Friends of Wild Salmon Pipeline and Tanker Blog

JRP Final Technical Hearing Summary: Edmonton, Day 7

Hana Boye representing the Haisla Nation kept the questions coming on her second day of questioning Northern Gateway’s economic experts.

Ms. Boye asked a set of questions about oil supply forecasts. She had noticed that Enbridge’s forecasts vary, and that forecasts Enbridge executives give to investors aren’t the same as those filed in the Joint Review Panel proceeding for the project.

She asked the witness panel, “Have you given a different supply forecast to your shareholders and investors than the forecast provided to the Panel in these hearings?”

The answer was that Enbridge, CAPP, NEB and others produce forecasts regularly, at different times with ongoing changing conditions: differences are to be expected.

Ms. Boye had many questions about the condensate pipeline. The Northern Gateway project consists of two pipelines and two applications. Conceivably, neither could receive approval, or one could, or both could.

Early questioning had revealed that this pipeline wasn’t receiving the same attention as the oil pipeline. Muse Stancil, who had been engaged to produce an oil markets analysis for the project, had not been hired to do a similar analysis of condensate markets.

In 2010 Enbridge had started up its Southern Lights Pipeline, a 180,000 barrel per day condensate pipeline from Illinois to Alberta which has a potential expansion capacity of 300,000 bpd. Is demand sufficient to support another condensate pipeline?

Ms. Boye pointed at Enbridge’s apparent uninterest in the commercial viability of the condensate pipeline. The witnesses say basically that they are leaving it up to the market. If shippers determine there’s sufficient condensate available and customers willing to signa contract, those shippers will commit to capacity on the condensate pipeline.

Ms. Boye moved into an intriguing area when she questioned Mark Anielski about his “natural capital and ecological goods and services” study. Mr. Anielski said that he had been engaged to look only at the pipeline and land-based  impacts, nothing beyond the right-of-way, no river or salmon impacts, and less land than NGP’s project will actually occupy.

For a more detailed summary, please see the following document: