Questioning heats up at pipeline hearings
How intervener groups prepared their evidence was the main focus Friday as Northern Gateway asked questions at the National Energy Board hearings.
A lawyer for the pipeline proponent repeatedly asked the Raincoast Conservation Society if it phrased its reports in an accusatory manner in order to generate more media attention. When the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research took the stand, much of the questioning focused on how thoroughly the authors examined the reports cited in footnotes.
The National Energy Board's Joint Review Panel (JRP) is examining the environmental assessment of the proposed Alberta oilsands to Kitimat pipeline and will issue a recommendation by the end of next year.
The Raincoast group submitted evidence that the environmental and socio-econmic assessment report prepared by Northern Gateway was inadequate, but company lawyer Richard Neufeld objected to the tone the conservation group used when pointing out the perceived inadequacies.
"This is not accusatory at all," report co-author Paul Paquet replied, noting it was a tone he would use in any scientific paper. "It doesn't reflect at all on the people who prepared it."
Neufeld later suggested that by aggressively going after the Northern Gateway report and by using the term "new evidence" in their own study, the Raincoast group was trying to generate more media attention for their cause rather than provide information helpful to the JRP.
"None of this was intended to generate media [coverage]," Paquet replied. "I was not aware this would be going to the media."
Neufeld also had some questions about the substance of Raincoast's findings, particularly as they related to oil spill flow modeling. He wanted to know why the used water flow as a proxy for oil movement.
Raincoast witness Christopher Darimond replied that the group tried to buy oil spill modeling software from international consulting firm Applied Science Associates (ASA), but were denied access to it. ASA provided consulting advice to Northern Gateway and some of the company's witnesses on previous panels were ASA employees.
"When you found out ASA intellectual property wasn't for sale, did you include on your team a [spill modeling expert]?" Neufeld asked.
Darimond said his group took a different approach and studied up on the issue to become oil spill modelers themselves.
Neufeld proceeded to ask about Raincoast's conclusions that parks and protected areas hundreds of kilometres away from the pipeline were at risk in the event of a spill. Darimond stood by the work and said park managers and other decision makers should take precautions.
Neufled handed off to his colleague Dennis Langen when it was the Northwest Institute's turn to answer questions. Although much of the evidence the institute provided related to the possible impact on salmon, most of Langen's questions revolved around sourcing issues.
Langen took issue with Northwest Institute contractor David Bustard's use of a Pembina Institute report Pipeline and Tanker Trouble when citing a section about the corrosiveness of bitumen.
After a long back-and-forth, Bustard conceded that he couldn't vouch for the entirety of Pembina Institute study, but said that had the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report into the Michigan spill had been available at the time he wrote his report, he would have used that document.
At one point during the sometimes testy exchange JRP chairwoman Sheila Leggett interjected, reminding both Bustard and Langen that they should wait for each other to finish and stop interrupting one another.
Langen and Bustard also sparred over a soon-to-be-filed route revision thath would take the proposed pipeline further away from the Morice River. Langen wanted to know if Bustard would agree if the new route was better because there would be less of a chance oil from a spill could get into the Morice River.
Bustard agreed having the new route further away is a good idea in theory, but refused to endorse it because he said there's not enough information on possible hazards in the area the new route traverses.
Two more interveners will face questioning next week when experts from ForestEthics Advocacy and the Haisla Nation take the stand.
Access article here: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20121123/PRINCEGEORGE0101/311239960/-1/princegeorge/questioning-heats-up-at-pipeline-hearings