Alawyer representing B.C. laid down the government's new skeptical tone about the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal recently with a series of probing questions.
"Do you understand that from the perspective of British Columbians this doesn't look good?" Elizabeth Graff asked proponents at one point during a hearing. She was referring to a corporate structure that appears to limit Enbridge's liability in the event of a spill.
Some doubts were also expressed about Enbridge's estimations about cleanup costs. The per-barrel costs submitted to the joint review panel holding hearings on the project are much lower than the actual cost of the company's disastrous 2010 pipeline breach in Michigan.
The impression left by the crossexamination was that B.C. is dubious about insurance coverage for spills, dubious about reassurances that spills are few and far between and skeptical about the entire project.
Referring to the company's statistical likelihood data, Graff said: "It just seems hard to believe that a spill of the magnitude of [the Michigan one] would be a one-in-10,000-year type of occurrence."
Her appearance - backed up by the specially hired former attorney general Geoff Plant - was part of B.C.'s new stance on the project. After staying as far away from the issue as possible, the B.C. Liberals in July laid down a new position involving a controversial demand to be dealt fully into the benefits and tough safety expectations.
"Tough" has been the operative word ever since then. Every announcement about B.C.'s engagement in the process since then has made reference to "tough questions."
In the midst of all this tough talk, a document surfaced last month that reflects B.C.'s earlier views on the project. It's a discussion paper from the environment ministry written in September 2010, that was released last week after a freedom of information request by an individual.
There are no particular revelations, but it does illustrate how the environment ministry was grappling with all the issues the proposal raises. Significant parts of it are censored according to FOI exemptions covering advice to cabinet.
But it shows that the unequal sharing of the provincial benefits was an issue even while Gordon Campbell was premier. (His resignation was announced a month after the discussion paper was written.)
It ponders: "Should the province be actively making recommendations that ensure this project is (a) minimizing environmental impacts - and (b) delivering a fair share of economic benefits to B.C.?"
The paper states: "The benefits associated with this project are far more pronounced in Alberta."
Increasing Alberta's export capacity from 1.35 million to 1.85 million barrels a day would pay the Alberta government $1.1 billion a year in royalty revenue.
"To facilitate Alberta oil sands access to international markets, B.C. would have to bear significant environmental impacts and risk, by hosting 57 per cent of the pipeline route and 220 tanker visits a year.
"B.C.'s economic benefits would be limited to the modest benefits associated with pipeline construction and operation, and does not include any royalty or - rent revenue."
The potential for spills was highlighted, as was Enbridge's performance. It noted "38 catastrophic landslides" have occurred in northern B.C. since 1973, many in proximity to the proposed pipeline route.
The ministry paper said Enbridge has had several major spills and the severity of a Northern Gateway spill would depend on location and size. "At a rate of 500,000 barrels a day, an unnoticed spill lasting one hour could lead to 21,000 barrels spilling into B.C.'s wilderness.
"Weather conditions and the remoteness of the pipeline's route in B.C. could cause cleanup delays, leading to broader water, land and wildlife contamination."
There's also a detailed piece on who pays for marine spills. Enbridge would be liable for pipeline ruptures. But once the crude oil is in the tanker, it's the shipper's responsibility, said the paper.
The ministry said shipper liability for spills is capped at $169 million, after which an industry compensation fund tops up coverage to a total of $1.5 billion. The ministry said additional costs could be left to the federal and provincial governments.
Although the Liberals were loath to take a position publicly on the pipeline until recently, staff behind the scenes were outlining the central problem - B.C. takes on most of the spill risks for only minimal economic benefits - two years ago.
