talk tankers - vancouver€¦ · a citizens’ dialogue on the kinder morgan trans mountain...

TALK TANKERSA CITIZENS’ DIALOGUE ON THE KINDER MORGAN TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE JUNE 24, 2014

DIALOGUE REPORT

i TALK TANKERS: A CITIZENS’ DIALOGUE ON THE KINDER MORGAN TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Talk Tankers was convened by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue in partnership with the City of Vancouver.

Shauna Sylvester, Fellow at the SFU Centre for Dialogue, designed and facilitated the dialogue, with the assistance of Betsy Agar, Claire Havens, and Kathryn Sheps (SFU).

This dialogue report was written by Kathryn Sheps. Comments, edits and suggestions were provided by Shauna Sylvester, Claire Havens, Betsy Agar, and Keane Gruending (SFU). The report was formatted by Keane Gruending. We would like to acknowledge the support of Tracy Vaughan and Amanda Mitchell from the City of Vancouver in conducting this dialogue.

Report images are available on a Creative Commons License (credit is listed by Flickr username if no real name is available). Cover: Asher Isbrucker; Page 4: rblood; Page 7: Michael Chu; Page 12:kreegermc. Zack Embree and City of Vancouver staff provided all other photos.

ABOUT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY’S CENTRE FOR DIALOGUE

Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue uses dialogue to generate non-partisan and constructive communication around difficult topics. We partner with government, business, and community groups to explore critical issues that impact the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of our communities.

ABOUT THE CITY OF VANCOUVER’S ROLE

The City of Vancouver is participating in the National Energy Board’s review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. The City is leveraging its intervenor status to launch an open public dialogue with residents and businesses to better understand their perceptions—both good and bad—on the proposal. The City takes seriously its responsibility to broadly consult Vancouverites on a project that could fundamentally impact the livability of the region. The Talk Tankers SFU Centre for Dialogue forum will be one of many outreach efforts made.

ii TALK TANKERS: A CITIZENS’ DIALOGUE ON THE KINDER MORGAN TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

PURPOSE

This report provides a record of participant ideas and discussion from the Talk Tankers dialogue, hosted by Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue on June 24, 2014.

The information in this publication is intended to reflect, as accurately as possible, the ideas expressed by the dialogue participants.

Included is an overview of the event and the presentations made to the participants, and a summary of the key themes that emerged from the small group dialogue sessions.

This publication does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue or the City of Vancouver. This report is published in the Creative Commons (CC BY-ND). It may be reproduced and distributed so long as its contents are not modified and credit is attributed to Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue. Any works referring to this material should cite:

Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Dialogue. (2014). Talk Tankers: A Citizens’ Dialogue on the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline. Retrieved from www.sfu.ca/dialogue/

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

WELCOME 3

KINDER MORGAN POSITION 3

CITY OF VANCOUVER’S POSITION 5

OPEN SPACE 8

THEMES FROM THE SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS 10

RETURN TO PLENARY AND REFLECTIONS 14

#TALKTANKERS 16

FINAL COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS 17

APPENDIX A - REPORT BACK FROM TABLE DISCUSSIONS 18

APPENDIX B - EVALUATION 26

DIALOGUE REPORT 1

INTRODUCTION

Kinder Morgan is proposing to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, which terminates at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby. Having been granted official Intervenor status in the upcoming National Energy Board (NEB) hearings on the expansion, the City of Vancouver is undertaking an engagement campaign to gather and incorporate citizen opinions in its testimony to the NEB.

The scope of the NEB hearings are limited to the project being considered; for example, the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline expansion.

The NEB hearings will not consider the following: The environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline (see page 2 for the scope of the NEB hearings).

The proposal for expansion has drawn passionate arguments from proponents and opponents. As such, the City of Vancouver asked the SFU Centre for Dialogue, which has a strong background in convening stakeholders and citizens on politically sensitive and contentious issues, to facilitate a dialogue. The process was designed to develop questions that emerged out of conversations among members of the public. The City will investigate those questions and incorporate them in its presentation of the City’s position to the NEB.

Participants were primarily Vancouver residents. The City and the SFU Centre for Dialogue focused its recruitment and advertising to attract youth (under the age of 30) and the “young at heart.” The event focused on youth because they tend to be under-represented in public forums on municipal issues. Staff from the City’s engagement team out of the Corporate Communications Department took notes and fielded participant questions.

DIALOGUE REPORT 2

National Energy Board Scope

The National Energy Board (NEB) hearings will consider the following issues during the hearing process for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion:

1. The need for the proposed project.

2. The economic feasibility of the proposed project.

3. The potential commercial impacts of the proposed project.

4. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, including those required to be considered by the NEB’s Filing Manual.

5. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur.

6. The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project.

7. The suitability of the design of the proposed project.

8. The terms and conditions to be included in any approval the Board may issue.

9. Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal interests.

10. Potential impacts of the project on landowners and land use.

11. Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project.

12. Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention.

3 TALK TANKERS: A CITIZENS’ DIALOGUE ON THE KINDER MORGAN TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

WELCOME Shauna Sylvester, Fellow at the SFU Centre for Dialogue, opened the session by welcoming everyone and giving an overview of the evening. She then invited Elder Carleen Thomas to welcome participants on behalf of Tsleil-Waututh1 and Musqueam Nations: “I stand here on behalf of Tsleil-Waututh and relatives with an open mind and an open heart.” She expressed her hopes that the outcome of the evening “leads us to a deeper understanding of what’s happening to our beautiful city.”

KINDER MORGAN POSITIONThe facilitator explained that Kinder Morgan was invited but declined to speak at the dialogue session. As such, no official proponent of the project was available to speak to the project details, and projected impacts and benefits. In the interest of ensuring participants had access to a balance of information, Shauna Sylvester presented details of the pipeline and marine terminal expansion project, drawing on information that is publically available online (transmountain.com). She also played a promotional video by Kinder Morgan, which is available online at http://bit.ly/1pxmxz3.

According to its website, Kinder Morgan proposes to expand its current pipeline that originates in Strathcona County, near Edmonton, Alberta, and terminates at Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC. If approved, the proposed expansion would increase the nominal capacity of the pipeline system from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day. To accommodate this increased capacity, Kinder Morgan plans to install approximately 994 km of new pipeline along the existing route, as well as re-activate 193 km of pipeline that is already in place but not in use. The expansion would also require 12 additional pump stations and several new storage facilities be built along the pipeline route. In total, Kinder Morgan projects a capital cost of the expansion to be on the order of $5.4 billion.

The promotional video describes the economic benefits Kinder Morgan anticipates BC will receive from expanding the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. Those projected benefits include permanent pipeline maintenance and operational jobs, short-term construction jobs, and additional tax revenues.

1 Tsleil-Waututh Nation founded the Sacred Trust Initiative with the mandate to oppose Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.

DIALOGUE REPORT 4


CITY OF VANCOUVER’S POSITION

The City of Vancouver (COV) printed several poster boards that outlined their findings and concerns about the proposed pipeline expansion. These were displayed throughout the duration of the event. In addition, Sadhu Johnston, the Deputy Manager of the City of Vancouver, presented the municipality’s perspective on the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, and discussed the reasons why the City of Vancouver sought, and gained, intervenor status in the National Energy Board Hearings. He also discussed the NEB process itself, and how the City’s engagement activities will feed into the report presented to the board. “Residents are looking to the City of Vancouver to share their thoughts about the proposal, and tonight’s events are just the beginning stages of this engagement process.”

Johnston began by describing the reasons for the City of Vancouver’s involvement in the NEB hearings despite the fact that the pipeline will terminate outside of the City’s boundaries. Vancouver is a densely populated city, and more than 25,000 people live within 300 metres of the shoreline. The City of Vancouver derives many economic and social benefits from Burrard Inlet and the coastline, in general. These include billions of dollars generated by the movement of cargo through Port Metro Vancouver, tourism, and less tangible benefits, such as recreation value for Vancouver residents.

The City of Vancouver gained intervenor status at the NEB hearing because its jurisdiction extends into the Burrard Inlet. The City of Vancouver has an operational presence on the neighbouring waterways and it must therefore contribute to any process that might affect the marine operations of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and the Vancouver Police Department.

Figure 1 – Map presented by City of Vancouver Deputy Manager Sadhu Johnston showing the City of Vancouver’s jurisdiction as well as the current

DIALOGUE REPORT 6

Next, Johnston outlined the City’s view of the NEB participation process. He discussed the professional background of the three-person NEB panel that will make a series of recommendations to the Federal Government about the project. Johnston also outlined the timeline for the NEB hearings. The panel must present its findings and recommendations to the Canadian government by July 2, 2015.

According to Johnston, the City has several concerns with Kinder Morgan’s application to expand the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which are outlined in a 15,000-page document. Johnston briefly spoke of the risk assessment scenarios provided to the city by Kinder Morgan and explained the criteria used in developing the risk assessment scenarios. He highlighted that the application included only one example of an oil spill scenario, but also that City staff had concerns about its accuracy. The City of Vancouver is in the process of evaluating the demands that an oil spill might put on the City’s resources and staff.

Figure 2. To demonstrate the length and scope of the Kinder Morgan application to the NEB, City of Vancouver staff brought the entire proposal to the event

DIALOGUE REPORT 8

OPEN SPACE

After the introductory remarks by Shauna Sylvester and Sadhu Johnston, participants were asked to develop and propose questions that they would have the City investigate in its preparations for its presentation at the NEB hearings. Participants pitched their questions to and hosted dialogue sessions with their peers through an Open Space process.

Participants were briefed on some the principles of Open Space:

• Whoever comes are the right people• Whenever it starts is the right time• Wherever you meet is the right space• What happens is the only thing that could

have happened• When it’s over, it’s over

Furthermore, the participants were introduced to the Law of Two Feet: if at any time during the dialogue time you find yourself neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet and join another dialogue in progress.

The participants who pitched topics for dialogue became facilitators at their designated tables. Each table had butcher paper, pens, notepaper, and pencil crayons for participants to jot down notes and record the substance of the dialogue. Each table also had a template on which to record the outputs of the dialogues—namely questions

about the proposal they would have the City of Vancouver investigate further. Participants were encouraged to share their conversations on Twitter using the hashtag #TalkTankers to coalesce the online conversation. The #TalkTankers Twitter conversation was projected up at the front of the room throughout the evening to help connect participants with their peers who could not attend in person.


The following discussion sessions were pitched:

1. Liability tankers take on2. The 3rd Position: Transition to 80-90% renewable energy3. Economic benefits: How long would they last? How would they affect future generations?4. Ocean is the “oilfield” of the future: Power by clean energy, e.g. ocean water5. Importance of youth: Will Kinder Morgan consult them? How? Will they consider

youth voices?6. Relationship of community with the shoreline7. Limits of oil extraction: How much are we going to extract? 8. Plebiscite on TransMountain, like Kitimat did; give democracy a chance to work9. How do the oil sands benefit all Canadians and the world?10. NEB process is a first time: What processes should be occurring?11. Tankers on rail pose a threat12. Pipelines operating in cold water and how to clean up spills from them13. What can oil companies do to transition to a green economy and balance out oil flow? 14. What is the difference between oil sands and other oils, and the difference between

Federal and Provincial jurisdiction?15. First Nations peoples’ perspectives16. Climate change problem continuing to invest in oil; should invest in green economy

Participants moved to the table discussions that interested them most, but could move freely between different conversations during the 40 minutes of Open Space. At the end of the session, City staff gave an informal report back in plenary on what they heard while visiting the tables. The outcomes recorded on the templates, butcher paper, and notes during the table discussions constitute the formal outcomes of this report (see Appendix A) and are summarized in the following sections.

DIALOGUE REPORT 10

THEMES FROM THE SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS:

Even with a diverse range of dialogue sessions pitched during the evening, many common themes and concerns emerged:

“Who makes decisions and who do they consult?”

One of the biggest concerns was about governance, which includes corporate governance. What are Kinder Morgan’s responsibilities to the City of Vancouver and its inhabitants? This concept includes the information that Kinder Morgan is obligated to provide to the NEB as well as its responsibilities in building and operationalizing the pipeline expansion project.

Also included were governance questions about the NEB process itself and about various other levels of government: Participants stated a sincere concern about the decision-making processes that determine a major project like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, and the ways in the which elected officials and citizens can engage in these decision-making processes.

There were also repeated calls for clarity about how the input by different levels of stakeholders (whether elected officials,

citizens, or other interested parties) would be reflected in the project outcomes, both positive and negative, and adopted by those responsible and liable for them.

“Who pays for a spill?”

The liability of different actors in the proposed project was also a topic that was not only pitched for a table discussion but also raised at several other tables. Most concerning to the assembled participants were the responsibilities of different actors (municipal, provincial, federal governments, Kinder Morgan, shipping companies transporting the oil from the pipeline terminal, etc.) in the event of an oil spill or pipeline break. Participants wanted to be clear on who would be held liable for damages and clean up of spills on land, or impacts to the City of Vancouver’s other uses of the shoreline. Participants pointed out that spills could occur as a the result of an incident in the Burrard Inlet and during normal operation of the pipeline.

There was a lack of clarity about jurisdiction and responsibilities throughout this project, and transportation of oil more generally. Participants expressed confusion about which level(s) of government might be responsible for approving the Kinder Morgan Trans


Mountain project; which would be responsible for supervising its construction and operation; and which would assume responsibility in the event of an incident, such as an oil spill, at Westridge Marine Terminal or within Burrard Inlet.

The proposed project is complex: participants realized that there may be multiple corporate actors involved in the operation of the pipeline and that different levels and departments of government will likely hold responsibility for different aspects of the project. Only one group knew that the BC provincial government is responsible for environmental assessments and is involved in the permitting process. Many groups grappled with the question of how to properly evaluate the potential impacts that a spill might have on the City of Vancouver’s shorelines and complex ecosystems.

“Since the waterway is a lifeline [to Vancouver’s economy] what happens to the rest of the port if an oil spill happens?”

Several groups flagged that a potential oil spill could have a negative impact on safety, especially in terms of navigating the waters around Vancouver. Conversely, other groups raised the point that if the pipeline expansion was not improved, an increase in oil transportation by rail would be more dangerous to human and ecosystem safety.

“What would a better engagement process look like?”

Participants at many tables expressed a desire for more engagement on this and other similar issues. They were concerned with the closed nature of the NEB review process and the percieved lack of opportunity for citizens to communicate their interests and be heard by decision-makers. Participants struggled to reconcile the NEB process with the tenets of democracy and were frustrated that there would not be more opportunities to provide their input in a meaningful way.

“The pipeline is an ethical question more than an economic question”

Many groups questioned competing value systems in the processes of exploiting and transporting fossil fuels. Several groups discussed whether corporations hold social license or engage in ‘best practices’ in communication and engagement on such projects. The group at the table discussing “How do the oil sands benefit all Canadians and the world?” also wondered whether Canadian oil could be considered ethical oil, as many fossil fuels originate in zones of political conflict.

“Government needs to represent longer-term views and citizenry needs; we don’t have Federal support or leadership”

DIALOGUE REPORT 12

Climate change was an important topic for many participants as the discussion moved beyond the specifics of the Kinder Morgan project itself and onto a larger conversation on fossil fuel dependence.

Many discussions touched on the need to transition away from fossil fuels, to embrace and implement renewable energy and other “green” or “clean” energy alternatives. There was some mention of generational justice, and a desire to look at the Kinder Morgan proposal from the perspectives of future generations, not merely in terms of the potential short-term economic benefits.

“How do we transition to green energy while keeping energy affordable?”

The participants repeatedly called for leadership in implementing green, clean, renewable energy. Many groups submitted questions around the possibility of requiring oil and gas companies that operate in Canada to generalize as ‘energy’ companies. Several groups pointed out that a lack of leadership has delayed the implementation of changes to our energy system. There were also several groups that considered the transformative nature of transitioning away from fossil fuels to green and renewable energy and how Canadian lifestyles might be affected.

“Who will lead a green paradigm shift?”

DIALOGUE REPORT 14

RETURN TO PLENARY AND REFLECTIONS

After 40 minutes of small group discussion, participants returned to plenary. The facilitator asked City of Vancouver staffers, who were monitoring #TalkTankers on Twitter, for a summary of the ideas and conversations that occurred in the twittersphere during the small-group discussions. They noted a lot of positive comments about the event, as well as a lot of conversation about the economic realities and potential impacts of the proposed pipeline expansion. Tweets mentioned economic opportunities offered by alternatives to fossil fuels and called for a transition to renewable energy. Twitter participants showed support for holding a dialogue on these issues and gave feedback on the dialogue process. Some attendees were also tweeting and mentioned the positive atmosphere they felt in the room. They invited participants to continue their conversations by tweeting about their thoughts and experiences with the dialogue process and on the pipeline expansion proposal. They assured participants that City of Vancouver staff would continue to monitor the #TalkTankers hashtag.

Sadhu Johnston conferred with other City staff and assembled an informal summary of the ideas and themes they had heard while listening in on the small-group conversations and reported on them in plenary. Johnston was encouraged by the quality of facilitation and respectfulness of the conversations

that he heard at all of the tables, especially since conversations around pipelines can be divisive. City staff heard a variety of opinions expressed, which Johnston indicated would help the City of Vancouver accurately reflect the thoughts of residents at the NEB hearings.

Johnston reported overhearing a lot of discussion about the potential for an oil spill in Burrard Inlet at many of the tables—not just at the one table convening a conversation dedicated to potential spills. These included the possibility of using technology in reducing risk if a spill occurred; the potential impacts to the Burrard Inlet ecosystems; and the potential impacts of an earthquake on the pipeline operations, given that Vancouver is a seismically active area. He reported City staff heard groups wanting to know more about the federal government’s role in the event of a spill, in terms of providing the necessary infrastructure to respond to such an emergency.

City staff also heard conversations about our continued reliance on fossil fuels as an economic and technological reality in Vancouver, and the need to better understand alternatives and transition away from dependence on fossil fuels. Johnston also reported participants pondered why oil companies are planning to export raw materials, instead of refining the materials


and creating value-added products in Canada. The suggestion was that greater involvement in the petroleum product value chain might have a greater economic and job creation potential than simply exporting the raw materials. Additionally, value-added processing might allow residents greater control of the greenhouse gas emissions that are created as a result of the use of these materials.

Continuing on this theme, Johnston reported hearing several conversations about the jobs that this pipeline proposal might bring, both to Metro Vancouver and along the path of the pipeline. The concerns were that the jobs created might mostly be temporary construction jobs and not be equitably distributed. Staff also heard conversations about the sustainability of jobs, and whether green jobs might be more stable over time than jobs associated with fossil fuels.

Johnston was pleased to hear so many tables discussing proposed pipeline expansion with a climate change lens—beyond the group that convened specifically to discuss the topic (#16). “Vancouver is known as the Greenest City and this conversation is an example on how in the Greenest City, we’re leading as an example in our communities.” This led Johnston to reflect on the City’s concerns that the proposed expansion does not incorporate the true costs of climate change into its

calculation of risks and benefits. As an example of the enormous costs that climate change can bring to bear on a city, Johnston pointed to the 2013 flooding throughout the City of Calgary.

Johnston closed his remarks by thanking Shauna Sylvester for facilitating such a respectful dialogue session, the City and Centre for Dialogue staff for their hard work in organizing the event, and all the participants for holding productive discussions. He echoed his staff’s request of participants to continue tweeting concerns using the hashtag #TalkTankers, to complete the City of Vancouver’s online survey, and to share the survey with friends. Kiosks were setup for people to fill out the survey in the dialogue space.

DIALOGUE REPORT 16

#TALKTANKERS

The following is a selection of tweets from the dialogue that represent the range of perspectives of participants who engaged online. Participants were invited to tweet into the #TalkTankers hashtag with their thoughts on the pipeline proposal. Individuals from around Canada engaged in the online discussion.


FINAL COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS

The facilitator invited participants to share the most interesting things they heard in their discussions over the course of the evening. The first participant who responded spoke to what he hadn’t heard that night, and that was someone strongly supporting the economic benefits of the pipeline expansion proposal. However, the group that dedicated their discussion to the benefits of the oil sands for all Canadians (#9) disagreed. They had discussed the jobs provided by the oil sands; the benefits to many Canadians that accrue through investment portfolios and pension plans heavily invested in Canadian energy companies that work in the oil sands; and the benefits to communities local to the projects because of the tax revenues that these projects can produce.

Another participant wanted to talk more about renewable energy and the need to address the barriers to including more alternative sources in our energy mix. A third participant expressed disappointment that Kinder Morgan declined to come to the event, and expressed an opinion that their absence showed a lack of leadership on the project.

Participants agreed there had not been clear definition of who is accountable or responsible for the proposed expansion: If the oil moving through the pipeline is Alberta’s oil, why wouldn’t the province of Alberta share in the responsibility for its safe

transport? Nor was there a clear indication of how any potential benefits would be shared. Participants appreciated the City of Vancouver providing this engagement opportunity where citizens could participate in conversations about the proposal and its impacts.

DIALOGUE REPORT 18

APPENDIX A - REPORT BACK FROM TABLE DISCUSSIONSThe following are the notes collected from the Open Space dialogue sessions. They have been edited only for spelling and grammar only where obvious corrections can be made.

1. LIABILITY TANKERS TAKE ONQUESTIONS?

• Who owns the ships/tankers?

• What are the leasing agreements?

• How are oil companies reacting to reducing liability?

• Has TransMountain put $1.6 billion up for insurance?

• What are insurance costs for the environment?

• When is it reasonable to expect a spill?

• Is it possible to assign accurate liability in the event of a spill?

• How can refineries act to clean crude oil to potentially mitigate damage?

• Who will clean up the coastline?

• What else is being brought in by pipeline (i.e. for flow assurance)

• What is being done to mitigate risk at source?

• Will taxpayers be on the hook for the clean up?

• Who can stop this process? Municipal? Provincial? Federal?

• What is being done to hold Kinder Morgan or others responsible?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Respondent who has been in oil company for 30 years believes estimates on oil reserves are speculative

• Environment is important – how are oil companies liable for potential damages?

• Communities that benefit the least stand to take the most damage

• Contradictory advice to clean Fraser River but bringing in oil


2. THE 3RD POSITION: TRANSITION TO 80-90% RENEWABLE ENERGYQUESTIONS?

• What does ‘green’ look like? – inclusivity, ecological, less waste, electric cars

• How to deal with this difficult problem?

• Who will lead the paradigm shift?

• How do we consume less?

• What incentives do we have to consume less?

• What incentive do we have to use green energy?

3. ECONOMIC BENEFITS – HOW LONG WOULD THEY LAST? HOW WOULD THEY AFFECT FUTURE GENERATIONS?QUESTIONS?

• Pro-pipeline people seem to be caring more about “what’s in it for me?”

OTHER COMMENTS

• Pipeline more of an ethical question than an economic question

4. OCEAN IS THE “OILFIELD” OF THE FUTURE: POWER BY CLEAN ENERGY, E.G. OCEAN WATERQUESTIONS?

• How do we convince oil companies to invest in transition into green solutions?

• How does oil compare to green solutions on a cost/impact basis?

• Why don’t we tax the consumers of carbon higher?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Oil companies will not invest current profits into clean, green renewable resources

• 10% of revenues from oil to go to reforestation, green initiatives

• Policy to gather the voice of all levels of the population

• “sociocracy”

DIALOGUE REPORT 20

5. IMPORTANCE OF YOUTH: WILL KINDER MORGAN CONSULT THEM? HOW? WILL THEY CONSIDER YOUTH VOICES?

This group responded to the open space exercise by creating a mind map:


6. RELATIONSHIP OF COMMUNITY WITH THE SHORELINEQUESTIONS?

• What does tanker traffic mean to how we use the shoreline

• What about common/daily leaks from everyday use that get washed into the ocean?

• Since the waterway is a lifeline (Vancouver economy) what happens to the rest of the port if an oil spill happens? Does

everything shut down?

• What about wildlife on the shoreline?

• Is it possible to move the pipeline elsewhere?

• More tankers = more erosion, are there plans in place to deal with erosion?

• What is cost of shoreline cleanup on average citizen?

OTHER COMMENTS

• More tankers in port will make port very crowded

• More tankers can discharge more effluent

• No health impact has been assessed and more tankers will impact the air (fouls going into the atmosphere)

• Love the tankers and industry as is – but not more – that would become an ocean freeway

• Shorelines are extremely sensitive areas – one aspect of marine life and plants has a domino effect – we know little about

ocean ecosystems

• There are no shoreline policies in place, there is confusion as there are multiple jurisdictions, hence no policies or specific

mandates

• NEB has ultimate control for any tanker traffic – should be held more accountable to the public; public should have more

say in NEB discussions

• The shore has a multitude of functions (recreation, tourism, economic, well being, emotional well-being, air quality, water

filter, social place, habitat)

• Shoreline is not the open ocean – local waters do not have the flushing capacity that is evident in open ocean

DIALOGUE REPORT 22

7. LIMITS OF OIL EXTRACTION: HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO EXTRACT?QUESTIONS?

• Is there a projected limit?

• What jurisdiction would decide?

• Real question is – do we really want to stop??

• Why is the transition not happening, so that we can stop extracting?? What should transition be?

• Cold turkey? Or do we need to wean off oil?

OTHER COMMENTS

• More tankers in port will make port very crowded

• More tankers can discharge more effluent

• No health impact has been assessed and more tankers will impact the air (fouls going into the atmosphere)

• Love the tankers and industry as is – but not more – that would become an ocean freeway

• Shorelines are extremely sensitive areas – one aspect of marine life and plants has a domino effect – we know little about

ocean ecosystems

• There are no shoreline policies in place, there is confusion as there are multiple jurisdictions, hence no policies or specific

mandates

• NEB has ultimate control for any tanker traffic – should be held more accountable to the public; public should have more

say in NEB discussions

• The shore has a multitude of functions (recreation, tourism, economic, well being, emotional well-being, air quality, water

filter, social place, habitat)

• Shoreline is not the open ocean – local waters do not have the flushing capacity that is evident in open ocean

8. PLEBISCITE ON TRANSMOUNTAIN, LIKE KITIMAT DID; GIVE DEMOCRACY A CHANCE TO WORKQUESTIONS?

• This session was pitched, but dialogue on the subject did not occur

9. HOW DO THE OIL SANDS BENEFIT ALL CANADIANS AND THE WORLD?QUESTIONS?

• Can Canada provide the world with fair-trade oil? Away from political strife?

• Can we phase out of the oil sands?

• Will the world still need oil even if we go completely green?

• How do we transition to green energy while keeping energy affordable?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Give people, particularly First Nations a chance to get out of poverty, with jobs.

• Stop expanding

• One of BC’s conditions could be a green energy fund from royalties

• Curb impact of expansion with regulation


10. NEB PROCESS IS A FIRST TIME: WHAT PROCESSES SHOULD BE OCCURRING?QUESTIONS?

• How is Kinder Morgan allowed to amend their submission?

• How does the NEB process account for things happening during the hearings?

• How did NEB decided scope of what can be discussed (12 topics)

• How did they decide who was an intervener, commenter, and those who were not able to participate as well

• What would a better engagement process look like

• Who should pay for consultation?

• How can interveners work together to make sure we are not duplicating work – focusing on same thing?

OTHER COMMENTS

• NEB process is not democratic process

• The NEB process doesn’t allow for KM to provide concessions or adjust – polarizes the debate

• Is a restrictive process – told commenters/interveners what they can and cannot discuss

• Changes to the NEB process for this project – 15 months is too short

• Problem with the process – look at opportunity costs for participating, costs to municipalities – consultation costs are

downloaded to local governments

• Not enough resources for small groups to participate as part of the process

• Cuts to NEB – there have been mistakes by staff

• Process is limited – no cross- examination, no oral arguments

• NEB provides constitutional ruling, so challengers to process are decided on by NEB

• Engagement best practices are not being met in NEB

• Is this a meaningful consultation?

11. TANKERS ON RAIL POSE A THREATQUESTIONS?

• What the consequences from a leak from a retailed train

• How to make more cost-effective?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Lac-Mégantic Train Derailment involving oil shipment

DIALOGUE REPORT 24

12. PIPELINES OPERATING IN COLD WATER AND HOW TO CLEAN UP SPILLS FROM THEMQUESTIONS?

• Spill response? Lack thereof?

• Effectiveness of diluent, dispersants in active cold water?

• Can a company afford the clean up costs?

• Can the government defer responsibility of clean up to coast guard when they forced Kitsilano Coast Guard station to close?

• What research is being done on tanker movement under the Second Narrows Bridge?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Is it worth asking for a refinery here in Canada?

• How much financial oversight can be asked of the company to buy social license – is there a figure?

• How do diluent and bitumen react in cold water?

• What best practices exist for spill clean up in countries/regions with similar water as Vancouver?

13. WHAT CAN OIL COMPANIES DO TO TRANSITION TO A GREEN ECONOMY AND BALANCE OUT OIL FLOW?QUESTIONS?

Participants did not explicitly address this question

14. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OIL SANDS AND OTHER OILS, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION?

QUESTIONS?

• Cost and impacts?

• Canada vs. EU

15. FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES’ PERSPECTIVESQUESTIONS?

• Can the Government of Canada legally force the pipeline in First Nations’ territory?

• Will the First Nations keep integrity on their spiritual values and defend what has value?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Shame on KM for their irresponsibility of not even making a voice. Cowards. Shame.


16. CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM CONTINUING TO INVEST IN OIL; SHOULD INVEST IN GREEN ECONOMYQUESTIONS?

• Environmental Impact vs. long–term investment: How do we move away from dependency on oil?

• Clean up costs?

• Health care costs?

• Data?

• Projected Revenue from green solutions? Enough ROI?

• Government needs to represent longer-term views, citizenry needs, we don’t have federal support or leadership

• Heavy Oil/Bitumen and LNG are both fossil fuels but are very different.

• Number of tankers moving through inlet – port manager, marine navigator say no problem, but “precautionary principle” -

take time to solve problems

• What about reducing the numbers? Can this application be successful at ½ the capacity?

• Can we put barriers on future growth?

OTHER COMMENTS

• Wind Farms – health concerns; Solar/Tidal – business model is there; we can become partners with oil companies

• Natural succession – old growth falls down and makes room for new young growth

• BC Hydro is a barrier to alternative methods

• We don’t have targets.

• Big picture needs to be looked at

• RISK ASSESSMENT – cumulative effects, health impacts, BC Environment Assessment Office

• Municipal Government has opportunity to make economy greener

• Why don’t local politicians learn from other countries

• Protesting only solution, based on facts

DIALOGUE REPORT 26

APPENDIX B - EVALUATION

At the end of the dialogue, participants were asked to evaluate the event. The results of are shown in the graph below; all answers are rated on a scale of 1 to 10.

10987654321

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS WAS EFFICIENT AND HELPFUL.

CONSIDERING THE PARTICIPANTS WHO CAME TO THIS EVENT, A BROAD RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES WERE REPRESENTED.

THE FACILITATOR PROVIDED CLEAR EXPLANATIONS, GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE EVENT.

THE PRESENTATIONS WERE CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE.

THE SNACKS AND REFRESHMENTS WERE SATISFACTORY.

THERE WAS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO LEARN AND TO PARTICIPATE IN GROUP DISCUSSIONS.

I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW OR HEARD A NEW PERSPECTIVE THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF.

OVERALL, THE DIALOGUE WAS WORTHWHILE TO ME.

3300 - 515 WEST HASTINGS STREETVANCOUVER, BC V6B 5K3

778.782.7893 [email protected]

talk tankers - vancouver€¦ · a citizens’ dialogue on the kinder morgan trans mountain...

Documents