Ever Changing Design of Pipeline Project Challenged
Thursday, October 11, 2012 @ 3:45 PM
Prince George, B.C.- The Joint Review Panel hearing into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, heard concerns today about the ever changing design and route of the twin lines.
Legal Counsel for a Coalition of environmental groups, Tim Leadem, noted there were alternate routes being proposed, alternate methods for crossing rivers and streams, “Very much, what’s going on here is a work in progress” remarked Leadem as he asked the Enbridge panel for comment “where it will go, what it will look like, we don’t really know at this stage. Would that be fair to say?”
Enbridge experts say the preliminary design has been submitted “But really this is a natural progression of the design as we are incorporating feedback from the regulatory process, from on going consultation, discussions with Aboriginal communities. So really this is a natural evolution of the design.”
There was also extensive questioning about the tunnels through rock. At issue is what will be done with the rock removed from the tunnel. The question was asked if any of the rock was known to be acid generating, and if identified as such, how the proponent plans to deal with it. The expert panel responded that rock removed from a tunnel would first be visually inspected to any sign of pyrites, and if any are found, that rock would be set aside for further analysis and treatment. When posed with a similar question later in the day, the expert panel responded “I think we have a pretty good handle on dealing with the potential of acid generating material.”
The day is wrapping up with cross examination by the Haisla Nation. The session started with Haisla Counsel, Jesse McCormick asking who would make the determination of what is considered “acceptable ” risk as the project is being designed to a standard of “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP). McCormick says there are many who believe the real standard is “As Low As We Think Is OK.”
Enbridge’s expert panel responded saying “there is no engineered structure that has no inherent risk” and says there is additional work that needs to be done in relation to some of the areas which still have unacceptable risk. “It would be wonderful if we could say the science of risk analysis was exact enough that would enable us to be completely confident that the numbers we generate are going to be absolute and going to represent what to expect and so on.”
The Haisla anticipate it will take about 12 hours to complete their questioning , and will return in the morning to continue their line of questioning.
Comments
It appears this entire project is a fairy tale.
Cheers
Hey, if they can do it with the F-35 stealth fighter, why not Enbridge …. LOL
oops, I should not laugh. Much more taxpayer money in the F-35 than in Enbridge … and considerably more than in Boundary Road… ;-)
Hey, Enbridge has lots of Chinese taxpayer money in its proposal …..
Wait …. isn’t the F-35 a plane built by private industry? … but it’s built for governments ….. so is this a P3 project?
A private for profit corporation or two getting together to build a plane guaranteed to be purchased by government and government funding the development of the plane …. what a sweetheart deal, say what? Does not get much better than that. And all those people making more than $75,000/year not even needing to disclose their salaries …….
The world is getting crazier by the day.
I’ve just heard lots of outright lies through omission on the part of Enbridge and their surrogates. The BC Chamber of Commerce guy on CBC today was unreal in his ignorance of the issues, omissions, and downright misleading propaganda (not serving their members well at all IMO). It sounds like we are getting the same thing at the hearings.
I wish I didn’t have to work and I could sit in on these hearings… its a shame the people we have to rely on to protect our interests and what money will buy when it comes to approval.
Hey Eagleone. Might you share with us the ‘lots’ of outright lies..
The Enbridge hearings can be heard or transcripts can be read at –
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/prtcptngprcss/hrng-eng.html
It is really entertaining to listen to as the Enbridge expert witnesses seem not to be experts, do not know the answers and mishear or seemingly want to answer many of the questions with rhetoric.
Well for one the Chamber of Commerce guy was trying to say only the Enbridge oil would be priced at the market rates and our domestic oil wouldn’t be effected… that is an outright lie.
Then the Enbridge spokeswomen tried to say the Kalamazoo spill was completely cleaned up… then when told the EPA called them back just this week to continue cleaning up, then she said ‘oh ya they’ve been there the whole time they never left,’ as if she never said what she had just said a half minute earlier… then the Chamber of Commerce guy takes it one step further and claims the whole report by the EPA was recalled because they agreed that their conclusions were erroneous. To me those are more outright lies… if they are speaking on behalf of the project they should know better, these aren’t just random people off the street after all.
Comments for this article are closed.