three Space Shuttle launches–you accepted risks knowing that all possible design and operational measures were undertaken to minimize the risk. Does tanker traffic have zero risk? No. Can the risks be minimized to an acceptable level? Yes.

Current operational protocol and equipment to support oil tanker operations from the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) terminal in Valdez, Alaska, post the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, clearly demonstrate that, for 30 years in a similar, or even more challenging coastal environment, tanker operations can be done safely.

Key highlights from the Valdez operations are: (see www.alyeska-pipeline.com):

• a Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS) consisting of a 250 person workforce, 5 Escort Tugs, 5 General Purpose Tugs, 9 Oil Recovery Barges, and 108 Skimming Units and 80k of booms.

• 2 Escort tugs, each with more than 12,000 horsepower, accompany each loaded tanker. New Tugs were just commissioned this month,

• the system is overseen by the 18 member Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, wholly funded by Alyeska but “absolutely independent” (www.pwsrcac.org).

As demonstrated a tanker moratorium is not necessary to protect the environment.

And please, to put it bluntly, do not insult the intelligence of the public by claiming that shutting down tanker traffic and thus future oil developments and pipelines, results in a “strong economy” and “jobs for middle class Canadians.”

Wim M. Veldman, M.Sc., FEIC, P.Eng.

• Indigenous backers of the $16 Billion EagleSpirit Pipeline to Kitimat have filed a civil claimin the Supreme Court of BC against the ban ontankers,
• with respect to the moratorium on arctic drilling, let’s hear the views of northern leaders:
  • Nellie Cournoyea, former Premier of NWT and longtime chair of the Inuvialuit Corporation stated “people are still here, people want to work, people need jobs.”
  • Bob Mcleod, Premier of NWT stated the moratorium is “…undermining the ability of northern residents to make a living by … rigid models designed by the green lobby” that result in “…hundreds of billions of dollars of oil and gas will be left in the ground.”
  • Former Nunavut Premier Peter Taptuna has stated the drilling moratorium “could cripple Nunavut’s future financial independence.”

Meanwhile tankers daily ply the St. Lawrence River to deliver oil to Quebec from overseas, a risk that would be avoided with Energy East.

Alaska – Actions

In 1971 the U.S. Federal Government passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which gave the natives the right to select 44 million acres plus nearly $1 billion. This groundbreaking Act paved the way for the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in 1973. The rest is history.

In 2012 the Obama Administration approved drilling in the Chukchi sea, about 120 off Alaska’s northwest coast.

In 2017, the Trump Administration opened a narrow zone in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to exploratory drilling.

5. List Directly Impacted Stakeholders. Criteria and list to be jointly established by the NEB the federal government. Agree to the timing, and type of each consultation step.

6. Limit Hearing Participation and Funding to Directly Impacted Stakeholders. All others may submit their views in writing at their own cost.

7. Majority Rules. It is not reasonable that the opinions of one or two First Nations can overrule the plus 40 groups that support Trans Mountain Expansion. The same held true for Northern Gateway.

8. Establish an Independent Review Board for the NEB process. A check and balance on NEB’s review steps. Their report would be included in the NEB decision.

9. Enhance transparency of the NEB’s and government’s decisions. Include layman summaries.

10 Publish a follow up on NEB’s Approval Conditions every six months until operations commence.

Wim M. Veldman, M.Sc., FEIC, P.Eng.

www.wimveldman.com
wmveldman@gmail.com
May 11, 2018
Calgary, Alberta

June 13, 2017

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD MODERNIZATION
EXPERT PANEL
REVIEW OF MAY 15, 2017 REPORT

Thirty (30) independent pipeline professionals representing 1,055 years of experience in the design, approval, construction and operation of pipelines in Canada, U.S. and internationally provide our comments to the Expert Panel’s Report to modernize the National Energy Board (NEB).

REVIEW

We believe that rather than fulfilling your mandate “… to position the NEB as a modern, efficient and effective regulator and regain public trust”, your recommendations will have the exact opposite effect. Our reasons for this harsh assessment are:

• as you indicated “…the NEB is respected internationally…” and you“…heard that benchmarking has placed Canada among the most stringent of regulatory regimes.” (Page 16),
• the NEB has exclusive responsibility for regulating pipelines under federal jurisdiction. Compare that to the U.S. where three separate agencies namely FERC, the EPA and PHMSA have roles in various stages of a pipeline’s life.
• the NEB is already “modernizing” – compare the number of and details of conditions for the Mackenzie Gas Project (2004), Northern Gateway (2013) and TransMountain Expansion (TMX) (2016). A federal audit of the NEB in 2015 indicated the need for it to improve post approval tracking of its conditions – following which the NEB’s conditions for TMX stipulated a robust tracking system. You acknowledge that the NEB has adapted in many areas (Page 16).
• efficiency and effectiveness will dramatically decrease if part of the NEB is relocated to Ottawa, remote from most of the subject matter experts, pipelines, and operators subject to its oversight.
• a one year upfront review to “determine alignment with national interest by the Governor in Council before detailed review…” will certainly not improve efficiency. Reviews could be halted, delayed or altered pre- and post elections.
• increased political decisions up front will diminish, not regain, public trust. “Participants told us that in many cases they did not object to the outcome of a decision, so much as the opaque process by which it was achieved. This is especially the case for the decisions rendered by Cabinet where decisions are protected by Cabinet confidence…” (Page 13).
• if a project is approved up front in the “national interest”, logic would conclude that public trust in the detailed review would diminish – stakeholders would rightfully believe that the comprehensive review will have a foregone conclusion and a project proponent may also feel less need to offer its utmost for public acceptance.
• “real and substantive participation of Indigenous peoples, on their own terms…” is recommended. The method of Nation-to-Nation consultation with Indigenous People is presently unknown as it is being developed by a Working Group of Ministers under the leadership of the Minister of Justice.
• consultation is a two-way street. The NEB’s decision report for TMX outlines the refusal of certain Indigenous groups, as well as several mayors to participate in the hearing process – they have stated they will oppose TMX regardless.
• upon establishment of clear and consistent criteria for Nation-to-Nation consultation, will the Indigenous Peoples have the power to veto? If the vast majority of Indigenous groups approve a  project – Northern Gateway and TMX for example – will an individual Indigenous group, in the Vancouver area for example, have the power to override the majority opinion?
• you propose radically increasing the scale and scope of stakeholder engagement to “build trust and drive better outcomes for all Canadians.” Stakeholders that could be directly impacted already have every opportunity to participate and in many cases, to receive funding. Other than perhaps nuclear power plants, pipelines already undergo greater public scrutiny and stakeholder input than any other proposed major project.