canadian energy research institute - ceri · 2 canadian energy research institute january 2012...

Relevant • Independent • Objective

Canadian Energy Research Institute

Pacific Access: Overview of Transportation Options

Paul Kralovic

January 2012

PACIFIC ACCESS:

OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS


Copyright © Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2012 Sections of this study may be reproduced in magazines and newspapers with acknowledgement to the Canadian Energy Research Institute ISBN 1-927037 Author: Paul Kralovic* *Paul Kralovic is an external consultant and is the Director of Calgary-based Kralovic Economics Inc. Acknowledgements: The author of this report would like to extend his thanks and gratitude to

everyone involved in the production and editing of the material, including, but not limited to

Peter Howard and Megan Murphy.

CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 150, 3512 – 33 Street NW Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A6 Canada www.ceri.ca January 2012 Printed in Canada

http://www.ceri.ca/

Pacific Access: Overview of Transportation Options iii

January 2012

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... vii

Objective of the Study ................................................................................................................. 1

Pipeline Proposal’s that Access the West Coast...and the Keystone XL .......................................... 2

TransCanada Pipeline’s (TCPL’s) Keystone XL ................................................................................ 2 Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline .......................................................................................... 7 Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) Expansion and Extension ................................. 14 Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) “Pipeline on Rails” ................................................................. 21

Oil Tankers and Marine Terminals: Regulations and Safety Measures .......................................... 24

Oil Tanker 101 – Basics ................................................................................................................... 25 Oil Tanker 201 – International Regulations .................................................................................... 31 Operational and Design Tanker Safety Measures .......................................................................... 35

Canadian Regulations and Approach ........................................................................................... 46

Federal Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 47 Port Metro Vancouver .................................................................................................................... 56 Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Marine Terminal ............................................................................ 68

APPENDIX A LIST OF IMO CONVENTIONS ................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX B REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE CANADA SHIPPING ACT 2001.............................. 103

APPENDIX C THE ROLE OF THE CANADIAN AND PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE OCEANS SECTOR .............................................................................. 105

iv Canadian Energy Research Institute

January 2012

Pacific Access: Overview of Transportation Options v

January 2012

List of Figures 1.1 TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline System ................................................................................ 3 1.2 Northern Gateway Pipeline Route ........................................................................................... 8 1.3 Northern Gateway Tanker’s Route .......................................................................................... 9 1.4 Tanker Routes .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Enbridge Liquids Pipelines ....................................................................................................... 13 1.6 Alberta Clipper Pipeline ........................................................................................................... 14 1.7 Existing TMX Pipeline ............................................................................................................... 15 1.8 TMX – Anchor Loop Project ..................................................................................................... 16 1.9 Oil Tanker and the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver ....................................................... 18 1.10 Proposed Northern Leg of the TMX Pipeline ........................................................................... 19 1.11 Express-Platte Pipeline............................................................................................................. 20 1.12 CN’s North American Railway Network ................................................................................... 22 1.13 Access to Alberta’s Industrial Heartland .................................................................................. 23 1.14 CN’s Diluents “Pipeline on Rails” ............................................................................................. 24 1.15 Aframax Tanker at Sea ............................................................................................................. 27 1.16 A ULCC Tanker at Sea ............................................................................................................... 28 1.17 Classification of Crude Oil Tankers .......................................................................................... 29 1.18 Inert Gas Systems ..................................................................................................................... 38 1.19 Cross Section of the Construction of a Double-Hull Tanker .................................................... 39 1.20 The Construction of a Double-Hull Tanker .............................................................................. 40 1.21 Function of the Double-Hull Design ......................................................................................... 40 1.22 Typical Cargo Operations ......................................................................................................... 43 1.23 Current and Proposed Coast Tanker Traffic ............................................................................. 48 1.24 British Columbia’s Marine Ecoregions ..................................................................................... 56 1.25 The PMV ................................................................................................................................... 57 1.26 Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal ...................................................................................... 59 1.27 Location of the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca ............................................. 61 1.28 Average Depth of the Strait of Georgia and Area .................................................................... 63 1.29 View from Above the Second Narrows Bridge ........................................................................ 65 1.30 An Oil Tanker in the Second Narrows ...................................................................................... 66 1.31 Oil Tanker in the PMV .............................................................................................................. 67 1.32 Map of Enbridge’s Oil Tanker Marine Routes .......................................................................... 69 1.33 British Columbia’s Marine Ecoregions ..................................................................................... 70 1.34 British Columbia’s Northern Shelf ........................................................................................... 71 1.35 British Columbia’s Northern Shelf Bathymetry ....................................................................... 72 1.36 Ocean Circulation off British Columbia in the Summer and Winter ........................................ 74 1.37 Schematic of Estuarine Circulation .......................................................................................... 76 1.38 British Columbia’s Skeena Region ............................................................................................ 78 1.39 Port of Kitimat and Various Important Landmarks .................................................................. 81 1.40 Kinder Morgan’s TMX North and South Expansions ................................................................ 85 1.41 The Port of Kitimat ................................................................................................................... 86 1.42 Artist Rendering of Enbridge’s Kitimat Oil Terminal ................................................................ 88 1.43 Enbridge’s Kitimat Oil Terminal ............................................................................................... 89 1.44 A Schematic of Enbridge’s Marine Terminal ............................................................................ 90

vi Canadian Energy Research Institute

January 2012

1.45 Transit Areas for the Northern Gateway Marine Terminal ..................................................... 92 1.46 Existing Navigational Aids Along the Proposed Routes ........................................................... 97 1.47 TERMPOL Navigational Requirements of VLCC Vessels ........................................................... 98 1.48 View of Douglas Channel from Above Bish Cove ..................................................................... 99

Pacific Access: Overview of Transportation Options vii

January 2012

List of Tables 1.1 Oil Tankers ............................................................................................................................... 26 1.2 Top 10 Oil Tanker Operators in the World .............................................................................. 31 1.3 Top 10 Oil Spills from Tankers, Since 1967 .............................................................................. 35 1.4 Types of Oil Spills Depending on Cause (1974-2008) .............................................................. 36 1.5 Petroleum Product Volumes in 2009 ....................................................................................... 59

Pacific Access: Overview of Transportation Options 1

January 2012


Objective of the Study

While not a recent concept, oil tankers mooring off British Columbia’s west coast have caused quite a

stir. In fact, oil tankers have been loading crude off west coast since the 1,150 kilometre Trans Mountain

Pipeline (TMX) opened in 1957. Thus far, Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal remains the only oil

terminal on Canada’s west coast.

This, however, may change.

There are currently 3 pipeline proposals to transport crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands to the British

Columbia west coast. All aforementioned pipeline proposals require marine terminals to be built to

transport crude oil to energy-hungry Asian markets. As such, the proposals of transporting oil through

British Columbia to its west coast are drawing a lot of attention—from industry, environmental groups,

First Nations and various governments.

This study provides an overview of transportation options, as well as explores and investigates oil tanker

and marine terminal safety.

The first section reviews pipeline proposals as well as a rail proposal, to transport crude oil from Alberta

to the west coast of British Columbia. This section investigates and explores challenges and issues

regarding the various proposals to move oil sands crude from Alberta through British Columbia to its

western ports. TransCanada Pipeline’s (TCPL) Keystone XL, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway, Kinder

Morgan’s TMX Pipeline Southern Expansion and Northern Extension, and Canadian National’s (CN)

“Pipeline on Rails” proposals are reviewed briefly. It is important to mention that while not transporting

oil to the west coast of British Columbia, the Keystone XL is discussed. Many industry analysts suggest

that the proposed Keystone XL will certainly impact the pipeline proposals transporting heavy crude to

the west coast, their timing or whether they are scrapped altogether. As such, the controversial

Keystone XL is a potential game-changer. Consequently, it is important to understand the proposal, as it

most certainly will impact the various proposals to transport heavy crude to the west coast.

The second section reviews oil tankers and marine terminal safety. It is divided into 3 parts. Oil tanker

101 provides a background of oil tankers, their size classifications and general information about the

shipping industry. Oil tanker 201 provides a foundation to the international regulatory structure that

governs the safety of the industry. The third part reviews and explores some of the operational and

design measures that are enforced on oil tankers. Inert gas systems, double-hull design, segregated and

heavy-weather ballast, cargo system design, among other operational and design systems, are reviewed.

The third section reviews oil tanker and marine terminal regulations and approach from a Canadian

perspective. While the previous section set the stage for international level regulations, this section

2 Canadian Energy Research Institute

January 2012

explores regulations on a national level, and brings it down to the terminal level. As a result, this section

is divided into 3 parts. The first investigates Canadian and Provincial regulations, while the second and

third parts explore various regulations at Port Metro Vancouver (PMV)—Canada’s busiest port and only

marine terminal on the west coast to export crude oil)—and Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway

Marine Terminal, respectively. Both sections are, in turn, divided into 3 parts. The second part is divided

into the PMV: Background and Facts, the Salish Sea and the Marine Environment and PMV’s Regulations

and Safety Protocol. The latter focuses on the movement of oil tankers. The third part, as with the PMV,

is divided into 3 parts: the Northern Shelf and the Marine Environment, Enbridge’s Proposed Marine

Terminal and the Port of Kitimat, and Enbridge’s Marine Terminal Safety Procedures.

Pipeline Proposal’s that Access the West Coast...and the Keystone XL

TransCanada Pipeline’s (TCPL’s) Keystone XL

TCPL’s Keystone Pipeline System would transport heavy crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries in

Illinois, Oklahoma and the US Gulf Coast. The pipeline system consists of the existing Keystone Pipeline

and the proposed Keystone XL. The Keystone project is best discussed in its 4 phases of construction, the

first 2 of which are in operation.

The current pipeline is 3,456 kilometres in length and serves the US market exclusively.1 Calgary-based

TCPL began construction in early 2008, after the National Energy Board (NEB) approved construction of

the Canadian section of the pipeline. The existing Keystone has been operating since June 2010 and had

an initial capacity of 435,000 bpd.2 Phase I runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska where it

branches eastward to refineries in Patoka and Wood River, Illinois. The original pipeline was expanded

(Phase I) to 590,000 bpd, shortly after commencing operation in June 2010.3 The expansion included

approximately 864 kilometres of the Canadian section of pipeline to be converted from its Canadian

Mainline natural gas pipeline to carry heavy oil. The Keystone Cushing (Phase II) section of the pipeline,

from Steele City to Cushing, went into service in February 2011.4 The latter is a major crude oil

marketing, refining and pipeline hub.

Figure 1.1 illustrates the Keystone Pipeline System, including the operating Keystone Pipeline (orange

line) and the proposed Keystone XL expansion (yellow spotted line). The former is comprised of Phase I

and II, while the latter is divided into Phase III and IV.

1 TransCanada website, http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html (accessed on December 17, 2011)

2 Downstream Today, "NEB Okays Keystone XL", National Energy Board, March 11, 2010,

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=21604 (accessed on December 17, 2011) 3 ibid

4 ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.1 TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline System

Source: http://gs-press.com.au/images/news_articles/cache/KeystoneXL_Map_hd-0x600.jpg

The proposed Keystone XL will add approximately 500,000 bpd, increasing the total capacity of the

Keystone Pipeline System to 1.1 million bpd.5 With the original pipeline costing US$5.2 billion and the

Keystone XL expansion estimated to cost approximately US$7 billion, the total cost of the Keystone

Pipeline System will be upwards of US$13 billion.6

5 Keystone Pipeline System, TransCanada Publication,

http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/keystone.pdf (pp. 3). 6 Downstream Today, "NEB Okays Keystone XL", National Energy Board, March 11, 2010,

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=21604 (accessed on December 17, 2011)


January 2012

The proposed Keystone XL is composed of two parts: Keystone XL South (Phase III) and Keystone XL

North (Phase IV). Both are illustrated in Figure 1.1. Keystone XL South, or the Gulf Coast Expansion

Project, is a proposed pipeline that begins in Cushing, Oklahoma and extends south to the heart of the

US Gulf Coast. The proposed pipeline runs to the terminals of Port Arthur and Nederland, Texas.7 This

phase of the Keystone is 700 kilometres in length and utilizes 36-inch pipeline.8 It is also under

regulatory review.9

Keystone XL North, or Phase IV, begins in Hardisty, Alberta and extends southeast through

Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. The pipeline joins the existing system in Steele

City.10 The total distance is approximately 2,673 kilometres.11 This segment of the project has attracted

the most controversy and will, as a result be re-routed through the Sandhills region of Nebraska.12

Environmental concerns from the Keystone XL pipeline include crossing the Sandhills in Nebraska and

the massive Ogallala Aquifer to opponents of the oil sands in general. The New York Times recently

urged President Obama to reject the Keystone on grounds that it poses “enormous” environmental

threats in Canada and the US.13 The New York Times cites the Sandhills, a large wetland ecosystem in

Nebraska, and the Ogallala Aquifer as primary environmental concerns regarding the pipeline

proposal.14 The latter spans eight States and provides drinking water for several million residents; it is

one of the largest natural aquifers in the world. The Keystone XL proposal will cross 250 miles of the

Ogallala Aquifer.15 That being said, it is important to note that there are currently 21,000 miles of

existing pipelines crossing across the Ogallala.16 In addition, there are producing oil wells in the

Nebraska part of the Ogallala.17

Others suggest that importing heavy crude from Alberta jeopardizes the US’ clean energy future.18 This

concern was mirrored in a letter sent on June 23, 2010 by 50 Members of Congress to Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton.19 This sentiment was shared by Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and

7 ibid

8 TransCanada Website, http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html (accessed on December 15,

2011) 9 ibid

10 Downstream Today, "NEB Okays Keystone XL". National Energy Board, March 11, 2010,

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=21604 (accessed on December 17, 2011) 11

ibid 12

TransCanada Website, http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 13

Calgary Herald, “Media is Divided on Proposed Keystone Pipeline”, http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/media+divided+proposed+Keystone+pipeline/4551694/story.html?cid=megadrop_story (accessed on October 18, 2011) 14

ibid 15

TransCanada Website, “Pipeline Safety and the Ogallala Aquifer”, http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/Pipeline_Safety__Ogallala_Aquifer_2010.pdf (pp. 1). 16

ibid 17

ibid 18

Switch Board Website, “House Members say proposed tar sands pipeline will undermine clean energy future”, June 23, 2010, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/house_members_say_proposed_tar_1.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 19

ibid


January 2012

Commerce committee.20 The key US lawmaker states that the Keystone transporting the heavy oil

undermines the battle of global warming and expands US reliance on dirty sources of fuel.21

Despite the various controversies, the US State Department, after a thorough review, including an

environmental assessment, concluded that it will endorse the Keystone XL proposal to higher levels of

US government.22 The environmental report suggested that the Keystone XL poses little environmental

risk.23 However, the decision sparked protests in Washington DC and other cities.24 Representatives from

8 US agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were scheduled to review the

proposal by year end 2011.25

The Keystone XL project was, however, dealt several blows in the past several months. First, in mid-

November 2011, the US State Department told TCPL to determine an alternative route, avoiding the

Sandhills in Nebraska altogether.26 TCPL continued talks with leaders in Nebraska to address the

concerns of the prairie and desert landscape and estimated that re-routing the Keystone XL would delay

construction to the end of 2012 or to the beginning of 2013.27 While these delays were estimated to

cost the Calgary-based company money, the organization had already spent C$1.9 billion on the

proposal, from equipment to land rights, and was still confident that the pipeline would be built.28

Canada’s finance minister Jim Flaherty, however, was less optimistic following the re-routing delay that

the project may not survive the delay, especially if it is prolonged.29

The second blow, which is certain to lead to a prolonged delay—at least until early 2013, after the US

Presidential election in November 2012—occurred on January 18, 2012 when the Obama Administration

20

Reuters Website, “Key US lawmaker opposes Canadian oil sands pipeline”, July 6, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/06/pipeline-oilsands-congress-idUSN0611124720100706 (accessed on December 15, 2011) 21

ibid 22

Calgary Herald website, “Report clears TransCanada Keystone pipeline, ”http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/report+clears+TransCanada+Keystone+pipeline/5312553/story.html (accessed on August 27, 2011) 23

FP Energy, “U.S. report clears way for TransCanada’s XL pipeline”, http://business.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/u-s-edges-closer-to-decision-on-keystone-pipeline/ (accessed on December 15, 2011) 24

ibid 25

Calgary Herald website, “Report clears TransCanada Keystone pipeline, ”http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/report+clears+TransCanada+Keystone+pipeline/5312553/story.html (accessed on August 27, 2011) 26

The Globe and Mail, “U.S. delay could spell end for Keystone XL”, November 9, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/us-delay-could-spell-end-for-keystone-xl/article2232016/ (accessed on December 15, 2011) 27

TransCanada Website, http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 28

The Globe and Mail, “U.S. delay could spell end for Keystone XL”, November 9, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/us-delay-could-spell-end-for-keystone-xl/article2232016/ (accessed on December 15, 2011) 29

The Star, “Keystone XL pipeline project still likely to proceed, analyst says”, November 11, 2011, http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1085232--keystone-xl-pipeline-project-still-likely-to-proceed-analyst-says, (accessed on December 15, 2011).


January 2012

rejected a presidential permit for the Keystone XL proposal.30 Obama suggested that the decision was

not made on the merits of the project but the 60-day deadline that the US Congress passed in December

2011.31 The US State Department did, however, leave the door open for TCPL to reapply.32

While TCPL reacted with disappointment, the company has reiterated that it is fully committed to

building the Keystone XL and will reapply for a new permit.33 The Calgary-based company also suggests

that their new application could be expedited due to the fact that, except for the rerouting around the

Sandhills of Nebraska, the project has been reviewed.34

TCPL believes that the Keystone System will provide a reliable source of Canadian oil for the US Gulf

Coast refiners, who currently rely on offshore oil—often from unstable parts of the world such as

Venezuela, Nigeria and the Middle East. The US Gulf Coast’s refineries process approximately 8 million

bpd. Currently, the largest suppliers to the massive Gulf Coast refining complex are Mexico, Venezuela,

Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.35 According to an independent study conducted by The Perryman Group, the

Keystone Pipeline System—when completed—will displace approximately half of the amount of oil the

US imports from the Middle East or Venezuela.36 The study concludes that the Keystone Pipeline will

represent 9 percent of US petroleum imports.37

The aforementioned independent study also suggests that the Keystone XL proposal will provide

economic benefits of over US$20 billion.38 The Perryman Group study estimates that construction of the

US$7 billion pipeline project is expected to stimulate the following:39

• More than $20 billion in new spending for the US economy

• More than 118,000 person-years of employment

• An increase of $6.5 billion in the personal income of Americans

• Increased gross output (product) of $9.6 billion

30

National Post, “Obama rejects Keystone pipeline, open to alternative route”, January 18, 2012, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/18/obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline-open-to-alternative-route/(accessed on January 18, 2012) 31

The Glove and Mail, “To Harper’s ‘profound disappointment,’ Obama rejects Keystone”, January 18, 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/us-rejects-keystone-xl-but-lets-transcanada-reapply/article2306625/ (accessed on January 18, 2012) 32

ibid 33

ibid 34

ibid 35

The Globe and Mail, “TransCanada Keystone XL clears hurdles”,http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/transcanadas-keystone-xl-clears-hurdle/article1987424/ (accessed on December 15, 2011) 36

TransCanada Website, “Delivering Economic Benefits and Energy Security, http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/Keystone_Benefits_US_July_2010.pdf (pp. 1) 37

ibid 38

TransCanada Website, “Independent Study Finds Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion to Stimulate More Than $20 Billion in New Spending For U.S. Economy”, http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/keystone_washington_DC_advisory.pdf 39

ibid


January 2012

• More than $585 million in state and local taxes in the states along the pipeline route

With all being said the Keystone XL, however, has been a lightning rod for controversy. The proposal has

faced lawsuits from oil refineries and has been criticized from members of the US Department of State

to various environmental groups. The US government, public and media are without a doubt divided on

the proposal to transport oil through various jurisdictions citing various reasons.

In addition, the idea of its northern neighbour and largest trading partner and energy supplier, selling oil

to Asian markets (China in particular) has certainly added spice to the Keystone XL debate. This

sentiment has been vocalized by the Canadian government. Following the decision by the Obama

Administration, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver suggested that there is a need for Canada to

diversify their markets for the oil sands—to the energy-hungry Asian markets.40 Prime Minister Stephen

Harper, who is planning to visit China in February 2012 to increase bilateral trade between the 2 nations,

reacted with “profound disappointment” to the rejection of the current application of the Keystone

XL.41,42 The 10 percent purchase of the proposed Northern Lights oil sands project by Chinese energy

giant, Sinopec, illustrates interest in the oil sands and could be the beginning of more investment if a

pipeline to the west coast is realized.

While the Keystone XL has attracted controversy—whether unfounded or not—the various pipeline

proposals to transport the heavy crude from the oil sands through BC to supply fuel for the emerging

Asian market are also drawing a lot of attention—from industry, environmental groups, First Nations

and federal governments.

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline

The twin proposed pipelines—one for oil and the other for condensate—run between Bruderheim,

Alberta and Kitimat, BC. The former lies northeast of Edmonton in the heart of Alberta’s Industrial

Heartland. Kitimat, on the other hand, is a coastal town located on an inlet, 118 kilometres south of

Prince Rupert.

The twin pipelines—1,177 kilometres in length—will carry crude oil westward while transporting natural

gas condensate eastward.43 The condensate will be used as a diluent in oil transportation, to reduce the

viscosity of the heavy crude from the oil sands. The crude oil pipeline will have a diameter of 36 inches

40

The Glove and Mail, “To Harper’s ‘profound disappointment,’ Obama rejects Keystone”, January 19, 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-shrugs-off-ottawas-warnings-over-keystone-xl/article2308026/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2308026 (accessed on January 19, 2012) 41

ibid 42

Canada.com website, “Stephen Harper to visit China nest month”, January 11, 2012, (accessed on January 19, 2012)http://www.canada.com/business/Stephen+Harper+visit+China+next+month/5979152/story.html 43

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Project at a glance, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/project-at-a-glance/ (accessed on January 19, 2012)


January 2012

and a capacity of 525,000 bpd.44 The smaller condensate pipeline will have a diameter of 20 inches and a

capacity of 193,000 bpd.45

According to Enbridge, approximately 520 kilometres of the pipelines are located in Alberta while 657

kilometres are in BC. The proposed pipelines will run through Mayerthorpe, Whitecourt, and Fox Creek

on the Alberta-side of the border and through Bear Lake, Fort St. James, and Burns Lake to Kitimat on

the BC-side of the border.46

Figure 1.2 illustrates the planned route of the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Figure 1.2 Northern Gateway Pipeline Route

Source: http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/route-map/

The C$5.5 billion pipeline project includes a marine terminal in Kitimat.47 The proposed terminal would

include 2 tanker platforms, one with the capacity to serve Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) and

Suezmax-type condensate tankers.48 The planned world-class facility would also include 14 storage tanks

for oil and condensate and a radar monitoring station.49 In addition, the facility will operate at the

highest internationally recognized safety and environmental standards, including only allowing double-

hulled vessels, advanced radar technology and new weather stations, and vessels surrounded by

44

ibid 45

ibid 46

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Route Map, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/route-map/ (accessed on January 18, 2012) 47

Enbridge Northern Gateway, “Northern Gateway Project Overview: Fact Sheet”, Document No. NGP-FS-01-001 (Last Revised on January 14, 2012), pp. 2. 48

ibid 49

ibid


January 2012

containment booms when docked.50 The marine plan of the facility is available on Enbridge’s Northern

Gateway website and is discussed in greater detail later in this study.51

Figure 1.3 illustrates the various tanker routes that could be utilized.

Figure 1.3 Northern Gateway Tanker’s Route

Source: Living Oceans52

Proposed tanker routes to service the Northern Gateway Pipeline would utilize the Dixon Entrance,

Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Sound. The Northern Approach, shown in a red line, will be used

50

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Marine Plan, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/marine-information-and-plan/ (accessed on January 18, 2012) 51

ibid 52

Living Oceans website, http://www.livingoceans.org/files/Images/media/tankerroute-prohibitionzone_english.jpg (accessed on December 12, 2011)


January 2012

for tankers arriving from or departing to Asian ports.53 The Southern Approach (direct) is shown in a

yellow line and will be used by tankers arriving from or departing to west coast ports south of Kitimat.54

The Southern Approach (indirect) is shown as a green line and illustrates the route tankers would take if

weather conditions in the Caamaño Sound cannot be used.55

Economic benefits of the construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline is expected to be

approximately 62,700 person-years of employment, as well as create over 1,150 long-term jobs in the

maintenance and operation of the pipeline and marine terminal.56 Enbridge anticipates approximately

C$4.3 billion in labour-related income to be generated by the construction and an additional C$2.6

billion in tax revenue through the life of the project.57 The marine terminal itself creates 165 full time

jobs, including operations, tug fleet, first response and monitoring.58

It is important to note that the Northern Gateway is fully booked; Enbridge has lined up shippers on

long-term contracts for the proposed pipeline.59

The company has applied for federal approval to build the proposed pipelines, and their application is

currently in front of the Joint Review Panel (JRP). The JRP is co-led by the NEB and the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). The application will undergo an environmental assessment

and regulatory process. On January 19, 2011, the JRP requested that Enbridge provide additional

information before it makes its decision. It is interesting to note that the 8-volume application is already

the largest ever received by the NEB. The latter announced that community hearings for the Northern

Gateway, along with their locations, are scheduled to begin on January 10, 2012 in Kitimat.60

Although Enbridge submitted its project application on May 27, 2010, the proposed project’s inception

can be traced back to the mid-2000s. In 2005 Enbridge signed a cooperation agreement with

PetroChina, in which the latter agreed to purchase 200,000 barrels per day. PetroChina backed out of

the agreement following project delays in 2007.

The proposed pipelines will have to overcome various obstacles. The project’s pipelines cut across land

belonging to approximately 30 First Nations along its way from Alberta to BC’s west coast. As well as

winning over aboriginal interests, the Northern Gateway Pipeline will likely face stiff environmental

53

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8A: Overview and General Information—Marine Transportation, Section 4: Considerations due to a Project-related Additional Traffic, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 4-15. 54

ibid 55

ibid 56

Enbridge Northern Gateway, http://www.northerngateway.ca/economic-opportunity/benefits-for-canadians/ (accessed on January 17, 2012) 57

ibid 58

Enbridge Northern Gateway, “Northern Gateway Project Brochure”, (Last Revised October 26, 2011), pp. 9. 59

Calgary Herald, Enbridge fully books Northern Gateway, August 25, 2011, http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Enbridge+fully+books+Northern+Gateway/5304636/story.html (accessed on December 16, 2011) 60

“National Energy Board announces Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline hearings in Alberta, British Columbia “, November 9,2011, http://www.dcnonl.com/article/id47502/--national-energy-board-announces-enbridge-northern-gateway-pipeline-hearings-in-alberta-british-columbia (accessed on December 15, 2011)


January 2012

opposition. In many respects, the two are deeply intertwined. In December 2010, over 60 First Nations

in BC signed a declaration in opposition to the project, fearing the polluting of rivers or coastal waters.

The proposed pipeline’s route crosses approximately 1,000 streams and rivers, as it meanders through

rugged, mountainous terrain.61 The current proposed pipeline route runs through several sensitive

watersheds, including the Fraser, Skeena and the Kitimat.62 First Nation concerns are being presented at

the JRP.

Another controversy is the potential oil traffic as well as the potential size of oil tankers. At its peak

operating capacity the terminal would be loaded with approximately 225 oil tankers per year.63 Figure

1.4 illustrates a proposed prohibited zone that bans tankers categorized as VLCCs or larger, as well as

the proposed oil tanker routes vessels would take if using the marine terminal in Kitimat. The federal

House of Commons has passed a motion to ban VLCC tanker traffic off the British Columbia coast.64 It is,

however, important to note that there is no formal, or legislated, federal moratorium currently

preventing tankers from entering northern British Columbia waters.

Figure 1.4 Tanker Routes

Source: Living Oceans65

61

Friends of Wild Salmon, http://friendsofwildsalmon.ca/campaigns/detail/enbridge_pipelines (accessed on December 12, 2011) 62

“Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines VS. The people of Northern BC” http://www.slideshare.net/CaseydeJong/enbridge-northern-gateway-pipelines-vs-the-people-of-northern-bc (accessed on December 15, 2011) 63

ibid 64

CBC News, "B.C. oil tanker ban motion passes in Commons", 2010-12-7, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/07/oil-tanker-motion.html?ref=rss (accessed on December 15, 2011) 65

Living Oceans website, http://www.livingoceans.org/files/Images/media/tankerroute-prohibitionzone_english.jpg (accessed on October 15, 2011)


January 2012

The expensive and controversial Northern Gateway project is, in all likelihood, several years from

construction. Recent developments regarding the Keystone XL have thrust the media spotlight onto

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project. While politicians and citizens south of the 49th

Parallel are divided on Alberta’s oil sands and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the move to diversify

Canada’s energy trading partners may also cause a stir in the United States. Some Canadian industry

pundits, however, view the move to diversify trading partners as prudent; others suggest that it is of

strategic importance to Canada. The Northern Gateway is currently attracting the most attention from

the public and the media—both positive and negative—compared to other pipeline proposals to the

west coast.

It is important to note that the Calgary-based company is not new to this game; it operates the longest

crude oil and liquids pipeline system in the world, delivering 2 million bpd to 1.8 million customers on

over 15,000 kilometres of pipeline.66 Among the liquids pipelines operated by Enbridge are the Canadian

Mainline and the Alberta Clipper.

Enbridge’s Canadian Mainline, sometimes referred to as the Enbridge System, begins in Edmonton and

runs to Montreal. It is 2,306 kilometres in length.67 The Canadian Mainline ends at Gretna, Manitoba

when the pipeline enters the United States and starts again in Sarnia, Ontario, where it runs through

Toronto and onto Montreal.68

Figure 1.5 illustrates the Canadian Mainline, as well as other Enbridge liquids pipelines in North America.

66

Enbridge Northern Gateway, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-info/about-us (accessed on December 15, 2011) 67

Enbridge Website, http://www.enbridge.com/DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx (accessed on December 15, 2011) 68

ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.5 Enbridge Liquids Pipelines

Source: Enbridge website69

The Canadian Mainline is represented by the red line. The yellow-spotted line illustrates Enbridge’s

Lakehead System, or the US Mainline. In combination with the Enbridge Lakehead System the capacity

of the pipeline is 2,500,000 bpd.70 The Canadian Mainline transports crude oil and diluted bitumen,

while the Enbridge Lakehead transports crude oil, condensate and NGLs.71 The latter runs roughly from

Neche, North Dakota to Chicago, Illinois.72 The Lakehead System loops around Lake Michigan, as far

north as Lewiston and runs southward through Bay City, Michigan and northward to Sarnia, Ontario.

On the other hand, the Alberta Clipper is a heavy crude oil pipeline that runs from Hardisty, Alberta to

Superior, Wisconsin. The 1,604 kilometre pipeline runs through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North

Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The 450,000 bpd capacity pipeline follows the Canadian Mainline to

69

Enbridge Northern Gateway, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-info/about-us (accessed on December 15, 2011) 70

Enbridge Website, http://www.enbridge.com/DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx (accessed on December 15, 2011) 71

CEPA website, Pipeline Map, http://www.cepa.com/map/pipeline-map.swf (accessed on December 15, 2011) 72

ibid


January 2012

Gretna, Manitoba. The capacity is expandable to 800,000 bpd.73 It is important to mention that the

Alberta Clipper is integrated, and forms a part of the existing Canadian Mainline.74

Figure 1.6 illustrates the Alberta Clipper (yellow line). Existing Enbridge pipelines are also illustrated on

the graphic (green line).

Figure 1.6 Alberta Clipper Pipeline

Source: Enbridge75

The pipeline utilizes 36-inch diameter pipeline and was approved by the NEB in February 2008.76

Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) Expansion and Extension

With more than 37,000 miles of natural gas, crude oil and product pipelines and 180 terminals, Kinder

Morgan is one the largest pipeline transportation and midstream energy companies in North America.77

73

Enbridge website, Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights, http://www.enbridge-expansion.com/expansion/main.aspx?id=1228&tmi=1720&tmt=5 (accessed on December 15, 2011) 74

ibid 75

Enbridge website, Liquids Pipelines, http://www.enbridge-expansion.com/expansion/main.aspx?id=1218 (accessed on December 14, 2011) 76

CBC website, Enbridge gets approval for $2B Alberta Clipper pipeline, February 25, 2008, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/02/25/enbridge-alberta-clipper.html (accessed on December 16, 2011) 77

Kinder Morgan website, http://www.kindermorgan.com/(accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

Its terminals include petroleum coke, sulphur, coal, biodiesel, ethanol and other petroleum products.78 It

is also the largest CO2 pipeline operator in North America.79

Kinder Morgan is the owner and operator of the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX)—currently the only link

between Alberta’s oil sands and the west coast. The 1,150 kilometre TMX runs from Edmonton, Alberta

to terminals in the Burnaby/Vancouver area and the Puget Sound region in Washington State. As

illustrated in Figure 1.7, the existing pipeline runs through Jasper National Park, down to Kamloops and

on to the Westridge Terminal in Burnaby and/or Washington’s Anacortes or Ferndale refining facilities.

Figure 1.7 also includes the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines project.

Figure 1.7 Existing TMX Pipeline

Source: Globe and Mail80

The Edmonton terminal has 20 incoming feeder lines throughout Alberta and contains 19 storage tanks

with a storage capacity of 2.5 million barrels of petroleum.81 The Kamloops terminal is a receiving site

for not only crude from Alberta but from northeastern BC as well. The Kamloops terminal contains 2

storage tanks with a capacity of 144,000 barrels. At the Sumas Pump Station and Terminal, the pipeline

diverges to either the Westridge Marine Terminal, located at Burnaby/Greater Vancouver Metro area,

or to Washington State. The Abbotsford terminal contains 6 storage tanks with a capacity of 650,000

78

Kinder Morgan Canada, “Canadian Crude Oil for Japanese Markets”, Norman Rinne Presentation, March 2010, http://www.altanet.or.jp/5_Canadian_Crude_Oil_Japanese_Market.pdf (pp. 4) 79

ibid 80

The Globe and Mail, “Kinder Morgan plans pipeline expansion to B.C.”, February 2, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/kinder-morgan-plans-pipeline-expansion-to-bc/article1892291/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 81

Kinder Morgan website, Trans Mountain Pipeline, http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/transmountain.cfm (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

barrels.82 In Washington, the TMX runs the crude to either Anacortes or Ferndale—both are home to

several refineries.

The existing pipeline has been in operation since 1957.83 Previous to Kinder Morgan the TMX was most

recently operated by BC-based utility Terasen. Among other assets, the TMX was included in Kinder

Morgan’s C$6.9 billion takeover in 2005.84 It is interesting to note that Fortis Inc. purchased Terasen,

including Terasen Gas, from Kinder Morgan in 2007.85 The Houston-based Kinder Morgan retained

ownership of the TMX pipeline.

Currently, approximately 300,000 bpd arrives at the Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), which operates the

Westridge Terminal, from deliveries to the US West Coast, more specifically California, and more

recently, to Asian and European markets.86

Kinder Morgan’s latest expansion was the 40,000 bpd TMX Anchor Loop Project, often referred to as

TMX-1. The Anchor Loop is illustrated in Figure 1.8.

Figure 1.8 TMX – Anchor Loop Project

Source: Kinder Morgan87

82

ibid 83

ibid 84

Petroleum News, Kinder Morgan lays out next stage of plans to meet demands to reach Asian markets, Week of January 16, 2011, http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/679267018.shtml (accessed on December 16, 2011) 85

Fortis BC website, About Fortis BC, http://www.fortisbc.com/About/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 86

Petroleum News, Kinder Morgan lays out next stage of plans to meet demands to reach Asian markets, Week of January 16, 2011, http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/679267018.shtml (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

Completed in 2008, the Anchor Loop expanded the TMX through Jasper National Park and Mount

Robson Provincial Park.88 The C$750 million project increased capacity from 260,000 bpd to the current

300,000 bpd.89 In spite of the expansion, it is important to note that Kinder Morgan reported on April

21, 2011 that the TMX pipeline is oversubscribed by 30 percent.90

Building on its expansion of the TMX-1 and the burgeoning demand for crude oil in its pipeline, Kinder

Morgan is proposing to expand the TMX pipeline by up to 1,100,000 bpd.91

Kinder Morgan’s TMX pipeline proposal is actually two separate proposals: the Southern Expansion and

the Northern Extension. Kinder Morgan is offering the flexibility of expanding either or both. The

Southern Expansion includes expanding the existing pipeline from 300,000 bpd to 700,000 bpd.92 The

Southern Expansion calls for a dual pipeline, one for refined products and the other for heavy crude.93

The pipelines follow the existing TMX pipeline. The portion of the existing TMX, excluding the Anchor

Loop is dubbed TMX-2, while the portion of the existing pipeline south of Kamloops to Westridge

Terminal is the TMX-3. Together they will expand the pipeline capacity of the existing TMX by 400,000

bpd. It is important to note that the Westridge Terminal will have to be expanded to support Suezmax

tankers, as needed.94 Currently the terminal is able to host Aframax tankers with 650,000 barrels of

crude oil capacity.95 Suezmax have a capacity of 1,000,000 barrels of crude oil.96 Kinder Morgan’s

southern expansion will likely increase, perhaps double, the number of oil tankers; in 2009, 65 Aframax

oil tankers travelled through the Burrard Inlet, up from 45 in 2008.97

87

Kinder Morgan website, TMX – Anchor Loop Project, http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/TMX_Documentation/default.cfm (accessed on December 16, 2011) 88

Kinder Morgan website, NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD APPROVES TRANS MOUNTAIN ANCHOR LOOP PROJECT, http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/TMX_Documentation/PressReleases/575_anchorloopNEB.pdf (accessed on December 16, 2011) 89


Bloomberg website, “Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Line Oversubscribed by 30%”, April 21, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-21/kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-line-oversubscribed-by-30-1-.html (accessed on December 16, 2011) 91


ibid 93

Trans Mountain Expansion – TMX Proposal, Kinder Morgan Canada Brochure, pp. 2. 94



ibid 97

The Tyee, “Big Jump in Oil Tankers in Vancouver's Port”, June 3, 2010, http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/03/VancouverOilTankers/ (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

Because the TMX is already operating, Kinder Morgan suggests that the TMX can be expanded by 80,000

bpd by 2015 and by 320,000 bpd by 2017.98 Recall that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project will likely

have to clear a plethora of environmental and aboriginal issues.99 That being said, Kinder Morgan will

likely face opposition from environmental groups in the Vancouver-area as well with regard to

expanding the size of the terminal, and subsequently the size of the tankers servicing the facility. The

opposition will likely be centered on the increased size and frequency of tanker traffic in Vancouver.

Safety measures and the role of PMV are discussed later in the study.

Figure 1.9 shows an Aframax oil tanker approaching the Second Narrows Bridge; as per safety

procedure, the oil tanker is tethered to guiding tugboats.

Figure 1.9 Oil Tanker and the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver

Source: CBC 100

Kinder Morgan’s Northern Expansion, on the other hand, includes building a pipeline sprouting off the

TMX at Valemount, BC to a marine terminal at Kitimat.101 The approximate proposed path of the

Northern Leg of the TMX expansion is illustrated in Figure 1.10.

98


Enbridge Northern gateway website, Northern Gateway at a glance, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-info/northern-gateway-at-a-glance (accessed on December 16, 2011) 100

CBC News, “Concern rising over oil tankers in Vancouver waters”, May 7, 2010, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/07/bc-vancouver-tankers-oil-spill.html (accessed on December 14, 2011) 101

Trans Mountain Expansion – TMX Proposal, Kinder Morgan Canada Brochure, pp. 2.


January 2012

Figure 1.10 Proposed Northern Leg of the TMX Pipeline

Source: Globe and Mail102 and CERI

The expansion will increase the TMX capacity by 400,000 bpd, totaling 1,100,000 bpd if the Southern

Expansion is also approved.103 Kinder Morgan suggests that the Northern Expansion will require only 760

kilometres of new pipe from Valemount to the coast but will hinge on developing a VLCC-capable port at

Kitimat, to supply oil to Asian markets.104

The proposed pipeline will have to overcome various obstacles similar in nature to Enbridge’s Northern

Gateway Pipeline project. The project’s pipeline also cuts across land owned by several First Nations

along its route from Valemount, BC to Kitimat. The Northern Expansion will also most likely face similar

environmental opposition. Recall that in December 2010, over 60 First Nations in BC signed a

declaration in opposition to Enbridge’s project, fearing the polluting of rivers or coastal waters. Similar

opposition will likely be met for the lesser-known Kinder Morgan proposal. In addition, similar

opposition will also likely be encountered for the various marine routes the tankers would affect in the

Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Sound.

Like Enbridge and TCPL, Kinder Morgan is not new to the game of transporting heavy crude to market in

the United States. The company also operates the Express-Platte Pipeline system that transports crude

oil from Hardisty, Alberta to terminals in Wood River, Illinois. The 2,700 kilometre Express-Platte

pipeline is actually two separate crude oil pipelines; the Express Pipeline began operation in 1997 while

102



Trans Mountain Expansion – TMX Proposal, Kinder Morgan Canada Brochure, pp. 3.


January 2012

the Platte began operation in 1952.105 The crude oil pipeline crosses through Montana, Wyoming,

Nebraska, Missouri and Illinois.106

Figure 1.11 illustrates the Express-Platte Pipeline. The figure below also includes the existing Keystone

Pipeline, not the proposed Keystone XL. Both pipelines deliver crude oil to refineries in Illinois, the

Express-Platte Pipeline to Wood River, Illinois and the Keystone Pipeline to Wood River and Pakota,

Illinois. The Express Pipeline delivers heavy crude oil from Hardisty to refineries in the Rocky Mountains,

Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.

Figure 1.11 Express-Platte Pipeline

Source: http://www.cepa.com/

The Express utilizes 24-inch diameter pipe and is 1,283 kilometres in length.107 It has a capacity of

280,000 bpd and is regulated by the NEB and the United States Department of Transportation Office of

105

Kinder Morgan website, Express-Platte Pipelines, http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/Express_Platte.cfm (accessed on December 15, 2011) 106

ibid 107

ibid


January 2012

Pipeline Safety and the FERC.108 As previously mentioned, the Express interconnects with the much older

Platte Pipeline in Casper, Wyoming. The latter starts in Casper and delivers the heavy crude oil to Wood

River, Illinois; where it is refined.109 The Platte is 1,500 kilometres in length and uses 20-inch pipe.110 The

capacity from Casper to Guemsey is 164,000 bpd while the capacity from Guemsey to Wood River is

approximately 145,000 bpd.111

Because the Platte is entirely in the United States, only the United States Department of Transportation

Office of Pipeline Safety and FERC regulate the pipeline.112 It is important to note that despite the fact

that the Platte is located in the United States, Kinder Morgan Canada operates the pipeline.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMP) acquired a one-third stake in the Express-Platte from Knight Inc.,

the private entity which owns the general partner of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, in August 2008.113

Kinder Morgan solely operates the pipelines.114 In the deal, Kinder Morgan also acquired a jet fuel

pipeline that serves the Vancouver International Airport from its Westridge Marine Terminal in

Burnaby.115

Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) “Pipeline on Rails”

While the planned Northern Gateway project has received the most media attention, many industry

pundits find CN’s proposal of shipping oil by rail the most creative and intriguing. CN joined the race to

supply oil to the Asian markets in early 2009 but their “pipeline on rails” idea has really gained steam in

the past year. This could be fueled by a combination of greater than C$100 oil or the various challenges

and issues regarding the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan proposals. Besides the existing TMX, there are

obstacles to build a pipeline through BC to the west coast. The process is time-consuming, expensive

and slow. CN’s “pipeline on rails” concept is being marketed to industry as “unprecedented connectivity,

scalability, flexibility, reliability and speed – all with minimum impact on the environment”.116

Given its continental network of existing rails, illustrated in Figure 1.12, oil from Alberta can be

transported from Fort McMurray to marine terminals in Vancouver, Kitimat and Prince Rupert, as well to

refineries in the southern US and US Gulf Coast. The CN operates in 8 provinces and 16 US States.117

108

ibid 109

ibid 110

ibid 111

ibid 112

ibid 113

KMP Acquires Pipelines from Knight, August 28, 2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_August_28/ai_n28043717/ (accessed on December 14, 2011) 114

ibid 115

ibid 116

CN Railway website, Ship Your Crude Oil Products on CN's PipelineOnRail™, http://www.cn.ca/en/shipping-north-america-alberta-pipeline-on-rail.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 117

CN Rail, Transportation Solutions for Oil Sands Production Phase, Randy Meyer Presentation, The Van Horne Institute, May 13, 2009, http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/2%20CN.pdf (pp. 3)


January 2012

Figure 1.12 CN’s North American Railway Network

Source: CN Rail118

While the CN connects directly, or with various affiliations with other railways, with refineries in the

USGC, this study only focuses on the organizations links to the BC west coast. And with their purchase of

the Athabasca Northern Railway and Lakehead & Waterways Railway, the CN now has access from Fort

McMurray to three west coast terminals, passing directly through Alberta’s Industrial Heartland.119 The

latter is illustrated in Figure 1.13. In addition CN has pumped C$135 million to improve the old line, built

on permafrost land.120 The track is now able to take heavy trains carrying bitumen. CN hopes to be

transporting 10,000 bpd on the revitalized line by year-end, with the objective of ramping up to

between 300,000 to 400,000 bpd in the near future.121

118

CN Rail website, http://www.cn.ca/en/shipping-map-oil-sand-opportunities.htm 119

Canadian National Reinvents Oil Sands Transport, May 8, 2009, http://www.investingdaily.com/ce/17289/canadian-national-reinvents-oil-sands-transport.html (accessed on December 17, 2011) 120

ibid 121

ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.13 Access to Alberta’s Industrial Heartland

Source: CN Rail122

As previously mentioned, crude oil can be transported to one of three west coast ports: Prince Rupert,

Kitimat and Vancouver. While the Ridley Terminal at Prince Rupert is the closet to Asian markets, CN has

access to three terminals at the PMV (Squamish Terminals, Fraser Surrey Docks and Lynnterm Terminal).

The former is exclusive to CN while the Fraser Surrey and Lynnterm terminals are able to handle vessels

that are Panamax and post-Panamax size, respectively.123

CN already transports diluents, liquid petroleum gases (LPG), coal, diesel, sulphur and petroleum coke to

the west coast and various other parts of North America.124 The logistical framework already exists for

various commodities. Figure 1.14 illustrates CN’s diluents “pipeline on rails”. CN partnered with EnCana,

Provident and Methanex and was ramping up 14,000 cars per year, or the equivalent of 23,000 bpd.125

122

CN Rail, Transportation Solutions for Oil Sands Production Phase, Randy Meyer Presentation, The Van Horne Institute, May 13, 2009, http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/2%20CN.pdf (pp.6) 123

CN Rail, Alberta Oil Sands, http://www.cn.ca/en/shipping-north-america-alberta-oil-sands.htm (accessed on December 17, 2011) 124

ibid 125

CN Rail, Transportation Solutions for Oil Sands Production Phase, Randy Meyer Presentation, The Van Horne Institute, May 13, 2009, http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/2%20CN.pdf (pp. 16)


January 2012

CN’s coal “pipeline on rails” moves 13 million MT of coal, an equivalent of 210,000 bpd.126 The

organization suggests that it can transport 200,000 bpd or more oil to market.127

Figure 1.14 CN’s Diluents “Pipeline on Rails”

Source: CN Rail128

That being said, CN would most likely have to build a new terminal on the west coast at a cost of C$200

to C$500 million, which could exclusively handle the necessary large tanker shipments.129 This marine

terminal and its proposed tanker routes could be susceptible to the potential ban of VLCC traffic and

other environmental issues that could affect the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan proposals.

Oil Tankers and Marine Terminals: Regulations and Safety Measures

This section discusses oil tanker and marine terminal regulations and safety measures.

Now more than ever before, the public and various levels of governments observe and react to

accidents and spills with great interest. Even minor accidents seem to make their way into news reports

and are discussed on the internet. Several recent spills are negatively affecting the aforementioned

proposals.

126

CN Rail, Transportation Solutions for Oil Sands Production Phase, Randy Meyer Presentation, The Van Horne Institute, May 13, 2009, http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/2%20CN.pdf (pp. 15) 127

CN Railway website, Ship Your Crude Oil Products on CN's PipelineOnRail™, http://www.cn.ca/en/shipping-north-america-alberta-pipeline-on-rail.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 128

CN Rail, Transportation Solutions for Oil Sands Production Phase, Randy Meyer Presentation, The Van Horne Institute, May 13, 2009, http://www.vanhorne.info/files/vanhorne/2%20CN.pdf (pp. 16) 129

The Globe and Mail, CN & CP eye shipping oil to west coast, January 24, 2011, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/cn-cp-eye-shipping-oil-to-west-coast/article1881460/page2/ (accessed on December 14, 2011)


January 2012

Despite the fact that the oil industry has a decent safety record, accidents do happen. And when they

do, the public does not forget easily, nor should they. That being said, safety issues should be put in

perspective. Similar to liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels and marine terminals, public concerns often

manifest themselves into NIMBYism.

The increasing demand for oil will significantly increase the number and frequency of oil tanker

deliveries to ports in North America. The increasing number of shipments from an increasing number of

terminals spurs concerns about the potential for an accidental spill or release of oil on land or water.

Safety has always been a leading public perception problem. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and, more

recently, BP’s massive, and highly publicized, Gulf of Mexico accident are remembered by the public.

Many of the concerns stem from safety issues—some of which merit concern while some do not. This

section discusses oil tanker and marine terminal safety issues. It is divided into 3 sections: oil tankers

101 (background of oil tankers), oil tankers 201 (international regulatory agencies that govern the safety

of the industry), and design and safety measures required by oil tankers.

Oil Tanker 101— Basics

This section provides, as the title suggests, the basics to understanding the complex shipping industry.

This section reviews characteristics of the oil tankers and discusses briefly an industry that is very

international in nature.

There are two types of oil tankers: crude tankers and product tankers. The former moves large

quantities of unrefined crude oil to refineries while the latter transports petrochemicals from refineries

to market for consumption. This section focuses on the crude tankers, being the most likely of the two

utilized off the coast of British Columbia.

Oil tankers are divided into subclasses: Product Tanker/Seawaymax, Panamax, Aframax, Suezmax, VLCC

and Ultra Large Crude Carrier (ULCC).130 Table 1.1 illustrates the average dimension of each subclass of

vessel, as well as typical minimum and maximum deadweight tonnage (DWT).

130

de Larrucea, Jaime Rodrigo, “Oil Tankers Safety: Legal Aspects”, http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf (pp. 5)


January 2012

Table 1.1 Oil Tankers

Class Length

(m) Beam

(m) Draft (m)

Typical Min DWT

Typical Max DWT

Seawaymax 226 24 7.92 10,000 60,000

Panamax 228.6 32.3 12.6 60,000 80,000

Aframax 253 44. 11. 80,000 120,000

Suezmax

120,000 200,000

VLCC 470 60 20 200,000 315,000

ULCC

320,000 550,000

Source: Jaime Rodrigo de Larrucea131

Seawaymax and Panamax vessels are generally known as product tankers, often carrying refined

petroleum products. Panamax, as the name suggests, refers to ships that are able to travel through the

Panama Canal.132 The Panama Canal, opened in 1914, is planning an expansion so that ever-growing

tankers can make use of the facility. New Panamax vessels with dimensions of 427 m in length, a 55 m

beam and depth of 18.2 m will be able to utilize the new locks.133 The new Canal dimensions will not be

able to fit vessels categorized as VLCCs and ULCCs, or supertankers. Aframax tankers have a DWT of less

than 120,000 and the name is based on the Average Freight Rate Assessment (AFRA) tanker rate

system.134 The latter was a rating system started by Shell in 1954 to categorize the size and purpose of

vessels.135 Aframax tankers are generally used in the North Sea, Black Sea, the Caribbean Sea, the China

Sea and the Mediterranean.136 Aframax tankers have a capacity of approximately 650,000 bbls.137

Figure 1.15 shows an Aframax tanker—the Torben Spirit.

131

de Larrucea, Jaime Rodrigo, “Oil Tankers Safety: Legal Aspects”, http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf (pp. 5) 132

Marine Insight, Panamax and Aframax: Oil Tankers with a Difference, http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/types-of-ships-marine/panamax-and-aframax-tankers-oil-tankers-with-a-difference/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 133

ibid 134

ibid 135

Supertankers, http://www.auuuu.com/shiptravel/supertanker/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 136

Marine Insight, Panamax and Aframax: Oil Tankers with a Difference, http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/types-of-ships-marine/panamax-and-aframax-tankers-oil-tankers-with-a-difference/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 137

Kinder Morgan Canada, “Canadian Crude Oil for Japanese Markets”, Norman Rinne Presentation, March 2010, http://www.altanet.or.jp/5_Canadian_Crude_Oil_Japanese_Market.pdf (pp. 15)


January 2012

Figure 1.15 Aframax Tanker at Sea

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/TorbenSpirit-SingaporeAnchorage-

20050906.jpg

Suezmax, ranging between 120,000 and 200,000 DWT, refers to the category of vessels able to pass

through Egypt’s Suez Canal.138 Once regarded as supertankers, this distinction is now reserved for the

much larger VLCC and ULCC vessels. While large, they are still smaller than the VLCC. Suezmax tankers

have a capacity of approximately 1,000,000 bbls.139 The VLCC is able to transport between 200,000 and

320,000 DWT and average 331 meters in length and nearly 60 meters in width.140 The capacity of a VLCC

is approximately 2,000,000 bbls.141 The latest generation of supertanker is the Ultra Large Crude Carrier

(ULCC) and has a capacity of up to 550,000 DWT, or approximately 4,000,000 barrels.142,143 It is

interesting to note that because of their sheer size, they are usually not permitted to enter a port fully

loaded.144 In fact, the latest reports are that these massive tankers are declining in numbers.145 There

138

Evangelista, Joe, Ed., "Scaling the Tanker Market", Surveyor (American Bureau of Shipping) (4): 5–11, Winter 2002 139


Danish Ship Finance, VLCC/ULCC Segments, http://www.shipfinance.dk/Default.aspx?ID=407 (accessed on December 16, 2011). 141

Pacific Energy Partners, “Tanker Information for Pier 400 Crude Oil Receiving Terminal”, March 2005, http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/pdfs/TANKERS/TankerBusEmissions.pdf (pp. 5) 142

Danish Ship Finance, VLCC/ULCC Segments, http://www.shipfinance.dk/Default.aspx?ID=407 (accessed on December 16, 2011). 143

Pacific Energy Partners, “Tanker Information for Pier 400 Crude Oil Receiving Terminal”, March 2005, http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/pdfs/TANKERS/TankerBusEmissions.pdf (pp. 5) 144

Huber, Mark, “Tanker operations: a handbook for the person-in-charge, Cambridge, MD, 2001, pp. 23. 145

Danish Ship Finance, VLCC/ULCC Segments, http://www.shipfinance.dk/Default.aspx?ID=407 (accessed on December 16, 2011).


January 2012

are only 11 ULCCs.146 This is most likely due to the fact that they may be deemed too risky, not because

of the construction and engineering but due to the intrinsic risk that if something were to go wrong it

could be very costly for the organization. In addition, there are very few ports that can accommodate

these enormous ships.147

Figure 1.16 demonstrates the massive ULCC supertanker—the Hellespont Alhambra (now the TI Asia).

This particular vessel is far too large for the Panama and Suez Canal’s.

Figure 1.16 A ULCC Tanker at Sea

Source: Photo by the Hellespont Group148

Like their LNG counterparts, oil tankers are getting larger as well. In 2002, there were 151 LNG tankers

travelling between 17 liquefaction points and 40 re-gasification facilities.149 At that time, the typical LNG

carrier transported between 125,000 and 138,000 cubic meters of LNG. By March 2011, that number

had ballooned to 334 LNG carriers worldwide.150 And by 2008, the average size increased to

approximately 150,000 cubic meters.151 New LNG supertankers under construction have a capacity of

265,000 cubic meters of natural gas.152

146

ibid 147

ibid 148

Auke Visser’s International Super Tankers, http://www.aukevisser.nl/supertankers/id93.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011). 149

“North American Terminal Survey (NATS) For Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import and Re-gasification United States Canada Bahamas Mexico Onshore and Offshore”, Version 6, PanEurAsian Enterprises Inc., April 2005. 150

Shipbuilding History, The World Fleet of LNG Carriers, http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/today/highvalueships/lngactivefleet.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011). 151

Liquefied Natural Gas, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas#LNG_transportation (accessed on December 16, 2011). 152

G.A. Melham PhD., et al., Understanding LNG Fire Hazards, ioMosaic Corporation, 2007, http://www.iomosaic.com/docs/whitepapers/Understand_LNG_Fire_Hazards.pdf (pp. 13)


January 2012

The same trend is true in the world of oil tankers. As of January 2008, there were 492 VLCCs, 360

Suemaxes, 783 Aframaxes, 329 Panamaxes and 981 MR-type (or Seawaymaxes).153 With 64 additions in

2009 and 35 additions in 2010, not surprisingly, the VLCC remains the largest in terms of volume.154

Aframaxes also continue to play a large role with 109 additions in 2009 and 80 additions in 2010.155

Figure 1.17 illustrates the various classifications of oil tankers. The schematic does not include the ULCC

carriers.

Figure 1.17 Classifications of Crude Oil Tankers


The world merchant fleet deliveries increased to 1,276 million deadweight tonnes in the beginning of

2010, up 84 million DWT over 2009.157 Crude oil shipments, however, decreased by approximately 3.4

percent to 1.72 billion tonnes, down from 2.73 billion tonnes from 2008; much of this decrease can be

attributed to global economic slowdown.158 Not surprisingly, the productivity of oil tankers, tonnes

carried per DWT, also decreased, from 6.7 percent in 2008 to 5.6 percent in 2009.159 In fact, up to 34

VLCCs were used as storage in 2009.160 The numbers could have decreased more if not for strong

demand in China, India and western Asia.161 Despite the latter, world oil consumption decreased from

153

Tanker Shipping Review, March 2008, http://www.scribd.com/doc/6008299/TANKER-SHIPPING-REVIEW-March2008 (accessed on December 17, 2011). 154

ibid 155

ibid 156


UNCTAD 2010, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, pp. xiv. 158

UNCTAD 2010, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, pp. 7. 159

UNCTAD 2010, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, pp. xiv. 160

United States Energy Information Administration, “Current monthly energy chronology”, February 2009. 161

ibid


January 2012

85.2 mbpd in 2008 to 84.1 mbpd in 2009.162 Product tankers also suffered a bad year, as shipments of

petroleum products fell by 2.4 percent in 2009.163

In January 2010, oil tankers made up 35.3 percent of the world’s fleet, down slightly from 36.9 percent

in 2005. In terms of deadweight tonnage, oil tankers account for approximately 450 million DWT, up 7.6

percent from 2009.164 Only the increase in dry bulk carriers increased more (9.1 percent). Due to the

global economic slowdown, it is interesting to note that the share of oil tanker trade in the total world

seaborne trade has decreased from 35.1 percent in 2007 to 33.8 percent in 2009.165 In 2007, a record

high 2.75 billion metric tonnes of oil were shipped by tankers while in 2009 only 2.65 billion metric

tonnes were shipped.166 It is also interesting to note the combined deadweight tonnage of oil tankers

and bulk carriers represents 72.9 percent of the world’s fleet.167

International law requires every merchant ship to be registered in a country. At the beginning of 2010,

the top 5 flag states of the world’s merchant fleet were Greece (16.0 percent), Japan (15.7 percent),

China (9.0 percent), Germany (8.9 percent) and South Korea (3.6 percent).168 China overtook Germany

for third this year. Canada is ranked 15th in the world at 1.6 percent of the total percentage.169 In terms

of flags states, or the state where the vessel is registered, the top 5 are Panama (8,100 vessels), Liberia

(2,456 vessels), the Marshall Islands (1,376 vessels), Hong Kong – China (1,529 vessels) and Greece

(1,517 vessels).170 While Panama accounts for 22.6 percent of the world total DWT, Canada does not

even register in the top 35.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2007, the top flag states, for oil tankers is Panama

(528 vessels), Liberia (464), Singapore (355), China (353), Russia (250), the Marshall Islands (234) and the

Bahamas (209). The United States and the United Kingdom had only 59 and 27, respectively. Panama,

Liberia, the Marshall Islands and the Bahamas are considered open registries and are often considered

flags of convenience. Panama caters mostly to owners from China, Greece, Japan and South Korea.171

The construction of tankers is dominated by South Korea, Japan and China.172

Table 1.2 illustrates the top 10 largest tanker operators in the world, in terms of DWT and DWT of

newbuildings.

162




UNCTAD 2007, Review of Maritime Transport 2007, pp.14 166

ibid 167



ibid 170



ibid


January 2012

Table 1.2 Top 10 Oil Tanker Operators in the World

Ship Name Millions of DWT Millions of DWT of

Newbuildings

Teekay Corporation 17.04 2.28

Frontline 16.08 2.4

MOL Tankship Management 13.11 3.04

Overseas Shipholding Group 11.22 2.73

Euronav 9.43 1.27

Tanker Pacific Management 9.22 0.90

Kristen Navigation 8.30 2.30

Nippon Yusen Kaisha 6.84 1.75

MISC Berhad 6.52 2.61

Tsakos Group 6.13 0.93

Source: Tanker Shipping Review173

Oil Tanker 201— International Regulations

This section reviews briefly the international regulations in the maritime industry. With the international

nature of shipping, it was realized by the nations post-World War II that it was easier to improve safety

and maritime operations on an international level rather than at the national level.

At the heart of international maritime law is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Its mandate

is “to promote safe, secure, environmentally sound, efficient and sustainable shipping through

cooperation”.174 The IMO is responsible for the safety and security of shipping, and is also mandated

with the prevention of marine pollution by ship.175 The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations

and was established in Geneva in 1948. The organization’s original name dating back to its inception and

its inaugural meeting in 1959 was the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO);

the name was changed in 1982.176 The IMO currently has 170 Member States and is headquartered in

London, England.177 Laws and conventions are passed and amended at the IMO and then implemented

by the Member States in their respective nations. Laws on the national level vary slightly from the IMO

and from other countries.

The IMO is divided into 6 divisions or committee’s: Maritime Safety (MSC), Marine Environment (MEPC),

Legal and External Relations, Technical Co-operation and Facilitation.178 Functions of the MSC includes,

“to consider any matter within the scope of the Organization concerned with aids to navigation,

173

Cochran, Ian, "Tanker Operators Top 30 Tanker companies", Tanker Shipping Review, March 2008. 174

IMO website, History of IMO, http://www.imo.org/About/HistoryOfIMO/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 175

ibid 176

ibid 177

Brown, Natasha, External Relations Officer, “IMO – the International Maritime Organization”, pp. 3. 178

ibid


January 2012

construction and equipment of vessels, manning from a safety standpoint, rules for the prevention of

collisions, handling of dangerous cargoes, maritime safety procedures and requirements, hydrographic

information, log-books and navigational records, marine casualty investigations, salvage and rescue and

any other matters directly affecting maritime safety”.179 The mandate of the MEPC includes any matter

concerned with prevention of pollution from ships.180 The MSC and MEPC are further assisted by the

following 9 sub-committees:181

Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG)

Carriage of Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers(DSC)

Fire Protection (FP)

Radio-communications and Search and Rescue (COMSAR)

Safety of Navigation (NAV)

Ship Design and Equipment (DE)

Stability and Load Lines and Fishing Vessels Safety (SLF)

Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW)

Flag State Implementation (FSI)

The list of all IMO conventions and treaties is too exhaustive to discuss in this study, over 40 conventions

and protocols and 800 codes. Nonetheless, a complete list is of all conventions is available in Appendix

A. Only the 3 most important are discussed in this study: International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers

(STCW).

The MARPOL is the main international convention preventing pollution of the marine environment by

ships and was adopted in 1973.182 MARPOL is short for ‘marine pollution’ and was modified by the

Protocol of 1978.183 As such, it is often referred to as MARPOL 73/78. The conventions are designed to

minimize pollution of the sea and ocean environment, whether by oil and exhaust or by dumping.

The convention includes six Annexes: Annex I–Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil (1983),

Annex II–Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (1983), Annex III–

Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form (1992), Annex IV–

Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships (2003), Annex V–Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from

Ships (1988) and Annex VI–Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (2005).184 It is important to note that

179

IMO website, History of IMO, http://www.imo.org/About/HistoryOfIMO/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 180

ibid 181

ibid 182

IMO website, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx (accessed on December 17, 2011) 183

ibid 184

ibid


January 2012

as of October 1983, member states must accept Annexes I and II; the remaining Annexes are, however,

categorized as voluntary.185

As of December 31, 2010, the agreement had been ratified by 150 countries.186 The only vessels that are

exempt from these Annexes of countries that have ratified the Convention are warships. All other ships

are inspected, with infringements recorded and reported to the IMO.187

Each member state is responsible to enact domestic laws to implement the Convention. For example,

the United States passed the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, while the Canadian Federal

Government passed the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (which replaced the old Canada Shipping Act). The

latter is discussed in greater detail in the Canadian Regulation section.

Many industry analysts suggest that the MARPOL/73 was the product of the Torrey Canyon oil tanker

making landfall at the Scilly Isles off the coast of England in 1967.188 The oil tanker was fully loaded with

119,000 tons of cargo; both cargo and the ship were lost in the accident, which brought global

awareness to the risks of oil tankers and coastlines.189 Likewise, after the Amoco Cadiz accident off the

coast of Brittany, the IMO amended the MARPOL in 1978.190 The VLCC ran aground when the hydraulic

steering failed in heavy weather, losing 223,000 tons of cargo.191 Public outrage led to the signing of the

MARPOL/78.192

In addition vetting programs, such as the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) Ship

Inspection Report Program (SIRE), are designed to avoid potential spills and accidents. The OCIMF is a

voluntary association of oil companies to operate oil tankers, terminals and offshore support vessels

safely and environmentally responsibly.193 The following are part of a broader perspective of ship

vetting:194

confirm that the tanker complies in every respect with regional and international legislation,

with certain industrial standards and certain national laws,

avoid incidents and the social, environmental and economic effects associated with such events,

increase the safety management of both the tanker and the marine terminal,

185

ibid 186

IMO, STATUS OF MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION OR ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL PERFORMS DEPOSITARY OR OTHER FUNCTIONS (as of November 30, 2011), http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents/Status%20-%202011.pdf 187


Devanney, Jack, “The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers”, Second Edition, pp. 26. 189

ibid 190

ibid 191

ibid 192

ibid 193

Oil Companies International Marine Forum website, http://www.ocimf.com/ (accessed on December 17, 2011) 194

SPI Marine USA, Ship Vetting, http://www.spimarineusa.com/articles/vetting.php (accessed on December 17, 2011)


January 2012

decrease the danger of explosion and/or fire and the ensuing damages for the ship or terminal

installation and its surroundings, and

confirm that cargo is not damaged or lost due to substandard ship design or operational

procedures.

In the event of an accident, the ship’s captain must submit a report to the nation whose coastline is the

nearest to the incident with the following information: identity of the vessels involved; time, type and

geographic location of the event; quantity and type of toxic substances involved; and assistance and

salvage methods applied.195

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) was enacted after the sinking of the

RMS Titanic in 1914 and provides minimum safety standards in construction, equipment and operation

of all ships.196 The SOLAS Convention pre-dates the IMO and was adopted by the IMO in November 1974

and was in force in May 1980.197 The document has undergone a number of updates: 1924, 1948, 1960,

1974 and 1980.198 There are 12 Annexes: Chapter I – General Provisions, Chapter II-1 – Construction –

Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations, Chapter II-2 – Fire protection, fire

detection and fire extinction, Chapter III – Life-saving appliances and arrangements, Chapter IV – Radio

communications, Chapter V – Safety of navigation, Chapter VI – Carriage of Cargoes, Chapter VII –

Carriage of dangerous goods, Chapter VIII – Nuclear ships, Chapter IX – Management for the Safe

Operation of Ships, Chapter X – Safety measures for high-speed craft, Chapter XI-1 – Special measures to

enhance maritime safety, Chapter XI-2 – Special measures to enhance maritime security, and Chapter XII

– Additional safety measures for bulk carriers.199

The Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) was, on the other hand, amended in 1978 and

sets the standards for masters, officers and watch personnel on seagoing merchant ships.200 The United

States proposed the revisions to the STCW after the MV Aegean Sea ran aground outside the Spanish

port of La Coruna. The following highlight some of the amendments:201

enhancement of port state control;

communication of information to the IMO to allow for mutual oversight and consistency in

application of standards;

quality standards systems (QSS), oversight of training, assessment, and certification procedures;

195

de Larrucea, Jaime Rodrigo, “Oil Tankers Safety: Legal Aspects”, http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf 196

IMO website, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx (accessed on December 17, 2011) 197

ibid 198

ibid 199

ibid 200

IMO website, International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Standards-of-Training,-Certification-and-Watchkeeping-for-Seafarers-%28STCW%29.aspx (accessed on December 17, 2011) 201

ibid


January 2012

placement of responsibility on parties, including those issuing licenses, and flag states employing

foreign nationals, to ensure seafarers meet objective standards of competence; and

rest period requirements for watchkeeping personnel.

In addition to these conventions, during 2009 and the first half of 2010, discussions continued at the

IMO regarding the scope and content of an international regime to control greenhouse gas emissions

from international shipping. Moreover, a Protocol on the 1996 HNS Convention was adopted, in April

2010, with a view to facilitating the entry into force of the Convention. Standard-setting activities and

other measures are continuing in the field of maritime and supply-chain security, in particular under the

auspices of various international organizations such as the World Customs Organization (WCO), the IMO

and the International Organization for Standardization (IOS), but also at the national and regional

level.202

Operational and Design Tanker Safety Measures

This section explores various operational and design safety measures that have taken place. With the

sheer size of some of the aforementioned vessels, the mere threat of a collision or grounding causes

alarm. As mentioned in the previous section, various oil spills and accidents have led to changes in

international regulation and how oil tankers are design and operated.

Table 1.3 shows the top 10 oil tanker spills since 1967.

Table 1.3 Top 10 Oil Spills from Tankers, Since 1967

Ship Name Year Location SIPI Size (tonnes)

Atlantic Empress 1979 Off Tobago, West Indies 287,000

ABT Summer 1991 700 nautical miles off Angola 260,000

Castillo de Bellver 1983 Off Saldanha Bay, South Africa 252,000

Amoco Cadiz 1978 Off Brittany, France 223,000

Haven 1991 Genoa, Italy 144,000

Odyssey 1988 700 nautical miles off Nova

Scotia 132,000

Torrey Canyon 1967 Scilly Isles, United Kingdom 119,000

Sea Star 1972 Gulf of Oman 115,000

Irenes Serenade 1980 Navarino Bay, Greece 100,000

Urquiola 1976 La Coruna, Spain 100,000


202

UNCTAD 2010, Review of Maritime Transport 2010, pp. xv. 203

de Larrucea, Jaime Rodrigo, “Oil Tankers Safety: Legal Aspects”, http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf (pp. 49)


January 2012

The largest oil spill occurred in 1979, off the coast of Tobago. The Atlantic Empress, carrying 276,000

tonnes of crude oil collided with the Aegean Captain, carrying 200,000 tonnes of crude oil.204 The

massive oil spill could have been worse, as the crew of the Aegean Captain managed to control the fire

and much of the cargo was transferred to other vessels in Curacao.205 The collision of the 2 VLCC’s killed

26 crew members.206 The massive oil spill fortunately never touched the coastline, unlike the

aforementioned Erika and Exxon Valdez.

It is, however, important to put oil spills into perspective. Table 1.4 breaks down oil spills between 1974-

2008 by cause and size of the spill. The size of the majority of the spills was less than 7 tonnes (nearly

7,817 of a total 9,368 spills). It is interesting to note that 2,825 of those oil spills occurred during loading

and discharging. In fact, of the total 9,368 oil spills, 3,189 occurred during loading or discharge. Of spills

larger than 700 tonnes, most accidents were grounding (119) and collisions (99).

Table 1.4 Types of Oils Spills Depending on Cause (1974-2008)

<7 Tonnes

7-700 Tonnes

>700 Tonnes Total

Operations

Loading/Discharging 2,825 334 30 3,189

Bunkering 549 26 0 575

Other Operations 1,178 56 1 1,235

Accidents

Collisions 175 303 99 577

Groundings 238 226 119 583

Sea Hull Failures 576 90 43 709

Fire & Explosion 88 16 30 134

Other/Unknown 2,188 152 26 2,366

TOTAL 7,817 1,203 348 9,368


These numbers are mirrored by the United States Coast Guard; 36 percent of all volume of oil spilled are

caused by ship or vessel, the remaining are from facilities and other non-vessels, from non-tank vessels

and from pipelines.208 According to the international Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, 9,351

accidental spills were reported since 1974, with 91 percent accounting for only 7 metric tons.209

204

Cedre Website, Atlantic Empress, http://www.cedre.fr/en/spill/atlantic/atlantic.php (accessed on December 17, 2011) 205

ibid 206

ibid 207


"Cumulative Spill Data and Graphics". United States Coast Guard, 2007. 209

"Oil Tanker Spill Information Pack", London: International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, 2008.


January 2012

It would be a mistake to conclude that the modern tanker remains unchanged over time. In reality, they

have continually evolved over the past five decades, whether they are design in nature or in operation.

There are several tanker specifications that have been required by international and domestic maritime

regulations. Several of the following tanker specifications are mandated by IMO Conventions discussed

in the previous section.

All oil tankers are required to adhere to the following structural and operational specifications:

Inert gas systems,

Double hull designs,

Segregated and heavy-weather ballast,

Cargo design systems – loading and discharge operations,

Redundant Steering and Propulsion Systems,

Emergency and escort tug-towing arrangements,

Communications and electronic navigation equipment,

Firefighting and emergency equipment, and

International Safety Code (ISM Code).

Inert Gas Systems

Inert Gas Systems (IGS) protect cargo tanks from explosion by reducing the oxygen content. Inert gas is a

gas or comprised of a mixture of gases that lowers the oxygen content, creating an inert atmosphere

where the risk of combustion is reduced.210 Inert gases, such as nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide,

create a non-reactive environment.211 Noble gases, such as helium, krypton, neon and xenon, are only

used in specialized instances.212

When cargo is being discharged, inert gas is injected simultaneously to replace the transferred liquid. As

the cargo tanks are filled, the inert atmosphere is either vented or captured for processing. Air cannot

be permitted into the tanks.213 Upon mooring, all oil and condensate tankers must have all empty cargo

tankers pressurized with inert gas, with an oxygen content of less than 8 percent. Hydrocarbons and

their by-products cannot burn in atmosphere’s containing less than 11 percent oxygen.214

210


“Design of Inert Gas Systems”, http://www.mycheme.com/designguides/designing-inert-gas-systems.html (accessed on December 17, 2011) 212

ibid 213


ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.18 Inert Gas Systems

Source: http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/print.php?id=17

These measures are required by SOLAS 74, Chapter II-2, amended by Decision MSC (99)73215, and has

been enforced since January 1, 2002.216

While creating a non-flammable atmosphere, inert gases displace oxygen. These gases are considered

asphyxiates and can be dangerous if proper protocol is not used.217 Normal atmosphere contains

approximately 21 percent oxygen; concentrations below 10 percent can be fatal.218 This being said, IGS

used in the shipping industry is less risky than other industries as it is the cargo tanks that are being

displaced of oxygen.

Double Hull Design

Following the Prestige oil spill off the coast of Galicia, Spain in 2002219 and the Erika accident in 1999 off

Brittany, France, single-hulled designed vessels were drawn into question. The European Union (EU)

signed European Parliament and Council Regulation EC 417/2002 on 18 February 2002, in relation to the

accelerated introduction of the withdrawal of oil tankers, by derogating Council Regulation EC 2978/94.

Under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) signed in 2005,

all single-hull oil tankers were to be phased out.220 The decision was amended in London by the IMO’s

Marine Environment Protection Committee.221 All tankers that call at Canadian ports must be double-

hulled as per the Canada Shipping Act 2001.222 The CSA 2001 governs the design and operation of all

commercial ships in Canadian waters and is administered by the Canadian Coast Guard.223 The relevant

215

ibid 216


“Design of Inert Gas Systems”, http://www.mycheme.com/designguides/designing-inert-gas-systems.html (accessed on December 17, 2011) 218

ibid 219


“Single Hull Oil Tankers Banned Worldwide from 2005”, December 5, 2003, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2003/2003-12-05-04.asp (accessed on December 17, 2011) 221

ibid 222

Dickens, “The Double Hull Issue and Oil Spill Risk on the Pacific West Coast”, October, 1995, pp. 33. 223

Dickens, “The Double Hull Issue and Oil Spill Risk on the Pacific West Coast”, October, 1995, pp. 5.


January 2012

legislation in the United States is the US Oil Pollution Act, 1990, except for vessels less than 5,000 gross

tons. The latter was the result of the Exxon Valdez, the 35th largest oil spill in the world. It spilled 37,000

tonnes in 1989 in Prince William Sound, Alaska.

As a result, single-hulled vessels are being phased out of use worldwide, a large amount of single-hulled

vessels were scrapped in 2010.

Double hulls provide more protection in the event of a collision or grounding.224 The cargo is surrounded

by a second internal plate, which better protects in case of damage.225 It is important to note that oil

tankers have between 8 to 12 storage tanks containing the cargo. In case one of the storage tanks

ruptures, the cargo is also protected by the double-hull and may be transferred into other storage

tanks.226 The space between the inner and outer hulls varies between 7 to 10 feet, depending on the

size of the oil tanker.227 The cargo of a single-hulled-ship is separated only by a single plate from the

seawater.228

Figure 1.19 illustrates the cross-section of a double-hulled ship.

Figure 1.19 Cross Section of the Construction of a Double-Hull Tanker

Source: http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf

(pp. 41)

224

Markides, Paul, Tanker Safety Issues, OCIMF, December 8, 2005, http://www.itopf.com/_assets/documents/markides05.pdf 225


ibid 227

Pier 400 Project, Tanker Industry Today, http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/print.php?id=17 (accessed on December 17, 2011) 228

de Larrucea, Jaime Rodrigo, “Oil Tankers Safety: Legal Aspects”, http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/6129/1/OIL%20TANKERS%20SAFETY.pdf


January 2012

Figure 1.20 illustrates the construction of a double-hull ship.

Figure 1.20 The Construction of a Double-Hull Tanker


The double-hull helps prevents oil pollution and hydrocarbon release in the event of a low-energy

grounding or collision where only the outer hull is breached. Conversely, if the inner hull, or cargo

containment, breaches, the outer hull will prevent hydrocarbon pollution. The inner hull may be

breached from thermal and mechanical stresses.

Figure 1.21 illustrates the function of a double-hull ship in various situations: when it encounters a hull

crack, a low energy grounding, a low-energy collision or when using segregated ballast.

Figure 1.21 Function of the Double-Hull Design



January 2012

The United States National Research Council identified that it is most effective for accident scenarios,

estimating that the double-hull design would eliminate half of annual spillage.229 In a 1992 study, the

IMO suggested that the inner hull would not have been penetrated in 84 percent of historical collisions

or groundings.230

It is important to note that the double-hull requirement was adopted in 1992, following the Erika

accident off the coast of France, IMO Member States discussed and approved accelerating the phase-

out of the single-hulled tankers.231 MARPOL regulation 13G moved up the deadline for phasing out

single-hull tankers from 2015 to 2010.232 The Erika ran aground in 1999 off Brittany, France carrying

20,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.233 The EU’s stringent anti-pollution legislation is sometimes known as

the Erika I, II, and III.

There are several concerns, however, regarding the double-hull design. Ships with the double-hull are

more difficult to inspect, more difficult to salvage and may present additional concerns as the ships age.

Over the past decade the inspection and salvage issues have been put to rest. While it is clearly the

prevalent design, it may be more expensive to maintain the double-hulled ships as they age.

To further safety measures, ballast can be installed around the cargo tanks. This is discussed in the

subsequent section.

Segregated and Heavy-weather Ballast

International maritime regulations stipulate that all empty tankers must load ballast to maintain safety

and stability while at sea.234 Ballast is generally loaded into the segregated space between the inner and

outer hulls of a double-hulled tanker. This keeps the ballast separate from any liquids in the cargo tanks;

these are called segregated ballast tanks (SBT) and are never used for oil or condensate.235 As such,

when the ballast is discharged into the ocean, petroleum is not mixed in with the ballast.236 Operation

spillage has reduced dramatically with the use of the double-hulled vessels.237 This was not the case for

the pre-MARPOL single-hulled tankers in which up to one-third of the cargo tanks was filled with ballast.

Under severe weather conditions, tankers may take additional ballast in the cargo tanks. This is to

maintain stability while at sea. Unlike segregated ballast, heavy-weather ballast is generally mixed with

the hydrocarbon residue left in the cargo tanks.

229


ibid 231

IMO, Tanker safety - preventing accidental pollution, http://www5.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=155#inert 232

ibid 233

“Oil Giant Knew Tanker was a Risk Before Disaster”, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/oil-giant-knew-tanker-was-a-risk-before-disaster-436156.html (accessed on November 17, 2011) 234




Devanney, Jack,“The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers”, 2006


January 2012

Cargo System Design – Loading and Discharge Operations

Cargo systems include oil tanks, piping and pumps. In terms of engineering, these systems are only

second in importance to propulsion systems. The cargo transfer system is designed so that loading and

discharging operations are conducted in a closed system. The latter prevents air ingress to cargo

containment tanks and prevents oil or cargo vapours from accumulating, and creating the risk of an

explosion. Prior to IGS, open venting was used, which could sometimes lead to disastrous consequences

if flammable vapours accumulated.238 Utilizing IGS for loading and discharge requires that cargo system

design to be closed, so that when cargo is being loaded in the vessel’s tanks, the inert gas within the

tanks is pumped out.239

No vapour is released into the atmosphere while cargo is being loaded, as the vapour plus the inert gas

mixture that is displaced is returned to the shore facility via a vapour recovery line.240 This, however,

depends on local regulations.241 Tank-gauging equipment plays an important role in determining the

space remaining in the ship’s tanks.242 As such, there are usually two independent methods for gauging

the space available in the tanks.243

Discharging, or unloading cargo, is similar but differs slightly. It is the ship’s cargo pumps that are used

to move the product from its tanks.244 It is important to note that a VLCC cargo pump moves up to 5,000

cubic meters of oil per hour.245 Tank levels are monitored as are the cargo manifold connections and the

pump room.246 Also recall that when cargo is being discharged, inert gas is injected simultaneously to

replace the transferred liquid.

Figure 1.22 illustrates a typical tanker cargo transfer system. The schematic shows three perspectives of

the tanker and the cargo tanks design as well as the pump room, tank pipelines and deck manifolds.

238


ibid 240

Hayler, William B.; Keever, John M., American Merchant Seaman's Manual, Cornell Maritime Pr, pp. 14-18, 2003. 241

ibid 242

ibid 243

ibid 244

Hayler, William B.; Keever, John M., American Merchant Seaman's Manual, Cornell Maritime Pr, pp. 14-19, 2003. 245

ibid 246

Hayler, William B.; Keever, John M., American Merchant Seaman's Manual, Cornell Maritime Pr, pp. 14-20, 2003


January 2012

Figure 1.22 Typical Cargo Operations

Source: http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/images/BASCCARCS.jpg

Depending on the size of the oil tanker, there may be as many as 18 tanks. The tanks are connected by a

series of pipes located at the bottom of the tanks, which allow for loading or discharge of the cargo

tanks. Depending on the size of the ship and its design, 3 or 4 large pumps transfer the cargo, whether

oil, condensate or ballast water, to discharge the cargo via cargo arms and into the onshore distribution

and tankage systems, via on-deck manifolds.247 Cargo pumps are powered by three principle types:

hydraulic, electric and steam.248 While steam pumps are the simplest for operation and maintenance,

they tend to be cheaper than their hydraulic and electric counterparts.249 They, however, tend to use

more fuel to operate.250 Hydraulic pumps are more common is smaller tankers, approximately 40,000

DWT to 70,000 DWT.251 Hydraulic-driven pumps require several large diesel generators.252 While

electric-drive pumps are the most efficient, they are expensive to purchase and install. Short-destination

ships that spend a greater amount of time discharging cargo are the ideal candidate for electric drive.253

While mooring the ship alongside an onshore pier is the most common, there are other ways in which

cargo can be moved on or off the ship. The cargo tanker can moor to an offshore buoy, and make a

247


Pier 400 Project, Tanker Operations: Cargo Pumping System, http://www.pacificenergypier400.com/index2.php?id=69 (accessed on December 17, 2011) 249

ibid 250

ibid 251

ibid 252

ibid 253

ibid


January 2012

cargo connection via underwater cargo hoses.254 The third method of moving cargo is ship-to-ship

transfer, where oil is transferred from manifold to manifold via flexible hoses.255

Redundant Steering and Propulsion Systems

Recall that the Cadiz 1978 grounding, and subsequent loss of 223,000 tonnes of oil, was the result of a

loss of steering.

Following the Amoco Cadiz incident off the coast of Brittany, France, redundant steering systems were

also required by international regulations.

Likewise, international regulations stipulate that ships must have redundant propulsion systems.256

Both redundant steering and propulsion must be available at all times and must be able to be activated

on demand.257 Prolonged switchovers are not considered appropriate in fulfilling the definition of

redundant.258 IMO regulations stipulate various plant configurations and system components, including

auxiliary systems. For example, these systems must utilize separate fuel, lubricating-oil, cooling-water

and control-air installations.259

Emergency and Escort Tug Towing Arrangements

As of January 1996, IMO regulations stipulate that all new tankers greater than 20,000 DWT be fitted

with an emergency towing arrangement at either end of the tanker. Under SOLAS II-1/3-4, all existing

tankers are required to carry an emergency towage system by January 1999.

The Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) provides guidelines for ship fittings for use with

tug boats for tankers greater than 50,000 DWT. The organization provides guidelines in regard to

tethering towing operations and escort tug arrangements.

The need for emergency towing systems emerged after the Amoco Cadiz incident.260 A tug at the scene

had difficulty connecting to the troubled tanker, and when it did, the connection could not hold.261 Even

if the tanker has lost power, emergency towing equipment can be deployed, so as to mitigate an

incident similar to the Cadiz.

254

Huber, Mark, Tanker operations: a handbook for the person-in-charge (PIC). Cambridge, MD: Cornell Maritime Press, pp. 203, 2001. 255

ibid 256

Marine Talk, “Rules for Redundant Propulsion and Steering”, http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Rules-for-Redundant-Propulsion-and-Steering-GER02234558IN.html (accessed on December16, 2011) 257

ibid 258

ibid 259

ibid 260


ibid


January 2012

Communications and Electronic Navigation Equipment

Tankers are required to have shipboard navigational equipment, including radio detection and ranging

(RADAR), global positioning systems (GPS) and other navigation systems to assist in safe passage across

oceans and into ports. GPS provides the ship with very accurate positioning, almost instantaneously.262 It

also allows the shipping company to track their vessels, their movement and exact time of deliveries.

Likewise, it helps vessels define their velocity and navigate precisely.

Electronic chart display and information systems (ECDIS) permit navigational overview while automated

identification systems (AIS) and computer collision avoidance systems allow navigation officers to

identify approaching vessels accurately. AIS is a tracking system utilized on ships and by Vessel Traffic

Services (VTS) and helps in the identification and locating vessels, as it integrates a standardized VHF

transceiver with a positioning system such as a LORAN-C or GPS receiver. The IMO made AIS mandatory

in 2003 for all ships over 300 gross tonnes. IMO Regulation 19 (Emergency Training and Drills) of the

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Chapter V) makes AIS required. AIS

enhances ship communications, which is especially important when ships are required to execute

maneuvers.263

Navigational equipment must be duplicated in case of equipment failure.

IMO’s Safety of Navigation (NAV) and Radiocommunications (COMSAR) are sub-committees of the

Maritime Safety Committee.264 It is a senior technical body; the NAV includes conventions, resolutions

and codes regarding navigation issues while the COMSAR deals with regulations regarding radio

communications and search and rescue.265

Firefighting and Emergency Equipment

All oil tankers must be equipped with firefighting and emergency systems. Firefighting systems must

consist of water, foam and other chemical systems, while emergency equipment must consist of

lifeboats, life rafts and personal life-saving vests and devices.

All tankers must have a fire plan and all personnel must be trained for firefighting.

IMO’s sub-committee AWETEAS regulates firefighting and emergency equipment.

International Safety Code (ISM Code)

The ISM code was developed by the IMO and adopted by SOLAS (Chapter IX).266 The objective of the

IMO Code is to improve safety and preserve the environment by ensuring that each ship class has a

262

ibid 263

ibid 264

IMO website, Maritime Safety, http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 265

ibid 266

IMO website, ISM Code and Guidelines on Implementation of the ISM Code 2010 http://www.imo.org/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Pages/ISMCode.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

Safety Management System (SMS).267 In order to comply with the ISM Code, the following must be

satisfied268:

Commitment from top management

A Top Tier Policy Manual

A Procedures Manual that documents what is done on board the ship

Procedures for conducting both internal and external audits to ensure the ship is doing what is

documented in the Procedures Manual

A Designated Person to serve as the link between the ships and shore staff

A system for identifying where actual practices do not meet those that are documented and for

implementing associated corrective action, and

Regular management reviews

Every ISM compliant ship has its SMS audited by the company and then by the Flag State Marine

Administration.269 When their SMS is approved, the ship is issued a Safety Management Certificate and

is entered into the SMS database.270

Canadian Regulations and Approach

Due to the complexity and international nature of the shipping industry, many regulations passed at the

international level, such as the IMO, are then adopted by the Member States. Regulations regarding the

aforementioned operational and design measures are drafted and implemented in the Member States

by various regulatory bodies. Variations exist, but they are inspired by similar ideas and rationale.

This section discusses Canadian regulations and the Canadian approach to managing its marine

resources, finding that balance between sustainability and protecting unique ecoregions and systems. It

is divided into 3 parts: Canadian regulations, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), and Enbridge’s proposed

marine terminal. The latter 2 sections are in turn divided into 3 parts: their marine environments,

information about the terminals and their safety measures, and procedures regarding oil vessels,

respectively.

This section provides a balance of Canada’s and British Columbia’s vision to regulate the west coast

waters, mixed in with how Canada’s largest and busiest port manages its operations and how Enbridge’s

Northern Gateway proposal plans to manage its marine issues.

It is important to note that only key legislation and responsibilities are reviewed. The matters of marine

regulations are very complex; it is not realistic to review regulations and all the key players involved with

marine issues. For example, at the federal level alone there are 30 government agencies that are

mandated to deal with marine-oriented issues; the exhaustive list is presented in Appendix C. The same

267


ISMProgram website, The ISM or International Safety Management Code, http://www.ismprogram.com/ (accessed on December 17, 2011) 269

ibid 270

ibid


January 2012

rationale exists with regard to discussing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway marine plan; it is simply not

pragmatic to review the company’s massive 8-volume application that is currently being reviewed by the

NEB. It is, however, prudent to explore elements of their marine plan.

Federal and Provincial Regulations

In Canada, on an average day, there are 180 SOLAS vessels within Canadian waters, 200 nautical miles

from the shoreline.271 On British Columbia’s west coast, there are about 475,000 vessel movements per

year, with tankers accounting for 0.3 percent, or 1,500 movements.272 This is approximately half of the

oil tanker traffic on Canada’s east coast. The vast majority of oil is moved via the ports of Vancouver,

Prince Rupert and Kitimat—approximately 8.4 million tonnes of fuel were shipped from Vancouver

alone.273

Figure 1.23 shows current and proposed coastal tanker traffic from major ports north of Seattle,

Washington, and their approximate routes. It is important to note that currently, the largest ports in

British Columbia are Port Metro Vancouver, followed by Prince Rupert and Kitimat. Currently the largest

oil tankers able to dock are Aframax—between 110,000 and 120,000 DWT;274 this is approximately

650,000 bbls capacity.275 These are at Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal.

271

Transport Canada website, Preventing Pollution from Ships, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b02-m017-1832.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 272

ibid 273

ibid 274

ibid 275

Kinder Morgan Canada, “Canadian Crude Oil for Japanese Markets”, Norman Rinne Presentation, March 2010, http://www.altanet.or.jp/5_Canadian_Crude_Oil_Japanese_Market.pdf (pp. 15)


January 2012

Figure 1.23 Current and Proposed Coast Tanker Traffic


This section discusses federal and provincial agencies that are involved with the regulation of maritime

activities, as well as protecting the ocean environment.

While various levels of government prevent pollution from ships, the leading players are Transport

Canada (TC) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). TC promotes “efficient marine transportation and

safe, secure and sustainable marine practices; oversees marine infrastructure; regulates the safe

transportation of dangerous goods by water; and helps protect the marine environment.”277 The DFO’s

mandate, on the other hand, supports the sustainable use and development of Canada’s waterways and

water resources.278 The 2 organization’s roles are somewhat complimentary. With that being said,

prevention, preparedness, response and recovery take a “whole of government” approach.279

Canada is a Member State of the IMO and, as such, endorses and enforces Conventions such as SOLAS,

MARPOL 73/78 and the STCW. In addition to the aforementioned international standards, TC

276

Enbridge Northern Gateway website, Environmental GRI Performance Indicators, http://csr.enbridge.com/northerngateway2010/environmental/en30.php (accessed on December 14, 2011) 277

Transport Canada website, Marine Transportation, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marine-menu.htm 278

Fisheries and Oceans Canada website, Our Organization, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/organization-ministere-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 279

Transport Canada website, Preventing Pollution from Ships, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b02-m017-1832.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011)


January 2012

established the Canada Shipping Act in 2001 (CSA 2001). Passed on July 1, 2007, the CSA 2001 replaced

the old Canada Shipping Act (CSA), as the main legislation that governs and regulates safety and

protection of the marine transportation and the marine environment.280 The rules and regulations apply

to not only Canadian vessels, but all vessels operating within Canadian waters.281

As per the operation and designs discussed earlier, the CSA 2001 is an important document. While

reviewing the Act is not realistic, this study explores various elements that highlight the mandate of the

TC. Appendix B lists all the regulations under the CSA 2001; the list reflects the scope of the legislation.

Ships must be built, maintained and operated within a strict set of regulations.282 As per international

laws, single-hulled tankers are no longer allowed to operate within Canadian waters by 2015 and all oil

terminals are requiring vessels to be double-hulled by 2012.283 Parts of the CSA 2001 are inspired by

legislation from the IMO and other existing regulations. For example, Oil Pollution Prevention

Regulations, part of the CSA 2001, is inspired by two pieces of legislation: the IMO’s Annex 1 of the

MARPOL and the United States’ Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).284 The regulations between Canada

and the United States are harmonized.285

As previously mentioned, not only were new oil tankers to be double-hulled, but existing single-hulled

tankers were to be phased out starting in 1995.286 The initial phase out was based on the year of the

build as well as whether or not it was fitted with segregated ballast tanks.287 In 2001, amendments to

the MARPOL stipulated that all single-hulled tankers over 5,000 DWT were to be phased out by 2015.

Canada adopted the revised MARPOL requirements and continues to apply OPA 90 provision for

Canadian tankers in Canadian or US waters, and for US tankers in Canadian waters.288 Following the

sinking of the Erika off the coast of France in 1999, amendments were made to Annex 1 of MARPOL,

more specifically, to Regulation 13G (in MEPC.95 (46)).289 Regulation 13H in Annex 1 of MARPOL was

280

Transport Canada website, Canada Shipping Act, 2001 - Environmental Protection, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b07-m006-1887.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 281

ibid 282


ibid 284

Transport Canada website, Phasing out of Single-hulled Oil Tankers , http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-environment-tankers-menu-430.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 285

Transport Canada website, Tanker Ship Safety in Canada Regulations and Programs - May 2006 http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b03-m002-1861.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 286

Transport Canada website, Background of Phasing out Single-hulled Oil Tankers, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-environment-tankers-background-539.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 287

ibid 288

ibid 289

Transport Canada website, Standards for the Double Hull Construction of Oil Tankers, 4th

Edition, July 2009, http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp11710/pdf/hr/tp11710e.pdf (pp. 1)


January 2012

added following the sinking of the Prestige, off the coast of France in 2002.290 The OPA 90 was the result

of the grounding of the Exxon Valdez in 1989.

Regulations also include carrying and discharging pollutants such as oil, garbage, sewage and harmful

chemicals.291 The Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations provides regulations regarding crude oil washing,

segregated ballast tanks, protectively located ballast tanks, oil filtering equipment, cargo and bilge

monitoring equipment and control systems, damage stability information, and inspection and

certification.292 They are in accordance to Annex 1 of the MARPOL 73/78.293

The CSA 2001 includes regulations regarding the following:294

registration, listing and recording,

personnel,

safety,

navigation services,

incidents, accidents and casualties,

wrecks,

pollution prevention, and

enforcement.

Inert gas standards for various industries, including application to cargo tank operation and product

carriers, is provided by TC’s Standard for IGS – TP 4295 E.295 Part V of the TP 4295 E discusses inerting of

tanks, discharge of water ballast, loading, loaded condition, cargo transfer and cargo sampling, crude oil

washing, ballasting of cargo tanks, ballast condition, tank cleaning, purging prior to gas-freeing, tank

entry and re-inerting after tank entry.296 The standard was approved in 1984.297 Several of these items

are dealt with the CSA 2001.

TC creates and enforces regulations, such as the Canada Marine Act, passed in 1998. It is a consolidated

act that was implemented by Canada’s National Marine Policy.298 It provides regulations for Canada Port

290

ibid 291


Transport Canada website, Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/bulletins-1992-12-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 293

ibid 294

Department of Justice, Canada Shipping Act 2001, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/index.html (accessed on December 14, 2011) 295

Transport Canada website, Part V Application to Cargo Tank Operation - TP 4295 E, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp4295-part-v-1939.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 296

ibid 297

Transport Canada website, Marine Safety Publications, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-menu-515.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 298

Transport Canada website, Canada Marine Act, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/acf-cma-menu-697.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011)


January 2012

Authorities, public ports, seaways, human resources, and regulations and enforcements.299 The TC

utilizes the CMA to oversee Canada’s ports, to make Canadian ports more competitive, efficient and

commercially-oriented.300

To enforce the regulations and standards, TC has various tools for their disposal. First, foreign ships at

Canadian ports are subject to marine safety inspectors.301 In 2009, 550 foreign tankers were inspected,

with 4 being detained for not meeting the criteria.302 For example, all Port State Control inspectors

ensure that new and modified oil tankers are double-hulled.303 Second, TC performs aerial surveillance

over Canadian waters. The National Aerial Surveillance Program helps the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG)

to detect pollution from vessels.304 The CCG is classified as a Special Operating Agency of the DFO; it is

responsible for ensuring safe waterways for Canadians, as well as protecting the marine environment.305

The Marine Liability Act, passed in 2001, is administered by the TC; the Act administers penalties if by-

laws and regulations are not met.306 It validates, or provides ‘teeth’, to various regulations, should they

be violated. The Act provides regulations regarding liability for maritime claims, for compensation for

pollution and creates and governs the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund (SOPF).307 The legislation deals with

the liability of ship owners and ship operators not only in the event of pollution, but also of passenger,

property and cargo damage.308

Other organizations that assist in shipping incidents and first response are the Department of National

Defense, the DFO and Environment Canada.309,310 Canada, as previously mentioned, takes a unique and

“whole of government” approach.

As previously mentioned, the DFO plays an important role protecting waterways and oceans, and their

aquatic resources. The mandate of the DFO is to provide safe and accessible waterways, a healthy and

299

Department of Justice, Canada Marine Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6.7/ (accessed on December 14, 2011) 300

Transport Canada website, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1998c10.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 301


ibid 303

ibid 304

ibid 305

Canadian Coast Guard, Who We Are, http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Who_We_Are (accessed on December 14, 2011) 306

Transport Canada website, Marine Liability Act, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-2001c6.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 307

Parliament of Canada, Bill C-7, February 13, 2009, http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=40&Ses=2 (accessed on December 14, 2011) 308

ibid 309

ibid 310

Transport Canada website, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-b03-m002-1861.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011)


January 2012

productive aquatic ecosystem and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.311 As such the DFO’s primary

purpose is to develop and implement policies that support the interests of the oceans and fresh

waters—whether they are economic, social, scientific or ecological.312 Marine safety and protecting the

environment are stalwarts of their policies. The Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act are the organization’s

guiding legislations.313 The former manages oceans while the latter manages fisheries, habitat and

aquaculture.314 The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is co-managed by the DFO, Environment Canada and Parks

Canada. The SARA’s mandate is to identify, protect and recover species that are at risk.315

The Oceans Act provides legislation for managing oceans, to conserve, protect and develop aquatic

resources in a sustainable manner.316 Canada’s cooperative and collaborative approach to managing

oceans is defined by integrated management (IM). This concept is central to managing human activities

with conservation and the protection of the ocean environment—the mandate of the DFO.317 The

approach engages different levels, as well as different departments, of government, industry,

communities, Aboriginal peoples, Canadian citizens and various organizations.318 The Oceans Act was

adopted in 1997—the first legislation of its kind in the world.319

While it is not realistic to review all key legislation and strategies, it is prudent to discuss DFO’s Oceans

Strategy. Oceans Strategy was released in 2002, outlining the government’s vision and mission for

governing Canada’s oceans.320 The approach is also collaborative and is built on the foundations

provided by the Oceans Act.321

Canada’s Oceans Strategy has 3 objectives: understanding and protecting the marine environment,

supporting sustainable economic opportunities, and international leadership.322 The Strategy is based on

the fact that in order to protect the marine environment, one must understand the marine environment

in all its complexity.323 Science plays a critical and crucial role in that. Supporting sustainable economic

311

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vision, Mission, Mandate, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/us-nous/vision-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 312

ibid 313

ibid 314

ibid 315

Parks Canada, species at Risk Act, http://www.pc.gc.ca/nature/eep-sar/itm1/eep-sar1e.aspx (accessed on December 14, 2011) 316

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Managing Our Oceans: Our Governments’ Roles, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/governmentsrole-roledesgouvernements/index-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 317

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Integrated Management, http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/man-gest/im-gi-eng.htm(accessed on December 14, 2011) 318

ibid 319

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Managing Our Oceans: Our Governments’ Roles, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/governmentsrole-roledesgouvernements/index-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 320

ibid 321

ibid 322

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada's Oceans Strategy, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cos-soc/page06-eng.asp (accessed on December 14, 2011) 323

ibid


January 2012

opportunities is also based on scientific knowledge. While ocean industries’ contribute over C$20 billion

to Canada’s economy, needs should be balanced by a sense of conservation for the marine

environment.324 Shipping is a key industry and contributes to the economic livelihood of many

Canadians; as such, as a part of the Oceans Strategy, Canadian laws regarding marine and environmental

safety are harmonized with the IMO.325 The third objective is international leadership, which is based on

sovereignty and security, international oceans governance, and the idea of promoting compliance and

sharing experience.326

To better achieve their mandate, the DFO is divided into 6 administrative regions: Pacific, Central and

Arctic, Quebec, Maritimes, Gulf, and Newfoundland and Labrador.327 The Pacific regions of which this

study focuses on is comprised of British Columbia and Yukon Transboundary. For the purpose of

managing Canada’s marine regions, the DFO has created 5 Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs).328

These LOMAs provide the basis for integrated management (IM) plans and are defined as Pacific North

Coast, Beaufort Sea, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Eastern Scotian Shelf and the Placentia Bay/Grand Banks.329

The Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCMA) manages and represents the interests of

the Pacific North Coast region.330 The PNCMA was the first initiative to be established and its mandate,

mirroring the aforementioned integrated management (IM) approach, is to bring together vested

parties, be they government, industry, First Nations and coastal communities.331

Environment Canada (EC) and the Canadian Coast Guard play important roles in managing marine-

related activities. EC holds a large portfolio in Canada, handling environmental issues across many

sectors. The EC is responsible for the following:332

preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including water, air, soil, flora and

fauna;

conserve Canada's renewable resources;

conserve and protect Canada's water resources;

forecast daily weather conditions and warnings, and provide detailed meteorological

information to all of Canada;

enforce rules relating to boundary waters; and

coordinate environmental policies and programs for the federal government.

324

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Canada’s Oceans Strategy: Our Oceans, Our Future”, pp. 14. 325

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada's Oceans Strategy, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cos-soc/page06-eng.asp (accessed on December 14, 2011) 326

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Canada’s Oceans Strategy: Our Oceans, Our Future”, pp. 14. 327

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Administrative Regions, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 328

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Large Ocean Management Areas, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/marineareas-zonesmarines/loma-zego/index-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 329

ibid 330

ibid 331

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Integrated Management, http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/man-gest/im-gi-eng.htm (accessed on December 14, 2011) 332

Environment Canada, About Environment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BD3CE17D-1 (accessed on December 15, 2011)


January 2012

CEPA 1999 is an important piece of legislation for the protection of the environment and promoting

sustainable development.333 While the CEPA 1999 is large in its scope, among its mandate is trying to

prevent and control marine pollution and environmental emergencies, such as oil spills.334

While acts such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999) and the Antarctic

Environmental Protection Act are intended to protect the environment from pollution, EC implements

other acts that are mandated for conservation.335 The Canada Wildlife Act and the Canada Water Act are

examples of the latter.336 It is important to mention that EC manages, together with Parks Canada and

the TC, the Species at Risk Act (SARA). EC works to enforce environmental regulations; it works closely

with the TC, the DFO, the IMO and the Canadian Coast Guard.

While it is not realistic to discuss all the parties that share responsibility in managing the marine

environment, Appendix C provides a list of all federal, provincial and territorial governments that are in

part responsible for managing marine-related activities in their portfolios.

In many cases, various federal agencies work together on programs. Regarding marine wildlife and

cultural issues, Canada’s cooperative and collaborative approach, on the federal level, is comprised of 3

core programs: Marine Protected Areas, Marine Wildlife Areas and National Marine Conservation Areas.

The 3 core programs are established and implemented by the DFO, Environment Canada and Parks

Canada, respectively.337 Marine Protected Areas protects and conserves fish and marine mammal

habitats, endangered marine species, as well as protect areas of high biodiversity.338 Marine Wildlife

Areas protects and conserves a variety of wildlife, including migratory birds and endangered species.339

National Marine Conservation Areas protects and conserves examples of Canada’s natural and cultural

marine heritage.340

In September 2011, a National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas was

approved in principle.341 A portion of the document includes the development of a biogeographic

classification system for Canadian Marine Areas, to better support Canada’s unique and diverse network

of protected marine areas.342 Currently, several global biogeographic classification systems exist, such as

the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), Marine Ecosystems of the World and UNESCO’s Global Open

333

Environment Canada, CEPA 1999 at a Glance, http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=EAEDF851-1 (accessed on December 16, 2011) 334

Chemical Substances – Government of Canada, The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/about-apropos/cepa-lcpe-eng.php (accessed on December 16, 2011) 335

Environment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=E826924C-1 (accessed on December 16, 2011) 336

ibid 337

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Marine Protection, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/marineprotection-protectionmarine/index-eng.htm#network (accessed on December 16, 2011) 338

ibid 339

ibid 340

ibid 341

ibid 342

ibid


January 2012

Oceans and Deep Seabeds Biogeographic Provinces .343 Canada, on the other hand, utilizes the

Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas.344

Defining these ecoregions is important not only to reporting the status and trends of the specific area

but also to determine how to best protect the various regions. The “one size fits all” type solution may

not be the best to manage and protect Canada’s diverse marine ecosystems. This is a part of Canada’s

marine integrated approach to protecting the marine biology while sustainably developing resources,

including oil and gas.345 The integrated management approach method requires collaboration from

different levels of government, industry utilizing the oceans, Canadian communities, First Nations,

various organizations and Canadian citizens on the whole.346 As such, integrated management is based

on the premise that oceans need to be managed with respect to economic, social and ecological health

of the particular region in mind.347

Canada’s marine ecoregions are divided into 3 major regions: the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and

the Arctic Ocean. Each of Canada’s 3 oceans is further subdivided into minor biogeographic units by the

DFO. These are primarily based on oceanographic and bathymetric similarities. Due to the unique

diversity of the region, the Pacific Ocean is further divided into 4 ecoregions: Northern Shelf Zone, Strait

of Georgia, Southern Shelf Zone and the Offshore Pacific Zone.348 This is illustrated by Figure 1.24.

343

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Development of a Framework and Principles for the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas”, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2009/056, November 2009, pp. 3. 344

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Development of a Framework and Principles for the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas”, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2009/056, November 2009, pp. 3-5. 345

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Integrated Management, http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/man-gest/im-gi-eng.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011) 346

ibid 347

ibid 348

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Development of a Framework and Principles for the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas”, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2009/056, November 2009, pp. 11-2.


January 2012

Figure 1.24 British Columbia’s Marine Ecoregions

Source: DFO349

The above figure also includes the locations of Kitimat and Vancouver (as a red spot), 2 locations where

oil terminals either currently exist or are being planned. It is important to mention that the area defined

as the Pacific North Coast, as defined by the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas, and

the PNCMA is virtually the same as the area defined as the Northern Shelf.

Port Metro Vancouver

This section discusses and reviews various safety measures regarding Canada’s busiest and the most

diversified port in North America—the PMV.

This section is divided into 3 parts. The first part of this section reviews the PMV, provides a background

and some important facts regarding the busy port. While various activities are discussed, this part places

additional focus on its export of petroleum and petroleum products. The second part reviews briefly the

marine area of the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This region is the primary shipping

lanes used for most carriers using the port, including oil tankers. This part explores briefly the geography

as well as some of the ecology of the area. The third part explores the PMV and its safety protocols and

349

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Development of a Framework and Principles for the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas”, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2009/056, November 2009, pp. 12.


January 2012

procedures, in particular to oil tankers. In addition, this part also reviews the relationship of the PMV

with Kinder Morgan and its Westridge Terminals.

Port Metro Vancouver: Background and Facts

PMV was amalgamated on January 1, 2008, and is made up of the Port of Vancouver, North Fraser Port

Authority and the Fraser River Port Authority. The PMV is legally known as the Vancouver Fraser Port

Authority. The organization is a non-shareholder corporation that was established by the Government of

Canada. As such it is in accordance with the Canadian Marine Act and is accountable to the Minister of

Transport. Figure 1.25 shows the PMV, overlooking the Canadian Pacific Railroad’s N Yard.

Figure 1.25 The PMV

Source: Photo by Blackbird350

PMV is Canada’s largest port and the fourth largest tonnage port in North America, and stretches over

600 kilometres of shoreline.351 The PMV extends from Point Roberts, located at the Canada/United

States border, through the Burrard Inlet to Port Moody and Indian Arm; the PMV extends from the

mouth of the Fraser River, north along the Pitt River to Pitt Lake.352 In total, the PMV borders on 16

municipalities.

The PMV has 28 terminals, including 2 automobile, 2 breakbulk, 19 bulk, 4 container and 2 cruise ship.

Included among the 19 bulk terminals at PMV is Kinder Morgan Westridge. In addition to the 28

terminals, the facility has 3 Class 1 railroads.353

350

http://flickriver.com/photos/tags/coalharbour/interesting/ 351

Port Metro Vancouver, Second Narrows Transit Procedures, http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/users/marineoperations/navigation/SecondNarrowsTransitProcedures.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 352

Port Metro Vancouver, Port Overview, http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/about/portoverview.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 353

ibid


January 2012

At 102 million metric revenue tons of cargo in 2009, the PMV is also the fourth largest tonnage port in

North America.354 Interestingly, this is down from 115 million metric revenue tons of cargo from the

previous year; this is most likely due to the slowdown in the economy. Over that same time period, auto

(units), containers (TEUS) and cruise (revenue passengers) also decreased.355 While outbound tonnage

increased by 4.6 percent between September 2010 and September 2011, results by cargo type vary

dramatically.356 Between September 2010 and September 2011, bulk – dry and containerized –

increased by 8.0 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively.357 Auto, breakbulk and bulk – liquid, on the other

hand – have decreased by 29.9 percent, 1.6 percent and 23.4 percent.358 According to PMV, as of

September 2011, the port had 2,293 foreign vessel calls, up from 2,174 from September 2010 but still

slightly down from 2,791 foreign vessel calls in 2008.359

In 2009, the top 10 principal trading partners, by total tonnage (‘000 metric tonnes) were China

(21,624), Japan, (14,919), South Korea (9,831), United States (7,322), India (2,082), Taiwan (1,945),

Mexico (1,753), Brazil (1,236), Thailand (1,109) and Germany (1,041).360 It is interesting to note that 6 of

the top 10 are in Asia. Top 10 outbound trading partners differ only slightly: China, Japan, South Korea,

United States, India, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, Germany and Turkey.361

In terms of outbound cargo, the top 10 commodities in 2009 were metallurgical coal, canola, wheat,

other/unspecified coal, sulphur, specialty crops, crude petroleum, wood pulp, lumber and potash and

potassium-based fertilizers.362 As of September 2011, the top petroleum products exported from the

PMV are crude petroleum, gasoline, diesel & fuel oils, kerosene, distillate and coke, and aviation & jet

fuel.363 While Vancouver’s crude oil exports nearly hit 4 million metric tonnes, or approximately 29

million barrels, in 2009 and 2010, as of September 2011, crude petroleum exports decreased to

1,791,401 metric tonnes.364 Crude oil exports, however, increased dramatically during the 2000s, from

only approximately 500,000 metric tonnes in 2001.365

Table 1.5 illustrates petroleum product volumes at the PMV.

354

Port Metro Vancouver Statistics Overview 2009, pp. 3. 355

ibid 356

Port Metro Vancouver, Cargo Statistics Report, September 2011, pp. 2. 357

ibid 358

ibid 359

ibid 360


ibid 362




Port Metro Vancouver, Overview of Shipping in the Region, November 24, 2010, pp 6.


January 2012

Table 1.5 Petroleum Product Volumes in 2009 (Metric Tonnes)

Source: Port Metro Vancouver366

Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal is shown in Figure 1.26. The terminal imports jet fuel which it

pipelines to the Vancouver International Airport, while the terminal exports crude petroleum and

petroleum products.367 Located due west of the facility are Shell’s Shellburn Distribution Terminal and

Chevron Canada’s Burnaby Refinery. The Westridge Terminal is located just west of Burnaby Mountain

Park and the Barnet Marine Park. Burnaby Mountain Park is home to Simon Fraser University.

Figure 1.26 Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Terminal

Source: Vancouver Sun368

366

Port Metro Vancouver, Overview of Shipping in the Region, November 24, 2010, pp 4. 367

Port Metro Vancouver, Bulk Terminals, http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/users/landoperations/terminalsandfacilities/bulk.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 368

Vancouver Sun, http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canada+laggard+Asian+energy+markets/5768753/story.html

Total Import Export

Overall

Petroleum Products - Total 8,335,014 2,129,555 6,205,458

Crude Petroleum 3,916,333 - 3,916,333

Gasoline 2,220,116 1,256,416 963,700

Aviation & Jet Fuel 813,503 697,441 116,062

Diesel & Fuel Oils 653,294 94,563 558,731

Other Petroleum Products 731,768 81,136 650,632


January 2012

Currently, the largest oil tankers permitted by the PMV are Aframax, or approximately 650,000 bbls.369

Kinder Morgan’s expansion plans require that the largest oil tankers permitted would be Suezmax, or

approximately 1,000,000 bbls.370 Recall that the TMX expansion is expected to more than double crude

oil deliveries from 300,000 bpd to 700,000 bpd. With one-third of capacity to be used in refineries in

British Columbia and Washington, the Westridge terminal would have to be expanded to a capacity of

450,000 bpd. According to Kinder Morgan, the channel would need to be expanded to handle the

Suezmax-sized vessels.371 This would be done by dredging the Second Narrows railway bridge.372

Kinder Morgan also has the Kinder Morgan Vancouver Wharves. It handles breakbulk pulp, bulk mineral

concentrates liquids, sulphur/fertilizers, specialty agri-products and other dry bulk commodities.373 The

Wharves facility is located on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet.

A recent study measured the economic impact of the PMV’s on-going operations. Nearly 48,000 jobs are

directly linked to the facility in British Columbia, while including indirect and induced jobs, exceeded

106,000 jobs in Canada.374 The direct economic impact is estimated at C$4.1 billion in GDP, C$9.8 billion

in economic output and approximately C$2.2 billion in wages.375

The Salish Sea and the Marine Environment

Most tanker traffic, including oil tanker traffic from the Westridge Terminal in Burnaby, utilizes the

Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca, or the Salish Sea. Recall that the TMX pipeline branches off and

crosses into Washington State. Oil tankers departing from refineries in Cherry Point (Blaine), Anacortes

and Tacoma use the Strait of Juan de Fuca before they enter the Pacific Ocean as well.376

Figure 1.27 illustrates the location of the Straits of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound.

The following figure also includes the area defined as the Salish Sea Ecosystem.

369

Kinder Morgan Canada, Ian Anderson, Presentation, pp. 9. 370

ibid 371

ibid 372

ibid 373

Port Metro Vancouver, Bulk Terminals, http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/users/landoperations/terminalsandfacilities/bulk.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 374

2008 Port Metro Vancouver Economic Impact Study: Final Report, January 12, 2009, pp. ii. 375

ibid 376

Enbridge Northern Gateway website, Shipping Routes, http://csr.enbridge.com/northerngateway2010/images/environmental/shipping-route.jpg (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

Figure 1.27 Location of the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca

Source: Pacific Bird Group377

The Chemainus First Nation proposed renaming the region to Salish Sea.378 The name has been

approved by the British Columbia Geographical Names Office and the United States Board on

Geographical Names in 2010 and November 2009, respectively.379 The name refers to the Strait of

Georgia, Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.380

The Strait of Georgia is between Vancouver Island, the nearby Gulf Islands and the mainland coast of

British Columbia. It is approximately 240 kilometres long and ranges between 18 and 55 kilometres in

width. The mean depth of the Strait of Georgia is 156 meters, with a maximum depth of 420 meters.

377

Pacific Bird Group website, The Salish Sea Ecosystem: Status and Impacts of Changes on Marine Birds, http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/index.php?f=Symposium&t=Pacific+Seabirds&s=1 (accessed on December 16, 2011) 378

Klahowya website, June’s Gathering focus on Salish Sea , May 13, 2009, http://klahowya.nautsamawt.org/Environment/Resources/Page-6.html (accessed on December 16, 2011) 379

“U.S. approves Salish Sea name”, November 12, 2009, http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/19183/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 380

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, “States Board on Geographic Names Approves Salish Sea”, October 30, 2009, http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/News/Pages/nr09_177.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011)


January 2012

In the south, the Straits of Georgia adjoins the Puget Sound, which then adjoins the Strait Juan de

Fuca.381 The Haro Strait and the Rosario Strait connect the Strait of Georgia to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The Strait extends from the United States boarder, along the Puget Sound, north to Campbell River and

the Discovery Islands.382 At this point, the waters narrow. The Johnstone Strait stretches northwest to

meet the Queen Charlotte Strait and then to the open Pacific Ocean. Interestingly, early mariners often

referred to the Strait as the Gulf of Georgia, after Captain George Vancouver mistakenly named it in

1792.383 It is also why the many islands in the region are called the Gulf Islands.384

The Strait of Georgia is part of a large estuary, where hundreds of rivers flow into the region, from

creeks all the way to the large Fraser River. The fresh water helps shape the unique biological

characteristics of the area. The Fraser River accounts for approximately 80 percent of the fresh water

flowing into the Strait. The water circulates in a counterclockwise direction in the Strait of Georgia.

The waters are ecologically rich and support an estimated 3,000 species of marine life.385 The estuary,

the places where the salt water and fresh water meet and mix is vital for the fish and wildlife in the area,

as the ‘kidneys’ of the ecosystem.386 The 850-mile long Fraser River drains over 20 million hectares,

approximately one-quarter of the province.387

Species that can be found in the Strait of Georgia include seals, porpoises, killer whales, sea lions, at

least 200 species of fish (including 5 species of salmon), more than 1,500 invertebrate species, hundreds

of species of seabirds and shore birds and approximately 500 marine plant species.388

Figure 1.28 illustrates the average depth of the Strait of Georgia.

381

Georgia Strait Alliance website, Where is Georgia Strait?, http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/650 (accessed on December 16, 2011) 382

Georgia Strait Alliance website, Strait of Georgia, http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/183 383

Georgia Strait Alliance website, About the Strait, http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/44 384

ibid 385

ibid 386

ibid 387

ibid 388

Georgia Strait Alliance website, Marine Life of Georgia Strait, http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/45


January 2012

Figure 1.28 Average Depth of the Strait of Georgia and Area

Source: http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/650

It is also interesting to note that the population in the area is approximately 3 million, and is expected to

increase to 4 million by 2020; including the Puget Sound, the population in the region increases to 7

million and nearly 10 million by 2020.389 Urban centers located along the shores of the Salish Sea include

Greater Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and Bellingham. Smaller communities include

Courtenay, Comox, Qualicum Beach, Parksville and Nanaimo.

Port Metro Vancouver’s Safety Procedures

As previously mentioned in this study, there are 4 levels of regulations: international, national,

provincial/territorial and the port level. As such, the PMV must follow a rigorous and complex set of

regulations, from the IMO to federal to provincial, down to their own set of safety measures and

procedures.

Due to the fact that Canada is a Member State, the PMV follows the various IMO regulations and

conventions, such as the SOLAS, MARPOL ISM Code and (ISPS).390 Thus, the PMV follows ship inspection

and reporting programs for identifying double-hulled tankers, structural integrity and other, previously

discussed issues.391

Federally, the PMV is regulated by the TC, but has to satisfy a long list of regulatory standards and works

with several organizations to maintain security and planning. The TC oversees not only the PMV, but 17

389

ibid 390

Port Metro Vancouver, Second Narrow Transit Procedures, pp. 4. 391

ibid


January 2012

Canada Port Authorities (CPAs).392 In addition, the TC sets and implements port and marine facility

service standards, as well as sets and collects public port fees.393 All vessels, oil tankers or otherwise, are

registered by the TC; this includes procedures for registration and vessel registration forms.394

The PMV adheres to the following legislations and regulations: Canada Marine Act, Canada Shipping Act,

Canada Transportation Act, Coasting Trade Act, Marine Transportation Security Act, Pilotage Act, Port

Authorities Management Regulations, Shipping Conferences Exemption Act (1987), Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act (CEEA), Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (1992), United Nations

Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Marine Liability Act, Navigable Waters Protection

Act and TC’s Smart Regulation.395,396 All of these legislations and regulations shape practices and

procedures of the PMV and other ports in Canada.

For example, the Canada Marine Act provides regulations for Canada Port Authorities, public ports,

seaways, human resources, and regulations and enforcements.397 The TC utilizes the CMA to oversee

Canada’s ports, to make Canadian ports more competitive, efficient and commercially-oriented.398 As

mentioned previously, to enforce the regulations and standards, the TC has various tools at their

disposal.

The Harbour Operations Manual for the PMV, which outlines a set of practices and procedures to

promote safe and efficient navigation, was created to pursue Section 56 of the CMA.399 The document

outlines navigation and waterway protocol, vessel operations, cargo operations, non-deep sea traffic,

special events, emergencies and security.

While it is not realistic to discuss the operations manual in its detailed entirety, it is prudent to review

portions pertinent to oil tanker safety. The PMV’s Harbour Operations Manual outlines the following

mandatory vessel movement procedures for all oil tankers: tug escort requirements, pilotage

requirements (two pilots), training standards, transit windows, navigational aid system, transit safety

392

Transport Canada website, Marine Transportation – Ports, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/ports-index.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011) 393

ibid 394

Transport Canada website, Registration of Vessels – Overview, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-vesselreg-registration-menu-2311.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011) 395

Port Metro Vancouver website, Manual and Regulations, http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/users/manualsandregulations.aspx (accessed on December 16, 2011) 396

Association of Canadian Port Authorities, About ACPA – Work, http://www.acpa-ports.net/about/work.html (accessed on December 16, 2011) 397

Department of Justice, Canada Marine Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6.7/ (accessed on December 16, 2011) 398

Transport Canada website, , Canada Marine Act, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1998c10.htm (accessed on December 16, 2011) 399

Harbour Operations Manual, Port Metro Vancouver, pp. 8.


January 2012

controls, Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS), vessel traffic scheme, decision support

tools (First and Second Narrows) and Clear Narrows requirements.400

There are several strict navigational restrictions for oil tankers. The Second Narrows forms a natural

bottleneck in the Burrard Inlet, between the main ports of Vancouver to the west and the central

portion of Vancouver harbour to the east.401 Due to the bottleneck, the PMV developed the Second

Narrows Movement Restriction Area (MRA) Procedures.402

Figure 1.29 illustrates the view from the Second Narrows westward to the Vancouver Harbour and the

Burrard Inlet. The smaller bridge in the foreground is the Second Narrows Railway Bridge while the

larger bridge just west is the Second Narrows Ironworkers Memorial Bridge. The Westridge Terminals

are eastward of the photo while Stanley Park and the Lions Gate Bridge lie in the distance. The Lions

Gate Bridge’s official name is the First Narrows Bridge403 and designated a National Historic Site of

Canada.404

Figure 1.29 View from Above the Second Narrows Bridge

Source: PMV405

400


Harbour Operations Manual, Port Metro Vancouver, pp. 18. 402

ibid 403

British Columbia Laws, http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/T/Transportation513_2004/513_2004.htm (accessed on November 17, 2011) 404

Parks Canada, “The Government of Canada Announces the Designation of New National Historic Sites”, http://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/cp-nr/release_e.asp?id=863&andor1=nr (accessed on December 17, 2011) 405

Port Metro Vancouver website, Photo Gallery, http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/Libraries/PHOTO_GALLERY_Aerials/BurrardInlet_from2ndNarrows.sflb.ashx (accessed on December 17, 2011)


January 2012

Upon approach of the Second Narrows, tankers are required the following: Pilotage requirements (2

pilots), port tanker notification/Narrow permits, tug escort requirements, navigational aids, Bridge

Resources Management/Engine Resource Management, and Marine Communications and Traffic

Services (MCTS).406

The Pilotage Act (R.S.C, 1985, c. P-14) plays an important role in the safety of the PMV, as it outlines

regulations in marine navigation.407 The Act is administered and implemented by the TC, and has created

4 pilotage authorities in the Atlantic, Laurentian, Great Lakes and Pacific regions.408 In the case of

tankers approaching the PMV, it is compulsory to navigate vessels to and from their terminals when

crossing the Second Narrows. The Pacific Pilotage Authority’s (PPAs) mandate is to provide safe and

reliable marine pilotage for vessels off the coast of British Columbia.409 The PPA is a Federal Crown

Corporation and was established in 1972.410

Figure 1.30 shows the pilotage of an oil tanker in Vancouver.

Figure 1.30 An Oil Tanker in the Second Narrows

Source: PPA411

Figure 1.31 shows an illustration of a typical configuration of tug boats around the vessel.

406

Second Narrows Transit Procedure, Port Metro Vancouver, pp.3. 407

Transport Canada website, Pilotage Act, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1985cp-14.htm (accessed on December 17, 2011) 408

Parliament of Canada, Legislative Summaries – Bill C-4, http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=e&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&ls=C4&source=library_prb (accessed on December 17, 2011) 409

Pacific Pilotage Authority website, http://www.ppa.gc.ca/text/index-e.html (accessed on December 17, 2011) 410

Pacific Pilotage Authority, “Navigational Safety on the B.C. Coast”, November 24, 2010, pp. 3. 411

Pacific Pilotage Authority website, Photo Gallery, http://www.ppa.gc.ca/text/M6X7785-e.htm (accessed on December 17, 2011)


January 2012

Figure 1.31 Oil Tanker in the PMV

Source: PMV412

It is interesting to note that of the PPA’s 11,122 assignments in 2009, their incident-free rate is 99.95

percent.413 It is also important to note that Vancouver has never had a navigational issue with an oil

tanker in that span. In fact, the only major oil spill in British Columbia occurred in 2006 when the British

Columbia ferry Queen of the North sank with 240 tonnes of oil on board.414 Ferry’s are outside of the

mandate of the PPA.415

An Oil Transfer Check List ensures the safety of vessel operations and plays an important role in oil

transfer procedures.416 The List must be completed by oil suppliers and receivers, and is based on

recommendations by the IMO.417 Among issues on the checklist are mooring safety, tow lines rigging,

the presence of an oil spill response plan, communication issues, procedures of handling oil transfer,

procedures of an emergency shutdown and the presence of qualified personnel.418 The Harbour

Master’s Office must be notified prior to the transfer; and the checklist must be faxed to the Harbour

Master’s Office if no representative is able to attend.419

All spills must be reported to the Harbour Master’s Office. Organizations that assist in shipping incidents

and first response are the TC, Department of National Defense, the DFO and Environment Canada.420

In addition, oil tankers need to adhere to the following:421

412







Harbour Operations Manual, Port Metro Vancouver, pp. 43-45. 419


Harbour Operations Manual, Port Metro Vancouver, pp. 18.


January 2012

Stringent crew training requirements,

Ship inspections (IMO standards),

Port State Control (PSC) program logs and share results internationally,

Tankers require an approved oil response contractor, and

Ships are required to follow the PMV’s strict regulations (speed, tug escorts, etc.).

It is important to note that the PSC program is an extensive ship inspection of foreign vessels. All vessels

must adhere to the SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW, as well as the Load Lines, Convention on the International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG) and the International Labour Organization

Convention No. 147 Merchant Shipping (ILO 147).422 All aforementioned are guided by the IMO and the

International Labour Organization (ILO). These conventions are also recognized by the CSA 2001 and the

Canada Labour Code.423 Port State Control inspectors ensure that new and modified foreign ships at

Canadian ports are subject to marine safety inspectors.424 In addition, the National Aerial Surveillance

Program helps the Canadian Coast Guard to detect pollution from vessels.425

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Marine Terminal

This section discusses and reviews the marine terminal and the various safety measures regarding

Canada’s most advanced proposal to build and operate a marine terminal on the west coast of British

Columbia.

This section is divided into 3 parts. The first part reviews briefly the Northern Shelf and the marine

environment. It also explores briefly the geography as well as the ecology of the area. The second part

of this section explores Enbridge’s Northern Gateway marine terminal and the Port of Kitimat. This part

provides not only background and some important facts regarding the planned facility, but also includes

information on the growing Port of Kitimat as well. The third part explores Enbridge’s proposed marine

terminal from the perspective of its safety protocols and procedures.

Northern Shelf and the Marine Environment

Recall that proposed tanker routes to service the Northern Gateway Pipeline will utilize the Dixon

Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, as well as the Douglas Channel and other waterways

and inlets. Figure 1.32 illustrates the route of the oil tankers, as well as the location of Enbridge’s

proposed oil pipeline and marine terminals. The figure illustrates the Northern and Southern

Approaches. Both routes, however, utilize the Douglas Channel west of Gill Island.

421


Transport Canada website, Regulatory Framework, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-inspection-psc-framework-920.htm (accessed on December 17, 2011) 423

ibid 424


ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.32 Map of Enbridge’s Oil Tanker Marine Routes

Source: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf0vb509cY1qfyo3so1_500.jpg

Oil tanker traffic to the proposed Kitimat oil terminal will travel through the complex Northern Shelf and

Offshore Pacific Zone regions, as identified by Figure 1.33, which illustrates the various, and previously

discussed, biogeographic units.

The Northern Shelf includes the Queen Charlotte Sound, the Hecate Strait, the west coast of Haida Gwaii

archipelago (Queen Charlotte Islands), the Queen Charlotte Strait and Northwest Vancouver Island,

while the Offshore Pacific Zone includes the Alaska Gyre, the California Gyre and a transition zone. Each

zone can be further subdivided into biogeographical zones. For example, there are significant

differences between onshore and inshore characteristics within the Northern Shelf itself; this is

particularly the case in the fiord land regions of the coastline.


January 2012

Figure 1.33 British Columbia’s Marine Ecoregions

Source: DFO426

This section will focus on the Northern Shelf region and the very different waters of the inlets,

waterways and fjords, such as the Douglas Channel.

The Queen Charlotte Sound is located between the islands of Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island. The

Dixon Entrance, on the other hand, is located between Haida Gwaii’s largest island, Graham Island, and

the Prince of Wales Islands, located within Alaska waters. The Dixon Entrance and the Queen Charlotte

Islands are named for Captain George Dixon and his ship, the Queen Charlotte.427,428 The Hecate Strait is

located east of the Haida Gwaii and the west coast of British Columbia. Hecate Strait was named in 1861

after a surveying paddle-wheel sloop.429

426

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “Development of a Framework and Principles for the Biogeographic Classification of Canadian Marine Areas”, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat 2009/056, November 2009, pp. 12. 427

Britannica website, “Dixon Entrance”, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166846/Dixon-Entrance (January 15, 2012) 428

Britannica website, “Queen Charlotte Sound”, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486826/Queen-Charlotte-Sound (January 15, 2012) 429

Britannica website, “Hecate Strait”, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259140/Hecate-Strait (January 15, 2012)


January 2012

This is illustrated in Figure 1.34.

Figure 1.34 British Columbia’s Northern Shelf

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Locmap-QCS-Hecate-Dixon.png

The bathymetry, or the contours of the ocean floor, affects the ocean currents, which in turn will

determine the safest shipping lanes. Figure 1.35 illustrates the bathymetry of the Northern Shelf.


January 2012

Figure 1.35 British Columbia’s Northern Shelf Bathymetry

Source: PNCIMA430

The bathymetry of the Queen Charlotte Sound is more complex than the Dixon Entrance and the Hecate

Strait. The region is characterized by shallow banks and 3 broad troughs which lie at depths ranging

430

PNCIMA website, Atlas of the PNCIMA, http://www.pncima.org/media/documents/atlas/pncima_atlas_map-7_bathymetry.pdf (pp. 27)


January 2012

from 350 to 400 meters.431 Goose Island, Mitchells’ and Moresby Troughs are separated by shallow

banks (North Bank, Goose Island Bank and Cook Banks).432 The depths of the relatively shallow banks are

<200 meters for the former and approximately less than 100 meters for the latter two.433 The northern

most troughs are the most extensive and irregular. The Hecate Strait is the shallowest of the major

channels that make up the Hecate Depression, but is also the least exposed. The axis of the strait is

approximately 220 kilometres and quite narrow. Depths range from 300 meters in the south to about 50

meters in the north.434 It is 140 kilometres wide at the southern end and approximately 48 kilometres

wide at the north end by the Dixon Entrance.435 By comparison, the Dixon Entrance, open to the Pacific

Ocean, is relatively deep. The area, however, has sills formed by igneous bedrock; these play a role in

deflecting bottom currents.436

The region experiences large waves from storms over the northeast Pacific Ocean; this is particularly the

case with the Queen Charlotte Sound and the southern portion of the Hecate Strait.437 Both locations

are more exposed to experience large fetches from storms travelling northeastwards.438 During the fall

and winter seasons, wave heights of 3.5 meters occur between 20 and 30 percent of the time.439 Waves

between 8 and 10 meters accompanied by winds gusting between 90 to 100 knots, occurs several times

during winter months.

The wave heights of the Dixon Entrance average between the more exposed portion of the Queen

Charlotte Sound and the more protected areas of the Hecate Strait.440 While the region is more

protected from the south, swells can enter from the west. These are often amplified by the bathymetry

of the area, where the shallowness of the banks can have a great effect.441

While the coastal currents are influenced by the aforementioned shelf bathymetry, they are also driven

by coastal morphology, winds and freshwater discharges from land.442 The currents are also driven by

431

Conway, Kim W and Duncan Johannessen, Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Appendix A, Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2667, pp. 27. 432



Government of British Columbia – Geographical Names, http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/38500.html (accessed on December 17, 2011). 435

ibid 436


Crawford, William, Duncan Johannessen et al., Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Appendix C: Physical and Chemical Oceanography, Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2667, pp. 27. 438

ibid 439

ibid 440

ibid 441

ibid 442

Crawford, William, Duncan Johannessen et al., Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Appendix C: Physical and Chemical Oceanography, Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2667, pp. 1.


January 2012

tidal currents. As such, they are most easily described by season. Currents in the Northern Shelf can flow

either north or south depending on the aforementioned factors.443 In winter months, the Davidson

Current flows northward off of Vancouver Island and extends to the Queen Charlotte Sound, while in

the summer months, the flow is often reversed due to the weakening Aleutian Low.444

This is illustrated in Figure 1.36. The coastal regions discussed experience strong downwelling in winter

and weak upwelling in summer. Downwelling refers to the downward displacement of the surface water

towards the bottom, while upwelling is the reverse process.445

Figure 1.36 Ocean Circulation off British Columbia in the Summer (l) and Winter (r)

Source: Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences446

For these reasons, these oceanic waters are nutrient-rich and are lower in dissolved oxygen.447 The

currents enter through the deep troughs in the Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait and flush the

coastal inlets with deep ocean waters.448 This plays an important role in marine life and mammal life in

the Northern Shelf.

443


ibid 445




ibid


January 2012

The waters are ecologically rich. Species that are likely to occur in the open water area of the Northern

Shelf are the northern abalone, boccacio, eulachon, green sturgeon, canary rockfish, darkblotched

rockfish, longspine thomyhead, quillback rockfish, rougheye rockfish (Type I and II), yellow rockfish,

Pacific sardine, tope (soupfin shark), basking shark, bluntnose sixgill shark, killer whale (southern

resident population and the northern resident, west coast transient population and offshore

population), harbour porpoise, humpback whale, grey whale, fin whale, blue whale, North Pacific right

whale, sei whale, northern fur seal, steller sea lion, sea otter, leatherback turtle, marbled murrelet and

ancient murrelet, western grebe, horned grebe, laysan albatross, black-footed albatross, short-tailed

albatross and pink-footed shearwater.449 The troughs of the Queen Charlotte Sound and the Hecate

Strait are also the home to extensive sponge reefs. The Hexactinellida date to between the Upper

Jurassic and the Late Cretaceous, approximately 150 and 65 million years ago.450

The physical marine environment changes in the coastal waterways, inlets and fjords.

These bodies of waters play an important role ecologically, economically and socially. Fisheries,

aquaculture, tourism, recreation, shipping and logging are only several of the activities that rely on the

coastal zone and maze of waterways.451 It is important to note that the waters in the inlets, particularly

the Douglas Channel, are relatively sheltered. Part of this is the shape and length of the Douglas

Channel, the other is the Coastal Mountains that frame the channel and the harbour of Kitimat.452

The abundance of islands, however, creates protected and semi-protected waterways.453 Coastal

waterways, inlets and fjords also experience less volatile wave conditions, as they are more isolated. As

such, freshwater runoff—less buoyant than seawater—plays an important role in controlling fjord

circulation. Several rivers flow in the ocean along the British Columbia west coast; maximum levels of

runoff occur in late spring and continue due to snowmelt.

In terms of ecology, the coastal zone plays an important role in runoff and estuarine circulation. The

latter helps flush the deeper waters.454 If this does not occur, or poor flushing occurs, this has a direct

impact in reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, low biological productivity and low species diversity.455

449

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8B: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) – Marine Transportation, Section 6: Listed Species for the Marine Environment, Page 6-5 to 6-6. 450

Luca, B.G., S. Verrin and R. Brown, Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2667, pp. 40. 451


ibid 453

Luca, B.G., S. Verrin and R. Brown, Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2667, pp. 40. 454


ibid


January 2012

The Kitimat River generally flows into the Kitimat Arm, at the head of the Douglas Channel. Its drainage

basin is 2,054 sq. kilometres in size.456 Another important river is the Kitlope River, which drains in the

Gardner Cana, a major inlet of the Douglas Channel.

Figure 1.37 illustrates estuarine circulation in an inlet, showing surface water outflow, as well as

seasonal inflows. Flow is strongest during high runoff. However, tides, winds and offshore oceanic

conditions impact circulation.

Figure 1.37 Schematic of Estuarine Circulation

Source: Ecosystem Overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA), Appendix C457

In the summer months, bottom waters approaching the sills are cool, saline, and low in oxygen. These

waters are also nutrient rich. Bottom waters in the winter months are warm, fresh and high in oxygen.

Within the estuary, plankton, phytoplankton, zooplankton and other microscopic organisms thrive, and

serve as a staple for other marine animals.458 The latter includes migratory birds, water fowl, larval

invertebrates, salmon and herring.459 This categorizes the Kitimat Arm, the proposed location of

Enbridge’s marine terminal. The Kitimat Arm is primarily controlled by estuary circulation, winds and

tides. Freshwater from river discharge, mostly glacial or snow melt, flows into the fjord, where the

lighter surface freshwater flows towards the ocean while the denser seawater flows towards the land at

depth.460

Like the Northern Shelf outer water area, the fjords, waterways and inlets are an equally diverse and

rich ecosystem. Enbridge and their environmental assessment define this region concerned with oil

tanker traffic as the Confined Channel Assessment Area (CCAA). The region is defined by the channels

utilized by both the Northern Approach and the Southern Approach. These include the Principe Channel,

456

Gazetteer of Canada. British Columbia. Canadian Board on Geographic Names. 1953. pp. p. xv. 457

ibid 458

Thompson, Andrew, “West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry: Statement of Proceedings”, February 1978, pp. 17. 459

ibid 460

ibid


January 2012

Napean Sound, Otter Channel, Squally Channel, Lewis Passage, Wright Sound and the Douglas Channel

to the Kitimat Terminal. They are discussed in greater detail in the next section.

Listed species that are likely to occur within the CCAA region are the northern abalone, boccacio,

eulachon, green sturgeon, killer whale (northern resident population and the northeast Pacific transient

population), harbour porpoise, humpback whale, grey whale, fin whale, steller sea lion, marbled

murrelet and ancient murrelet.461 Marine fish such as the eulachon, Pacific herring, rockfish and chum

salmon are culturally and commercially important as well as important for the marine biota. Mammals

that are a conservation concern in the area are the northern resident killer whale, north Pacific

humpback whale and the steller sea lion.

Enbridge’s Marine Terminal and the Port of Kitimat

This section discusses Enbridge’s marine terminal and the Port of Kitimat.

The twin proposed pipelines—one for oil and the other for condensate—run between Bruderheim,

Alberta and Kitimat, BC. As previously mentioned, the twin pipelines—1,177 kilometres in length—will

carry crude oil westward while transporting natural gas condensate eastward.462 The crude oil pipeline

will have a diameter of 36 inches and a capacity of 525,000 bpd.463 The pipeline project ends at the

proposed Kitimat Marine Terminal.

The proposed terminal would include 2 tanker platforms, one with the capacity to serve VLCC and

Suezmax-type condensate tankers.464 The planned world-class facility would also include 14 storage

tanks for oil and condensate and a radar monitoring station.465

Kitimat is located 90 nautical miles inland at the head of the Douglas Channel and is located

approximately 650 kilometres northwest of Vancouver and approximately 118 kilometres south of

Prince Rupert.466 Kitimat is located at the head of the Kitimat Arm, a wide fjord, and is located in Kitimat

Valley.467 The latter is a large, flat valley which connects to Terrace, more than 60 kilometres inland and

is one of only two wide flat valleys in British Columbia;468 the other is the Fraser Valley. The fjord in

which Kitimat is located is the widest and deepest in British Columbia, making it one of the deepest

inland sea ports in the Northwest Corridor.469 The marine terminal is a part of the North Coast Fjord

Ecosection of the Queen Charlotte Basin Ecounit and is defined by a network of waterways, inlets and

461

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8B: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) – Marine Transportation, Section 6: Listed Species for the Marine Environment, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, Page 6-2. 462

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Project at a glance, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/project-at-a-glance/ (accessed on January 18, 2012) 463

ibid 464

Enbridge Northern Gateway, “Northern Gateway Project Overview: Fact Sheet”, Document No. NGP-FS-01-001 (Last Revised on January 14, 2012), pp. 2. 465

ibid 466

District of Kitimat, Location of Kitimat, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/residents/facts-statistics/location.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 467

ibid 468

The Private International Port of Kitimat, Development Services, City of Kitimat, pp. 3. 469

ibid


January 2012

fjords.470 As with other fjords on the British Columbia coast, they tend to be deep and are categorized

with steep sides and flat beds of glacial sills.471

Figure 1.38 shows the town of Kitimat and its surrounding communities.

Figure 1.38 British Columbia’s Skeena Region

Source: BC Parks472

The 3 commercial ports in this graphic that are connected to international markets are the Port of

Kitimat, the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Stewart.473 Wedged between Alaska and British

Columbia, the latter has the unique distinction of being Canada’s most northern ice-free port.474 Prince

Rupert has the distinction of being the largest of the 3 international ports and the second busiest on the

west coast, following the massive PMV.475 The Port of Prince Rupert has 5 world-class terminals,

470

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 7C: Risk Assessment and Management of Spills—Kitimat Terminal, Section 6: Setting for the Marine Terminal, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, Page 6-1. 471

ibid 472

BC Parks, Skeena Region of British Columbia, http://www.gocampingbc.com/images/maps/terrace_prince_rupert.gif 473

Northwest BC Forest Coalition website, Infrastructure Background, http://www.nwbc-forestcoalition.org/infrastructure.htm (accessed on December 15, 2011) 474

ibid 475

ibid


January 2012

including the Prince Rupert Container Terminal, Northland Cruise Terminal, Ridley Terminals Inc., Prince

Rupert Grain and the Atlin Cruise Terminal.476 The Container Terminal is North America’s newest

terminal and the first that is dedicated as a ship-to-rail facility.477 As such the facility is connected to the

Canadian National Railways (CN) as well as the Yellowhead Highway.

The facility, similar to PMV, is operated by the local Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA), an organization

that is a non-shareholder corporation, established by the Government of Canada. As such it is a

pursuant of the Canadian Marine Act and is accountable to the Minister of Transport. The PRPA was

created on May 1, 1999 and is responsible for all federally-owned waterfront properties on the Prince

Rupert Harbour.

This differs slightly from its nearby neighbour, the Port of Kitimat. The Port of Kitimat has the distinction

of being the west coast’s third busiest port, but also its largest private port. The port was deproclaimed

as a public port by the TC (and the CMA) in 1998.478 Terminals at the Port of Kitimat were built, owned

and operated by private interests.479 In short, the Port of Kitimat has evolved without federal land,

services or facilities, and as such, the Port is private and operates outside of Canada’s port system.480

While it means that the terminals do not have to pay harbour dues or fees associated with the federal

port authorities,481 it also means that the Port still has to adhere to all national and international

maritime shipping regulations.482 TC and other federal agencies regulate navigation, security and

environmental issues.483 Some of these procedures are discussed in the succeeding section.

It is important to mention that a working group established by the DFO in the 1970s reviewed 11

potential west coast ports to the effect of accidental oil spills;484 the sites were Port Simpson, Ridley

Island (Prince Rupert), Kitimat, Bella Coola, Britannia Beach (Squamish), Port Moody, Roberts Bank,

Esquimalt, Cherry Point (Ferndale), Burrows Bay and Port Angeles.485 The 1978 study entitled, “Potential

Pacific Coast Oil Ports: A Comparative Environmental Risk Analysis”, factored in navigational, biological,

economic and social risks of each potential site. The group concluded that the ports with the lowest risks

were Port Simpson, Ridley Island (Prince Rupert), Kitimat and Port Angeles.486

476

Prince Rupert Port Authority, Facilities Overview, http://www.rupertport.com/facilities.htm (accessed on December 15, 2011) 477

ibid 478

District of Kitimat, Statistics of the Port of Kitimat, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat/statistics.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 479

ibid 480

ibid 481

ibid 482

ibid 483

District of Kitimat, Port of Kitimat, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat.html (accessed on December 15, 2011) 484

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 1: Overview and General Information, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 4-3. 485

ibid 486

ibid


January 2012

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway further evaluated Ridley Island (Prince Rupert) and Kitimat after

eliminating Port Simpson and Port Angeles.487 The latter two did not fit several of the following criteria:

the need for year-round, ice-free access, sufficient channel width and water depth, a tanker berth area

sheltered from open water wave conditions, pipeline access to the terminal, accessible road system,

access to marine infrastructure, the need to limit environmental effects, availability of suitable land, and

availability of nearby existing onshore and marine infrastructure.488 The choice between Prince Rupert

and Kitimat for terminal location was influenced by the fact that the pipeline route from Terrace to

Ridley Island is marred with potentially serious environmental constraints and issues.489 The topography

is steep and the river valleys are generally narrow, leading to potential issues with hydrotechnical and

operational constraints.490 The pipelines could also be susceptible to avalanches and rockslides.491 As

such, the Port of Kitimat is the location chosen by Enbridge.

The Kitimat town site currently occupies approximately 750 hectares of land on the east side of the

Kitimat River, while the port and industrial areas cover an additional 475 hectares along the west side of

the river.492

Figure 1.39 shows Kitimat and various important industrial landmarks, including the potential site of

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Oil Terminal (red circle). The proposed oil terminal is located several

kilometres from the Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) terminal and the central part of the Port of Kitimat.

487

ibid 488


ibid 490

ibid 491

ibid 492

The Private International Port of Kitimat, Development Services, City of Kitimat, pp. 3.


January 2012

Figure 1.39 Port of Kitimat and Various Important Landmarks

Source: DCEP website493

The above figure also includes the terminals operated by RTA and Royal Dutch Shell. Kitimat is barely 60

years old and its very history is tied to the largest employer in town—RTA. The aluminum producer

designed and assisted with the construction of the Kitimat town site back in the 1950s after the British

Columbia government invited the company to build a dam, a 16 kilometre tunnel, an 82 kilometre

transmission line, a deep sea terminal and smelter. The RTA recently completed a C$350 million

modernization between 2008 and 2010, with a further C$350 million to be invested in 2011.494 The

493

Douglas Channel Energy website, http://douglaschannelenergy.com/wp-content/themes/douglaschannel/_images/map3-larger.jpg (accessed on December 16,2011) 494

District of Kitimat, Major Project in the Area, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/major-projects.html (accessed on December 16,2011)


January 2012

modernization will increase production capacity by 48 percent to approximately 420,000 tonnes per

annum.495

The Shell terminal and methanol production plant, on the other hand, was operated by Methanex, the

world’s largest supplier and distributor of methanol, before Methanex shut down its operations in

2005.496 The Vancouver-based company continued to operate the terminal to import methanol to be

used for oil sands operations in Alberta for Cenovus (then EnCana), as well as move its own product.497

When the 5-year deal expired in late 2011, Cenovus had the option to purchase the plant site as well as

the wharf facility in October 2011.498 It did so, but the purchase was spun off rapidly to Shell, who is the

current owner of both the tank farm and wharf.499 Shell and its partners—Korea Gas Corporation, China

National Petroleum Company (CNPC) and Mitsubishi Corporation—are planning to build an LNG export

terminal on the Methanex site.500 It should be noted that Shell has a long-standing relationship with

Korea Gas Corporation—the world’s biggest purchaser of LNG.501 While at the “early stages”, the LNG

facility would be the one of three proposed for the Port of Kitimat area.502 The facility would export 1.8

Bcfpd to Asian markets.503 Shell and its aforementioned partners entertained a liquefaction facility in

Prince Rupert earlier in mid-2011. While a specific location for the terminal was not chosen, the project

was dubbed the Prince Rupert LNG; the capacity was 1.0 Bcfpd and was expected to cost in the range of

C$5 to C$7 billion.504 It is important to note that Shell Canada is a major player in the Montney Basin. In

August 2008, Duvernay Oil Corp., a junior Alberta-based E&P company which owned 450,000 net acres

of Montney land, was acquired by Shell Canada for US$5.9 billion.505 In this deal Shell acquired net

acreage in northeastern British Columbia, extending into Alberta’s Deep Basin.

495

ibid 496

Vancouver Sun, “Shell buys Kitimat terminal site for proposed LNG facility”, October 21, 2011, http://www.vancouversun.com/Shell+buys+Kitimat+terminal+site+proposed+facility/5586286/story.html#ixzz1gvuq4yAUhttp://www.vancouversun.com/business/Shell+buys+Kitimat+terminal+site+proposed+facility/5586286/story.html (accessed on December 16,2011) 497

Methanex website, Our Company, http://www.methanex.com/ourcompany/locations_canada.html (accessed on December 16,2011) 498

District of Kitimat, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/manufacturing-overview.html (accessed on December 16,2011) 499

The Globe and Mail website, “Shell eyes LNG terminal in B.C. that would overshadow Kitimat”, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shell-eyes-lng-terminal-in-bc-that-would-overshadow-kitimat/article2237406/ (accessed on October 16,2011) 500

ibid 501

ibid 502

CBC News, “Shell plans Kitimat natural gas export plant”, October 21, 2011, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/21/bc-lng-kitimat.html (accessed on December 16,2011) 503

The Globe and Mail website, “Shell eyes LNG terminal in B.C. that would overshadow Kitimat”, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shell-eyes-lng-terminal-in-bc-that-would-overshadow-kitimat/article2237406/ (accessed on October 16,2011) 504

Vancouver Sun, “Shell Canada says it’s looking at B.C. coast for new LNG terminal”, May 27, 2011, http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/pne/Shell+Canada+says+looking+coast+terminal/4854095/story.html (accessed on December 16,2011) 505

“Duvernay Oil acquired by Shell Canada”, July 14, 2008, http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/July/14/Duvernay-Oil-acquired-by-Shell-Canada (accessed on October 21, 2010)


January 2012

Figure 1.39 also shows the 2 other LNG terminals, one of which has been approved. Located further

south from Enbridge’s planned Northern Gateway terminal is the Kitimat LNG terminal, also referred to

as the Bish Cove LNG. The construction of the LNG project is slated to begin in 2012. Kitimat LNG is

Canada’s first proposed LNG export terminal and has a planned capacity of approximately 700 MMcfpd

and will cost about US$3 billion.506 The total cost of the project is approximately C$4.2 billion, if the

construction of the 463 kilometre Pacific Trail Pipeline is included. The approved C$1 billion Pacific Trail

Pipeline will connect the Sempra Energy Transmission system at Summit Lake to the proposed Kitimat

LNG terminal and its proposed natural gas liquefaction site.507 The pipeline received approval from

Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.508 The Kitimat to Summit Lake Pipeline Looping

Project will be approximately 462 kilometres (287 miles) in length, and have a capacity of 1 Bcfpd. The

Kitimat LNG exporting terminal, of which EnCana, Apache and EOG are partners, is expected to

commence operation in early 2014. The project received Canadian provincial environmental assessment

approval in January 2009 while receiving federal environmental assessment approval in December

2008.509 The project was granted a construction deadline extension on May 12, 2011.510 Announced at

the end of May, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office granted a 4-year extension to

complete a “substantial construction” by June 1, 2016.511 All 3 partners are also major players in British

Columbia’s Horn River Basin and Montney Basin.

Located north of Enbridge’s proposed oil terminal is a second proposed LNG facility. The Douglas Island

LNG is the second LNG exporting proposal submitted to the NEB, submitted in March 2011.512 While the

Kitimat LNG proposal is led by three major energy companies, the Douglas Island LNG proposal is led by

a partnership named BC LNG Export Cooperative LLC. The latter is a cooperative set between the Haisla

Nations Douglas Channel LNG LP and Houston-based LNG Partners LLC.513 And unlike the Kitimat LNG

proposal, neither group in the Douglas Island LNG proposal has its own natural gas fields, but is strictly a

conduit for those that are interested in exporting natural gas.514 At 0.125 Bcfpd, the Douglas Island LNG

506

Kitimat LNG website, http://www.kitimatlng.com/code/navigate.asp?Id=32 (accessed on October 21, 2010) 507

Pacific Trail Pipelines website, http://www.pacifictrailpipelines.com/page131.htm (accessed on September 10, 2010) 508

ibid 509

Kitimat LNG website, http://www.kitimatlngfacility.com/ (accessed on October 21,2011) 510

Energetic City website, “LNG terminal construction deadline extension”, May 30, 2011, http://www.energeticcity.ca/fortstjohn/news/05/30/11/lng-terminal-construction-deadline-extension (accessed on December 15, 2011) 511

Kitimat LNG Project Granted Extension, May 30, 2011, http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/20363/1/kitimat+lng+project+granted+extension (accessed on December 15, 2011) 512

Pipeline News North, NEB Gets Another Application Proposing to Export LNG off BC Coast, March 16, 2011, http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/article/20110316/PIPELINE0119/303169976/-1/pipeline/neb-gets-another-application-proposing-to-export-lng-off-bc-coast (accessed on December 15, 2011) 513

ibid 514

Northern Sentinel Website, LNG Co-op business plan outlined, April 29, 2011, http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/northernsentinel/news/120631289.html?mobile=true (accessed on December 15, 2011)


January 2012

facility is much smaller than the Kitimat LNG.515 The cost of the terminal is estimated to be in the range

of C$360-$450 million.516 Directly across the Kitimat Arm from the site of the proposed Douglas Island

LNG site is the Kitimat Village, the tradition home of the Haisla First Nation.517

Other major projects in the Port of Kitimat include the Sandhills Terminal and Kinder Morgan’s pipeline

and accompanying marine terminal. Sandhills is an aggregate processing and export terminal that is

currently under review.518 While the Sandhills deposit is located near the town of Kitimat, Cascadia

Material’s export terminal is planned to be located just southwest of the RTA facility.519 The company

plans to recover, process and export up to 4 million tonnes of aggregate annually.520 Cascadia is a leader

in quarry, sand and gravel operations.521

Recall Kinder Morgan’s pipeline and marine terminal. The Northern expansion would include a 400,000

bpd pipeline that extends from Valemount to Kitimat. The proposal includes a VLCC-capable port in

Kitimat. Figure 1.40 illustrates Kinder Morgan’s southern expansion and northern extension, the

subsequent routes of the pipelines and the order of Kinder Morgan’s priority.522 While the TMX

Southern Expansion application was submitted to the NEB on November 29, 2010, the company has not

submitted a proposal for the Northern Extension.523 It appears that Kinder Morgan is focusing its efforts

on the Southern Expansion and has not yet revealed the exact site of the marine terminal in Kitimat.

515

Pipeline News North, NEB Gets Another Application Proposing to Export LNG off BC Coast, March 16, 2011,http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/article/20110316/PIPELINE0119/303169976/-1/pipeline/neb-gets-another-application-proposing-to-export-lng-off-bc-coast (accessed on December 15, 2011) 516

CTV News, “Another B.C. company jumps on LNG bandwagon”, http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article1955836.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 517

District of Kitimat website, Kitimaat Village Information, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/visitors/regional-attractions/kitimaat-village.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 518

District of Kitimat website, Major Projects, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/major-projects.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 519

Arthon Industries, “The Sandhill Project – Kitimat”, http://www.arthon.com/projects/kitimat/ (accessed on December 18, 2011) 520

ibid 521

District of Kitimat website, Major Projects, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/major-projects.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 522

NW Coast Energy News, Kinder Morgan proposes second Kitimat bitumen pipeline, http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2011/06/kinder-morgan-proposes-second-kitimat-bitumen-pipeline.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 523

National Energy Board, NEB Application: Tans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90465/92835/552980/655087/678170/654331/A1W3Y0_-_NEB_Application_-_Trans_Mountain_Pipeline_ULC.pdf?nodeid=654426&vernum=0&redirect=3 (accessed on December 18, 2011)


January 2012

Figure 1.40 Kinder Morgan’s TMX North and South Expansions

Source: NW Coast Energy News524

Figure 1.41 shows the Port of Kitimat, including the RTA aluminum smelter on the left. The recently

purchased Shell terminal is roughly in the middle of the photo while the former Eurocan Paper terminal

is on the right.525 The 40-year old Eurocan mill was owned by West Fraser Timber.526 The latter

announced that the mill was to be permanently shut down in January 2010, putting 535 employees out

of work.527 At end-March 2011, the RTA purchased Eurocan’s dock.528 The terminal will handle the

increase in metal production in the RTA’s modernization.529 Further to the right of the Port are the

mouths of the Kitimat River.530 The former Methanex Tank Farm (now owned by Shell) is set several

kilometres behind the smelter while the town of Kitimat is set even further back from the port and the

shoreline.

524

NW Coast Energy News, Kinder Morgan proposes second Kitimat bitumen pipeline, http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2011/06/kinder-morgan-proposes-second-kitimat-bitumen-pipeline.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 525

Port of Kitimat, http://wikimapia.org/1921563/Port-of-Kitimat (accessed on December 18, 2011) 526

West Fraser website, Eurocan Information, http://www.westfraser.com/products/pulp/eurocan.asp (accessed on December 7, 2011) 527

Pulp & Paper Canada website, West Fraser to permanently close Eurocan operation in Kitimat, B.C., November 3, 2009, http://www.pulpandpapercanada.com/news/west-fraser-to-permanently-close-eurocan-operation-in-kitimat-b-c/1000346203/ (accessed on December 18, 2011) 528

Northern Sentinel website, Rio Tinto Alcan buys Eurocan dock, March 25, 2011, http://www.northernsentinel.com/news/118513144.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 529

ibid 530

Port of Kitimat, http://wikimapia.org/1921563/Port-of-Kitimat (accessed on December 18, 2011)


January 2012

Figure 1.41 The Port of Kitimat

Source: http://www.ktids.ca/opp_portdev.asp

Figure 1.41 also shows the Port of Kitimat’s 3 deep-sea terminals. They are operated by RTA and Shell,

and 2 of the deep-sea facilities are single berth.531 Cargos handled include alumina, green and petroleum

coke, aluminum, condensate, methanol, sackkraft and linerboard.532 As previously mentioned, the port

is private. As such, its deep-sea facilities are privately built, owned and operated. The Port was designed

by private industry to be used by industry.533 They were built with specific purposes in mind.

The Port of Kitimat is an important source for international cargo. Markets served include, Japan, Hong

Kong, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America and the United States.534

The Port of Kitimat shares many of the geographical advantages that Prince Rupert has. Kitimat is 3,941

nautical miles from Yokohama, 5,444 nautical miles from Hong Kong, 6,187 nautical miles from

Kaohsiung Kang and 6,187 nautical miles from Xingang.535 Vancouver, on the other hand, is 4,262

nautical miles from Yokohama, 5,763 nautical miles from Hong Kong, 6,587 nautical miles from

Kaohsiung Kang and 6,587 nautical miles from Xingang. Vessels utilizing the Port of Kitimat save

approximately one day of travelling time between Asian markets, compared to Vancouver.536 For

example, a fully-loaded vessel travelling from Kitimat to Hong Kong, at 16 knots per hour, takes

531


ibid 533

The Private International Port of Kitimat, Development Services, District of Kitimat 534


United States Government, “Distance between Ports”, Prepared and published by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Bethesda, Maryland, Ninth Edition 1997. 536

ibid


January 2012

approximately 14 days.537 Vessels leaving Vancouver take 15 days, while the journey takes 18 days

leaving from Los Angeles.538 Kitimat is serviced by the TransCanada (Yellowhead #16) and the

Interprovincial #37, as well as by rail. Kitimat is serviced by Canadian National Trans-Continental

Railway; Kitimat to Chicago takes 108 hours, only 7 more hours than Vancouver to Chicago.539 In

addition the NW Regional Airport (Kitimat-Terrace) services Vancouver up to 6 direct flights daily, as well

as Prince George and Kelowna.540

The following are various harbour characteristics of the Port of Kitimat; all information is from the World

Port Source unless otherwise sited.541 The harbour type is coastal natural, and is considered small with

fair shelter. The turning basin is between 1 to 3 nautical miles wide at the harbour area,542 and can

accommodate vessels over 500 feet in length. The Douglas Channel’s depth is 190 to 570 meters, or

between 600 and 1,800 feet.543 Anchorage is between 36 and 40 feet, or between 11 and 12.2 meters

deep. The water depth at the cargo pier is between 31 and 35 feet. Recall that the oil terminal is several

kilometres south of the Port of Kitimat; water depth at the site is not yet determined.

The Port of Kitimat has 4 inner harbour anchorages and 4 holding areas, located just south of the

harbour.544

The ice-free port has several entrance restrictions including tide and swell. In addition, pilotage is

compulsory and tugs are available for assistance. While regulations are discussed in the next section,

pilotage assignment begins on Caamaño Sound, and continues all the way on the Douglas Channel and

into the Kitimat Arm.545 While ship repairs on site are limited, port services include longshore and

electrical. Provision, water, fuel oil and diesel oil are all available. The Port of Kitimat does not, as yet,

have lifts and cranes.

It is not difficult to observe from Figure 1.41 that the Kitimat Harbour provides the largest foreshore

available for any port on North America’s west coast.546 Possibilities for future development include:547

Up to 2 million tonnes per year of break bulk cargo

Up to 3 million tonnes per year of bulk cargo

537

ibid 538

ibid 539


ibid 541

World Port Source website, Port of Kitimat: Port of Call, http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/portCall/CAN_Port_of_Kitimat_1489.php (accessed on December 17, 2011) 542


ibid 544

ibid 545

ibid 546

Kitimat Terrace Industrial Development Society, Port Development, http://www.ktids.ca/opp_portdev.asp (accessed on December 17, 2011) 547

ibid


January 2012

Space for up to 8 new deep sea berths

Space for 100,000 m2 of warehouse space

Open space for 40,000 tonnes of steel imports

Space for up to 180,000 tonnes of pellet storage

Space for up to 500,000 tonnes of concentrate and aggregate storage

Figure 1.42 is an artist’s rendering of the planned marine terminal. Recall the terminal will include oil

and condensate tanks, pump facilities, other associated facilities, 2 tanker berths and 1 utility berth.548

Both tanker berths will be equipped for loading and unloading oil and condensate tankers.549 It is also

important to note that the tanker berths will be able to accommodate VLCC oil tankers and Suezmax

condensate tankers.550 Beyond loading and unloading, terminal operations will also consist of testing

hydrocarbons prior to loading or unloading, monitoring, preventative maintenance, routine upgrades

and scheduled safety and security inspections.551

Figure 1.42 Artist Rendering of Enbridge’s Kitimat Oil Terminal

Source: http://csr.enbridge.com/northerngateway2010/strategy/marine-safety.php

Figure 1.43 shows a more detailed plan of the Northern Gateway marine terminal. The yellow line is the

proposed pipeline, while the area within the red square is the marine project development area. This

area will occupy approximately 220 hectares and will be built on the west side of the Kitimat Arm.552 The

548


ibid 550

ibid 551

Kitimat Terminal and Marine Transportation: Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Discussion Guide, pp. 13. 552

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 1: Overview and General Information, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 2-7.


January 2012

area that is shaded purple is the terrestrial project development area. The tank terminal will include 14

hydrocarbon tanks, 11 of which are for oil and 3 for condensate.553 Each tank will have a capacity of

496,000 barrels each.554

Figure 1.43 Enbridge’s Kitimat Oil Terminal

Source: Enbridge555

553


ibid 555



January 2012

Figure 1.44 illustrates a detailed schematic of the marine terminal. The tank terminal will be enclosed

within a secured area; a 60-meter wide firebreak area.556 The main components of the tank terminal

include an oil transfer system (oil receiving station, tanks, loading system and a recovered oil drain

tank), condensate transfer system (condensate unloading system, custody transfer metering, pumps,

tanks and a condensate initiating pump station), as well as other ancillary systems.557 The latter includes

electrical supply and distribution, fire protection, tank impoundment, water management, vapour

recovery unit, corrosion control, potable water, utility air and emergency shutdown.558 The terminal also

proposes a 287 kV power line that goes to the electrical yard and substation to distribute power to the

Kitimat marine terminal.559

Figure 1.44 A Schematic of Enbridge’s Marine Terminal

Source: Enbridge560

556


ibid 558

ibid 559

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 6C: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) – Human Environment, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 2-19. 560



January 2012

The above figure also illustrates both tanker berths and a utility berth to host mooring harbour tugs and

workboats. Both tanker berths are equipped for loading and discharging oil tankers and condensate

tankers, and include loading platforms, trestles and catwalk, berthing and mooring structures and a

containment boom.561 The marine terminal expects between 190 and 250 oil and condensate tankers

annually.562 Enbridge anticipates approximately 50 VLCCs, 120 Suezmax tankers and 50 Aframax tankers

on average.563 Both berths are designed to accommodate Suezmax condensate tankers and VLCC oil

tankers. Recall that the average cargo capacity for an Aframax tanker is 80,000 DWT while the average

cargo capacity for a VLCC is approximately 320,000 DWT.

Figure 1.45 illustrates the various transit areas of the oil and condensate tankers accessing the Marine

Terminal at the Port of Kitimat. As previously mentioned, there are several routes the vessels would

take, pending their destination or port of origin, as well as pending weather. The Northern Approach will

be used for tankers arriving from or departing to Asian ports.564 The Northern Approach passes through

the Dixon Entrance, north of Haida Gwaii, and continues through the Hecate Stair, Browning Entrance,

Principe Channel, Nepean Sound, Otter Channel, Squally Channel, Lewis Passage, Wright Sound and the

Douglas Channel to the Kitimat Terminal. This approach is defined by the red line. The distance from the

Browning Entrance to the Kitimat Terminal is 105 nautical miles and will take approximately 10 to 13

hours to complete.565 The Southern Approach’s are defined by 2 routes: direct and indirect. The

Southern Approach (indirect) goes north, east of Banks Island, and heads back south to the west of

Banks Island. This is the route tankers will take if weather conditions in the Caamaño Sound cannot be

used.566 This approach is sometimes referred to as the Southern Approach (via Principe Channel). This

approach is defined by the green line and becomes spotted with red when it shares the Northern

Approach route. The Southern Approach (direct) will be used by tankers arriving from or departing to

west coast ports south of Kitimat, including along the North American coast.567 Southern Approach

(direct) passes through the Queen Charlotte Sound, and continues through Hecate Strait, Caamaño

Sound, Campania Sound, Squally Channel, Lewis Passage, Wright Sound and the Douglas Channel to the

Kitimat Terminal. This approach is defined by a black line. All 3 approaches utilize the Lewis Passage,

Wright Sound and the Douglas Channel. The distance from the Caamaño Sound to the Kitimat Terminal

is 95 nautical miles and will take approximately 9 to 12 hours to complete.568

561



ibid 564

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Application, http://www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application (accessed on December 7, 2011) 565

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kitimat Terminal and Marine Transportation: Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Discussion Guide, pp. 15. 566

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Application, http://www.northerngateway.ca/public-review/application (accessed on December 7, 2011) 567

ibid 568

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kitimat Terminal and Marine Transportation: Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Discussion Guide, pp. 15.


January 2012

Figure 1.45 Transit Areas for the Northern Gateway Marine Terminal

Source: Enbridge569

569

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 1: Overview and General Information, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 2.10.


January 2012

Vessel protocols and terminal operations are discussed in the next section, including Enbridge’s

Maritime Safety Plan.

Enbridge’s Marine Plan

This section reviews the important elements of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway terminal’s marine safety

plan. It also reviews the regulatory framework from the perspective of how the marine terminal would

operate and who would enforce the terminal’s various safety procedures.

As previously mentioned in this study, there are 4 levels of regulations: international, national,

provincial/territorial and the port level. Much like the aforementioned PMV, the Port of Kitimat must

follow a rigorous and complex set of regulations, from the IMO to federal to provincial, down to their

own set of safety measures and procedures. Due to the fact that Canada is a Member State, the Port of

Kitimat follows the various IMO regulations and conventions, such as the SOLAS, MARPOL, ISM Code

and STCW.570 The TC and other federal agencies regulate navigation, security and environmental

safety.571

As such, the Port of Kitimat and Enbridge’s marine terminal must adhere to the highest international

standards, which are mirrored by the following legislation and regulations, such as: the Canada Marine

Act and Canada Shipping Act.572 The latter stipulates that all tankers navigating within Canadian waters,

not just loading and discharging cargo at the Port of Kitimat, must be in full compliance with all relevant

shipping regulations and safety standards under the CSA.573 The following marine strategies endorse the

IMO’s international standards:574

Tankers calling on the Kitimat Terminal will have double hulls, double bottoms and separate

tanks for ballast to prevent ballast seawater from coming in contact with hydrocarbon products.

Tanker manning certification for officers and crew will comply with the International Convention

on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (and

amendments).

All masters of foreign deep-sea tankers calling at the Kitimat Terminal will be required to have a

full Master Mariners license.

Full bridge simulations will identify navigational risks and assess potential emergencies (such as

engine or steering failures), as well as recovery from these situations (e.g., with assistance from

escort tugs).

Follows ship inspection and reporting programs for identifying double-hulled tankers, structural

integrity and other, previously discussed issues.

570


District of Kitimat, Port of Kitimat Information, http://www.kitimat.ca/EN/main/business/invest-in-kitimat/port-of-kitimat.html (accessed on December 17, 2011) 572

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Marine Safety Fact Sheet, Document No.: NGP-FS-08-006, January 28, 2011, pp 1. 573

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8C: Risk Assessment and Management of Spills—Marine Transportation, Section2: Operational Measures to Prevent Tanker-based Hydrocarbon Spills, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 2-1. 574

ibid


January 2012

Tanker vetting criteria for all tankers calling on the Kitimat Terminal will conform to industry

standards of tanker construction, maintenance, onboard navigation and communication

equipment and response capability.

Terminal personnel will be highly skilled and trained to deal effectively with operational

incidents including the use of an Emergency Shutdown System.

All tankers calling on the Kitimat Terminal will be required to have a Shipboard Oil Pollution

Emergency Plan (SOPEP) under Regulation 26 of Annex I to the International Convention for

Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

It is important to mention that despite the fact that the Port of Kitimat is a private port, it must adhere

to federal maritime regulations. The Port of Kitimat, while not a part of the Canada Port Authority (CPA),

is regulated by the TC. It also has to satisfy a long list of regulatory standards and works with several

organizations to maintain security and planning. While it is not one of the 17 Canada Port Authorities

(CPAs), the Port of Kitimat must still adhere to all the maritime laws as its private port counterparts. All

vessels, oil tankers or otherwise, are registered by the TC; this includes procedures for registration and

vessel registration forms.575 One difference is that the TC does not collect public port fees from the Port

of Kitimat, as it is privately owned and operated. In the case of the Port of Prince Rupert, the TC sets and

implements port and marine facility service standards, as well as set and collect public port fees.576

Other relevant Acts that the Enbridge marine terminal must follow are the Oceans Act, The Navigable

Waters Protection Act, Marine Liability Act, Fisheries Act, the Pilotage Act, Migratory Birds Convention

Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.577

While the aforementioned regulations reflect the movement of vessels and also marine terminal

operations, it is prudent to review in greater detail the regulations in place that affect the movement of

oil tankers through the Douglas Channel and other waterways, as well as regulations that vessels must

adhere to once they are at the Kitimat Terminal itself.

The safe passage of marine vessels will be achieved through a comprehensive strategy that brings

together the best people, technology and planning. To ensure this, Enbridge is a participant of the

TERMPOL Review Process (TRP), administered by TC.578 While the TRP is not a regulatory instrument, it

does assist Transport Canada Marine Safety (TCMS) in determining the following:579

575

Transport Canada, Registration of Vessels, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/oep-vesselreg-registration-menu-2311.htm (accessed on December 18, 2011) 576

Transport Canada, Ports in Canada, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/ports-index.htm (accessed on December 18, 2011) 577

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8C: Risk Assessment and Management of Spills—Marine Transportation, Section2: Operational Measures to Prevent Tanker-based Hydrocarbon Spills, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 2-4. 578

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Environmental GRI Performance Indicators, http://csr.enbridge.com/northerngateway2010/environmental/en30.php (accessed on December 19, 2011) 579

Transport Canada, Part 1: Application and Intent of the TERMPOL Review Process - TP 743 E http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp743-part1-973.htm (accessed on December 19, 2011)


January 2012

the potential effects of increased shipping activity on existing regional shipping networks and

fishing ground activities;

the perceived environmental concerns attributable to pollutant cargoes carried by the

additional ships;

perceived risks to communities along the route to the terminal or transshipment site in the case

of ships carrying commodities such as, but not limited to, those considered in this document

which may pose a concern to public safety or health;

the navigational safety of the ship route(s) leading to a proposed new, modified, or

recommissioned marine terminal or transshipment site;

the level of services required to facilitate safe navigation such as fixed and floating aids, vessel

traffic services, offshore electronic position fixing systems, requirements for pilotage and radio

communications along the ship route(s);

the suitability of the design ship;

the design ship’s maneuvering characteristics, navigational and radio communications

equipment, its cargo containment and handling systems in terms of operational safety;

the adequacy of the design ship’s berth and related terminal service requirements;

pollution prevention programs; and

marine contingency planning and related emergency counter-measures.

Part of the process is the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) to evaluate the planned project’s marine

terminal operations.580 The QRA included the participation of representatives from government,

environmental organizations and First Nations.581

Enbridge’s marine strategy will include the following standards:582

Operational safety limits will be established to cover visibility, wind and sea conditions.

The escort tugs will have extensive first response capabilities to provide immediate assistance if

required (available to any ship in distress).

Northern Gateway will install an advanced radar system to cover important route sections to

provide guidance to pilots and all marine traffic on the Northwest coast.

Additional navigational aids will be installed, such as navigation beacons, buoys and lights

throughout the confined channel area.

Prior to arrival in Canadian waters, all vessels will be vetted by independent, third-party

agencies and will be required to meet Northern Gateway's safety and environmental standards.

Vessel speed will be reduced in the marine channels to between 8 and 12 knots.

All tankers visiting the Kitimat Marine Terminal will be safely guided by certified marine pilots.

While docked at the Northern Gateway Kitimat Marine Terminal, tankers loading export oil will

be surrounded by a containment boom.

Information from new weather stations along the route will be available to all vessels.

580

ibid 581

ibid 582

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Marine Plan, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-info/marine-plan (accessed on December 10, 2011)


January 2012

Northern Gateway will significantly increase the emergency response capabilities along the main

northern shipping routes, making the routes safer, not just for tankers but for everyone.

Radar will be installed along important sections of the Northern and Southern Approaches to

monitor all marine traffic and provide additional information to the MCTS centre and to pilots.

The Pilotage Act (R.S.C, 1985, c. P-14) plays an important role in the safety of the PMV, as it outlines

regulations in marine navigation.583 The Act is administered and implemented by the TC, and has created

4 pilotage authorities in the Atlantic, Laurentian, Great Lakes and Pacific regions.584 In the case of

tankers approaching the Port of Kitimat, it is compulsory to navigate vessels to and from their terminals.

The Pacific Pilotage Authority’s (PPAs) mandate is to provide safe and reliable marine Pilotage for

vessels off the coast of British Columbia.585 The PPA is a Federal Crown Corporation and was established

in 1972.586

Local pilots will board and assist all incoming and outgoing tankers.587 Tugs, the largest in Canada, will be

custom-made for this specific task. They will also be tethered to all laden tankers in the Confined

Channel Assessment Area (CCAA).588 They will be able to assist with speed and steering the large vessels

in and out of the Kitimat Terminal.589 Vessels to support the marine terminal operations, such as tugs

and line-handling boats will be berthed at the utility wharf located at Enbridge’s marine terminal when

in use.590 Maintenance and refueling, however, of the line-handling and tug boats will occur in Kitimat.591

The installation of radar along the Northern and Southern Approaches, as well as navigational aids, such

as beacons, buoys and lights, will enhance safety through the shipping channels. Figure 1.46 illustrates

the locations of existing navigational aids along both shipping Approaches.

583

Transport Canada website, Pilotage Act, http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1985cp-14.htm (accessed on December 18, 2011) 584

Parliament of Canada, Bill C-4: Pilotage Act, http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=e&Parl=39&Ses=2&Mode=1&ls=C4&source=library_prb (accessed on December 18, 2011) 585

Pacific Pilotage Authority, http://www.ppa.gc.ca/text/index-e.html (accessed on December 18, 2011) 586


Kitimat Terminal and Marine Transportation: Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Discussion Guide, pp. 16. 588

ibid 589

ibid 590

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Marine Report Section 3 Project Description, http://www.northerngateway.ca/northerngateway/files/pdf/Marine/NGP%20Marine%20Report_Section%203_Project%20Description.pdf 591

ibid


January 2012

Figure 1.46 Existing Navigational Aids Along Proposed Routes

Source: Enbridge592

Figure 1.47 illustrates the TERMPOL navigational requirements for vessels 350 meters long and 65

meters wide, the approximate dimensions of VLCC vessels.593 Enbridge’s marine terminal, and all other

592

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8A: Overview and General Information—Marine Transportation, Section 4: Considerations due to a Project-related Additional Traffic, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 4-16.


January 2012

crude oil projects transporting crude to Asian markets, hinge on developing a VLCC-capable port at

Kitimat.594 Recall that the federal House of Commons have passed a motion to ban VLCC tanker traffic

off the British Columbia coast.595 There is no formal, or legislated, federal moratorium currently

preventing tankers from entering northern British Columbia waters; more than 1,500 tankers have

safely entered the Kitimat harbour over the past quarter century.596 The narrowest point of the Douglas

Channel and the Principe Channel is 1.4 kilometres wide.597 It is important to note that the width is

measured by the width of navigable waters at a depth of 36 meters.598

Figure 1.47 TERMPOL Navigational Requirements of VLCC Vessels


593



CBC News, "B.C. oil tanker ban motion passes in Commons", 2010-12-7. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/07/oil-tanker-motion.html?ref=rss (accessed on December 19, 2011) 596

Enbridge Northern Gateway, FAQs, http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-info/faqs (accessed on December 10, 2011) 597


ibid 599

ibid


January 2012

The Northern Approach is year-round and is comprised of a series of waterways that are more than

sufficiently wide for two-way navigation.600 Recall that the Southern Approach (via Principe Channel) is

utilized in the event that weather conditions in the Caamaño Sound are not suitable. While still meeting

TERMPOL requirements, the most challenging portion of the shipping channel is the navigation through

the Lewis Passage and Wright Sound.601

Figure 1.48 shows the view of the Douglas Channel from above Bish Cove. At the center of the photo is

Coste Island while the foreground shows workers clearing the future Kitimat LNG site. The proposed site

of Enbridge’s marine terminal is left of the photograph.

Figure 1.48 View of Douglas Channel from Above Bish Cove

Source: http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01328/weblng_jpg_1328549cl-8.jpg

In addition to reviewing the marine terminal systems and transshipment sites, the TRP will lead to the

development of a Port Information Book and a Development of a Terminal Operations Manual.602 The

former provides details of the shipping routes while the latter provides a guide to crews of ships at the

marine terminal.603

600

Enbridge Northern Gateway, Volume 8A: Overview and General Information—Marine Transportation, Section 4: Considerations due to a Project-related Additional Traffic, Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Sec. 52 Application, May 2010, page 4-17. 601

ibid 602


ibid


January 2012

Preventative measures at the Kitimat Terminal include:604

• Allowing only double-hulled tankers to use the marine terminal

• Deploying booms around oil tankers before cargo transfer begins

• Fail-safe valves for connection of vessels to the transfer pipe

• Use of automatic shut-off valves and emergency release coupling on loading and unloading arms

• Catchment trays for loading and unloading arms and associated fittings to intercept inadvertent

droplets and minor spills

• Specific loading and unloading protocols, including sequential procedures for hose coupling and

valve control prior to pumping oil or condensate

• Specific operational procedures for unloading and loading

• Electronic sensors linked to a shut-off valve if the vessel drifts too far from the dock

• On-board spill retention capability

• Continuous system monitoring by the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system

• Routine visual inspection and checks of valves

• Using tethered harbour and escort tugs to assist in berthing and unberthing each vessel

• An exclusion zone and associated navigational restrictions while oil tankers are berthed

• Strict bilge and ballast water management procedures

The TC and the CEEA require the Northern Gateway project to have contingency plans in the case of an

accidental spill.605 All spills must be reported to the Harbour Master’s Office. Organizations that assist in

shipping incidents and first response are the TC, Department of National Defense, the DFO and

Environment Canada.606

Key elements to Enbridge’s strategy are:607

Extensive training of personnel including real-time first response drills

First response drill review and continuous plan improvement

Placement of first response equipment in strategic locations at sea and on land

Training of personnel in local communities to assist in response activities

State-of-the-art modeling to determine likely areas in need of first response

Rigorous maintenance to ensure equipment is in top working condition

Communications plan outlining key local, provincial and federal officials with Northern Gateway

contact responsibilities.

604


ibid 606


Enbridge Northern Gateway, First Response Plan, http://www.northerngateway.ca/environmental-responsibility/pipeline-assessment-and-first-response-plan/ (accessed on January 17, 2012)


January 2012

Appendix A: List of IMO Conventions608

Most Important IMO Conventions

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto and by the Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL)

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) as amended, including the 1995 and 2010 Manila Amendments

Other Conventions Relating to Maritime Safety and Security and Ship/Port Interface

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG), 1972

Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic (FAL), 1965

International Convention on Load Lines (LL), 1966

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), 1979

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA), 1988, and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf (and the 2005 Protocols)

International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC), 1972

Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organization (IMSO C), 1976

The Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels (SFV), 1977

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel (STCW-F), 1995

Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement (STP), 1971 and Protocol on Space Requirements for Special Trade Passenger Ships, 1973

Other conventions relating to prevention of marine pollution

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (INTERVENTION), 1969

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC), 1972 (and the 1996 London Protocol)

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990

Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS Protocol)

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS), 2001

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004

The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009

608

IMO website, List of IMO Conventions, http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed on December 19, 2011)


January 2012

Conventions Covering Liability and Compensation

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969

1992 Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND 1992)

Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material (NUCLEAR), 1971

Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (PAL), 1974

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), 1976

International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), 1996 (and its 2010 Protocol)

International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001

Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007

Other Subjects

International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (TONNAGE), 1969

International Convention on Salvage (SALVAGE), 1989


January 2012

Appendix B: Regulations Made Under the Canada Shipping Act 2001 (S.C., 2001, c. 26)609 Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (SOR/2008-97)

Anchorage Regulations (SOR/88-101)

Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations (SOR/2006-129)

Board of Steamship Inspection Scale of Fees (C.R.C., c. 1405)

Boat and Fire Drill and Means of Exit Regulations [Repealed] (SOR/2005-280)

Boating Restriction Regulations [Repealed] (C.R.C., c. 1407)

Burlington Canal Regulations (SOR/89-222)

Cargo, Fumigation and Tackle Regulations (SOR/2007-128)

Certain Areas Covered With Water Proclaimed Public Harbours Effective January 1, 1980 (SI/80-8)

Charts and Nautical Publications Regulations, 1995 (SOR/95-149)

Classed Ships Inspection Regulations, 1988 (SOR/89-225)

Collision Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1416)

Competency of Operators of Pleasure Craft Regulations (SOR/99-53)

Crew Accommodation Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1418)

Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations (SOR/89-99)

Environmental Response Arrangements Regulations (SOR/2008-275)

Fire and Boat Drills Regulations (SOR/2010-83)

Fire Detection and Extinguishing Equipment Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1422)

Home-Trade, Inland and Minor Waters Voyages Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1430)

Hull Construction Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1431)

Hull Inspection Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1432)

Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1435)

Life Saving Equipment Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1436)

Load Line Regulations (SOR/2007-99)

Long-Range Identification and Tracking of Vessels Regulations (SOR/2010-227)

Marine Machinery Regulations (SOR/90-264)

Marine Personnel Regulations (SOR/2007-115)

Minor Waters Order (C.R.C., c. 1448)

Navigation Safety Regulations (SOR/2005-134)

Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations (SOR/2010-127)

Pollutant Discharge Reporting Regulations, 1995 (SOR/95-351)

Port Wardens Tariff (SOR/79-154)

Private Buoy Regulations (SOR/99-335)

Regulations Excluding Certain Government Ships from the Application of the Canada Shipping Act (SOR/2000-71)

Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and for Dangerous Chemicals (SOR/2007-86)

609

Department of Justice, Canada Shipping Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/index.html (accessed on December 19, 2011)


January 2012

Response Organizations and Oil Handling Facilities Regulations (SOR/95-405)

Sable Island Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1465)

Safe Working Practices Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1467)

Safety Management Regulations (SOR/98-348)

Ship Radio Inspection Fees Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1472)

Ship Station (Radio) Regulations, 1999 (SOR/2000-260)

Ship Station (Radio) Technical Regulations, 1999 (SOR/2000-265)

Shipping Casualties Reporting Regulations (SOR/85-514)

Ships’ Elevator Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1482)

Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1486)

Small Vessel Regulations (SOR/2010-91)

Small Vessel Regulations [Repealed] (C.R.C., c. 1487)

Special-purpose Vessels Regulations (SOR/2008-121)

St. Clair and Detroit River Navigation Safety Regulations (SOR/84-335)

Steering Appliances and Equipment Regulations (SOR/83-810)

Tackle Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1494)

Tariff of Fees of Shipping Masters (C.R.C., c. 1495)

Towboat Crew Accommodation Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1498)

Vessel Certificates Regulations (SOR/2007-31)

Vessel Clearance Regulations (SOR/2007-125)

Vessel Detention Orders Review Regulations (SOR/2007-127)

Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations (SOR/2008-120)

Vessel Registration and Tonnage Regulations (SOR/2007-126)

Vessel Traffic Services Zones Regulations (SOR/89-98)

Vessels Registry Fees Tariff (SOR/2002-172)

VHF Radiotelephone Practices and Procedures Regulations (SOR/81-364)

Voyage Data Recorder Regulations (SOR/2011-203)


January 2012

Appendix C: The Role of the Canadian and Provincial/Territorial Governments in the Oceans Sector Federal Departments, Agencies and Other Organizations with Oceans-

Related Activities610 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) www.agr.gc.ca

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) www.acoa-apeca.gc.ca

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) www.inspection.gc.ca

Canadian Heritage (CH) www.canadianheritage.gc.ca

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) www.acdi-cida.gc.ca

Canadian Space Agency (CSA) www.asc-csa.gc.ca

Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) www.cta-otc.gc.ca

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Québec (CED) www.dec-ced.gc.ca

Environment Canada (EC) www.ec.gc.ca

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) www.international.gc.ca

Health Canada (HC) www.hc-sc.gc.ca

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) www.ainc-inac.gc.ca

Industry Canada (IC) www.ic.gc.ca

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) www.idrc.ca

Justice Canada (DoJ) www.justice.gc.ca

National Defense and Canadian Forces (DND/CF) www.forces.gc.ca

National Energy Board (NEB) www.neb-one.gc.ca

National Research Council of Canada (NRC) www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) www.nserc.gc.ca

Parks Canada Agency (PC) www.pc.gc.ca

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) www.sshrc.ca

Transport Canada (TC) www.tc.gc.ca

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) www.tsb.gc.ca

Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) www.wed.gc.ca

610

Department of Justice, Canada Shipping Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/index.html (accessed on December 19, 2011)


January 2012

Provincial and Territorial Departments, Agencies and Other

Organizations with Oceans-Related Activities611

British Columbia

Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Ministry of Advanced Education

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL)

Ministry of Attorney General

BC Innovation Council (BCIC)

Ministry of Community Services

Ministry of Economic Development

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Ministry of Environment

Environmental Assessment Office (EAO)

Ministry of Forests and Range

Ministry of Labour and Citizens’ Services

Industry Training Authority (ITA)

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts

Ministry of Transportation (MOT)

Yukon

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources

Department of the Environment

Executive Council Office

Department of Justice

Department of Community Services

Department of Health and Social Services

Department of Highways and Public Works

Department of Tourism and Culture

Northwest Territories

Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations

Department of Education, Culture and Employment

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Department of Executive

Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment


Department of Public Works and Services

Department of Municipal and Community Affairs

Department of Transportation

611

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, The Role of the Canadian Government in the Oceans Sector, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/cg-gc/index-eng.htm (accessed on December 19, 2011)


January 2012

Nunavut

Department of Economic Development & Transportation

Department of Environment (DOE)

Department of Justice (DOJ)

Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (EIA)

New Brunswick

Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat

Department of Agriculture and Aquaculture

Attorney General

Business New Brunswick

Department of the Environment

Department of Family and Community Services

Department of Fisheries

Department of Intergovernmental Affairs

Department of Justice and Consumer Affairs

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour

Department of Public Safety

Service New Brunswick (SNB)

Department of Tourism and Parks

Department of Transportation (DOT)

Department of Wellness, Culture and Sport

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission

Nova Scotia

Department of Economic Development

Emergency Management Office (EMO)

Department of Energy

Department of Environment and Labour (DEL)

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA)

Department of Agriculture


Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations

Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage

Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (TIR)

Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA)

Prince Edward Island

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture

Department of Community and Cultural Affairs

Department of Development and Technology

Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry

Department of Tourism


January 2012

Department of Transportation and Public Works

Provincial Treasury

Newfoundland and Labrador

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Department of Environment and Conservation

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development

Department of Government Services

Department of Municipal Affairs

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

Department of Transportation and Works

Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs

Executive Council — Rural Secretariat