Pipeline advocates, opponents clash over science
The attributes of one of the most high profile oilsands products was at the centre of a contentious day of National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline on Monday.
Opponents of the $6.5-billion project to link the Alberta ouilsands to Kitimat often point to diluted bitumen as one of the major reasons they think the pipeline shouldn't be built due to its possible corrosive nature and the difficulty in cleaning it up. Northern Gateway holds the position that dilbit is not more corrosive than any other product and their pipeline will be safe, resulting in little chance of a spill.
That dueling evidence was tested Monday, with both sides claiming victory. Northern Gateway believes it pointed out through its questioning of environmental ForestEthics Advocacy that evidence suggesting it's possible dilbit is more corrosiveness lacks credibility, while ForestEthics stands by its assertion that there's not enough evidence out there to warrant a conclusion either way.
"What's important for the people of B.C. to understand is that a lot of the criticism [of the project] is dressed up science and is poorly sourced and contradicted by a lot of scientific evidence presented to the panel," Northern Gateway spokesman Paul Stanway said after a lawyer for the company finished questioning three representatives from ForestEthics.
One of those witnesses, senior energy campaigned Nikki Skuce, said her group did a good job pointing out that recent reports into the issue were "a missed opportunity" because they didn't replicate the conditions the dilbit would be under in a pipeline.
"More work still needs to be done," she said, adding her group doesn't believe dilbit has been transported in pipelines long enough to determine how it reacts over time.
During cross-examination, Northern Gateway lawyer Laura Estep pointed to the amount of sulfur content in dilbit and the operational temperature of pipelines which ForestEthics used in their reports and asked the group to square that with different figures for the same factors Northern Gateway used in its filings. Estep wanted to know if ForestEthics witness Anthony Swift overstated the figures in his report filed to the Joint Review Panel (JRP).
"I will say the figures are not overstated for diluted bitumen pipelines [in general], but they are overstated for Northern Gateway," said Swift, who is a co-author of a report called Pipeline and Tanker Trouble.
Swift's report has come up often during the hearings, with other interveners using it to bolster their claims the pipeline will be unsafe and Northern Gateway pointing to sourcing issues, which it has implied undermine the credibility of the findings.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) also questioned ForestEthics witnesses on the corrosiveness of dilbit on Monday, using a similar line of questioning to Northern Gateway.
CAPP and Northern Gateway both took issue with ForestEthics attempt to have Swift certified as an expert witness, pointing to his lack of educational background in engineering. The JRP agreed and Swift testified as a lay witness, which meant he was not able to provide expert opinion in his answers.
In addition to dilbit studies, ForestEthics was also questioned on its tactics. Estep asked if the environmental group "appealed to people's fears and emotions" to generate interest in its cause and if was using a "no holds barred" approach to opposing the pipeline.
Skuce replied that Northern Gateway is "an emotionally charged project" but that her organization was more concerned about "sharing information and delivering facts."
Skuce has been outspoken about how she believes recent changes to federal legislation will make it easier for Northern Gateway to get approval for its pipeline and has said in media reports that she believes the company's lobbying of the federal government has helped it get those changes made. Under questioning from Estep, Skuce agreed lobbying is a legitimate activity but said her group is still at a disadvantage.
"There are definitely different levels of access," Skuce said. "Someone like Enbridge has met 145 times since July 2008 with government officials while we’ve struggled to access meetings with conservative federal government officials on the couple of trips we’ve made to Ottawa."
Estep also tried to flesh out whether the group was seeking media attention by participating in the hearings and releasing some of its evidence to the press prior to submitting it to the JRP. ForestEthics lawyer Barry Robinson objected to the questions and JRP chairwoman Sheila Leggett ruled that line of questioning wasn't relevant.
Witnesses from the Haisla Nation will face cross-examination from Northern Gateway to start Tuesday's hearings. The first federal government witness panel, which began its testimony Friday but was interrupted by the ForestEthics and Haisla witnesses, is expected to go back on the stand later Tuesday.
Access article here: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20121126/PRINCEGEORGE0101/311269964/-1/princegeorge01/pipeline-advocates-opponents-clash-over-science#