Canada at a Crossroad
I marvel at the abilities of some professionals to so succinctly analyze a problem, and— while sparing the reader any opportunity to misconstrue which side of the fence the facts are planted— bring together history and modernity in answer. To sit on this letter from Wim Veldman for a second longer would be a great disservice to you, dear readers. This is the sort of thoughtful reasoning that we should all be ravenously integrating into the conversations we face on a near daily basis. Thank you Wim for the history lesson and expert unraveling of such a charged topic.
The following is a copy and paste of Wim M Veldman’s letters to the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau et al. with only minor edits formatting edits to get the content to fit the blog page. I have asked Mr. Veldman’s permission to share it on this platform as my readership is comprised of a diverse group of professionals, business owners, technologists, and consultants who are directly involved in the conversations being had about the future of Canadian energy. If this content is appealing to your colleagues, please share a link to the page.
September 6, 2018
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Hon. Marc Garneau, Hon. Amerjeet Sohi, Hon. Catherine Mckenna, Hon. Bill Morneau, Hon. Douglas Black, QC
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:
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).
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.
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).
• Bill C-69 will eliminate future court challenges – there won’t be any new pipeline applications to challenge.
• Regardless of the process, some groups will oppose any and all pipelines. Establish that opposition does not equal a veto. The views of the majority of the directly impacted stakeholders should govern.
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.
[ATTACHMENT 1 from above]
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.
[ATTACHMENT 2 from above]
Bill C-69 Objectives vs. Reality
Objective 1: Modernize the NEB
Reality: The 2017 NEB Modernization Expert Panel stated:
"NEB is respected internationally"
"benchmarking has placed Canada among the most stringent of regulatory regimes"
The NEB has evolved - compare scope and detail of approval conditions from Mackenzie Gas (2004) to TransMountain (2016).
McKenna has stated that TransMountain expansion "would have been approved" under Bill C-69.
Conclusion: The 2016 TMX decision report is detailed (157 conditions) and transparent - the process met the C-69 requirements. Thus the logical outcome of the modernization directive would have been to tweak the NEB, not destroy it.
Objective 2: Create new jobs and economic opportunities. Restore investor confidence.
Reality: It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the Impact Assessment Act". - Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) submission to Parliament, March 2018.
Conclusion: The companies that transport 97 percent of Canada’s gas and oil have no confidence in the new regulations. Thus, no new pipelines = no new jobs.
Objective 3: Greater transparency, predictability and timelines in decision making. Decisions guided by science.
Reality: Public "did not object to the outcome of a decision (by the NEB) so much as the opaque process by which it is achieved. This is especially true for the decisions rendered by Cabinet...". - NEB Expert Panel, 2017. "Government is maintaining control over the final decisions" (March 2018).
Conclusion: Go / no go up front decisions by government (re: broad public policy such as upstream and downstream GHG emissions, climate change objectives, Indigenous reconciliation) are subjective, not science based. Bill C-69 will not meet these objectives.
Objective 4: Rebuild public trust. Inclusive and meaningful public engagement.
Reality: Public trust will be eroded, not rebuilt, as a result of inclusive and full participation as:
in assessing projects, the effect on those directly impacted should be given prime consideration
all the other participants, whose input is rightly given little or no "weight", will be very frustrated
The public was given every opportunity to engage in TMX and offered funding. Certain groups and cities simply refused to participate.
Conclusion: Those opposed to oil development and pipelines will do so regardless of the regulatory process - they have stated so. The NEB process never lost the trust of the majority - see the conclusions of the modernization panel. No process will be accepted by those opposed to any and all pipelines.
[ATTACHMENT 3 from above]
A 10 STEP PLAN TO MODERNIZE THE NEB
Canada to be energy independent by 2030.
Lift the federal ban and moratorium on tankers and arctic drilling.
Maintain the NEB. The Government’s Expert Panel (2017) stated “…the NEB is respected internationally” and that “benchmarking has placed Canada among the most stringent regulatory regimes.”
Minimize Political Influence. The Panel reported that in most cases the public did not object to the NEB’s decisions but to the opaque nature of ”…decisions rendered by cabinet which are protected by cabinet confidence.”
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.
Limit Hearing Participation and Funding to Directly Impacted Stakeholders. All others may submit their views in writing at their own cost. Publish a matrix of all consultations.
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.
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.
Enhance transparency of the NEB’s and government’s decisions. Include layman summaries.
Publish a follow up on NEB’s Approval Conditions every six months until operations commence.
[ATTACHMENT 4 from above]
LEARN FROM HISTORY— A STUDY IN CONTRAST
Canada- Actions
In 1973 Justice Thomas Berger’s enquiry triggered a long term moratorium on northern pipelines. (The same Thomas Berger is currently advising the BC Government in their pposition to Trans Mountain).
In 2015 Justin Trudeau, took the first steps to ban tanker traffic along BC’s northern coast thus killing the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline – this bill is presently before Parliament. The Energy East Pipeline was killed, if not wholly at least in part, due to the vastly increased scope of review imposed by the federal government.
In 2016 the federal government imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Canadian Arctic.
Canada- Impacts
With the media’s daily focus on the opposition of First Nations to oil and gas developments and pipelines, these federal actions no doubt are welcomed by the majority of First Nations, correct? The exact opposite is true as evidenced by:
Indigenous backers of the $16 Billion Eagle Spirit Pipeline to Kitimat have filed a civil claim in the Supreme Court of BC against the ban on tankers,
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.”
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.
