ALF V1

EDMONTON - Under fire from Alberta unions, Enbridge said Tuesday its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will not cause job losses in the refining sector though it will be affected by higher prices for crude oil that will result if the pipeline goes ahead.

As the federal hearing on the project entered its final stages, the Alberta Federation of Labour questioned the company's panel of well known energy economists about the impact of exporting 585,000 barrels of bitumen a day to China rather than upgrading and refining it in Canada.

Calgary economist Bob Mansell, a consultant speaking for the company, said the proposed $6-billion pipeline could carry a range of refined petroleum products, along with diluted bitumen, if conditions changed to make refining and upgrading profitable here.

"But no shipper is asking for that," they want to move bitumen, Mansell said.

Refineries that turn the heavy oil or upgraded bitumen into gasoline, jet fuel and other products usually set up near major consumer markets, so "it is not realistic to think of Alberta as a base for large- scale refining.''

The federal joint review panel also heard that oil producers operating in Western Canada will benefit by $5 billion in 2019 if the pipeline goes ahead because they will get closer to world price for their bitumen. The current difference can be as much as $20 a barrel.

"Higher crude prices increase the revenue of Canadian crude producers but they also increase the feedstock cost to Canadian refiners" that use western crude, says an Enbridge report to the joint review panel submitted by Muse Consultants. "The adjustment for the effect on Canadian refiners acts to reduce the benefits by about 25 per cent," says the report.

Without the pipeline, oil companies producing bitumen risk losing up to $40 million a day — $14 billion a year — if they can't find way to ship their product, said Mansell, a University of Calgary economics professor.

But AFL president Gil McGowan later dismissed that figure as fearmongering.

A report for the Conference Board of Canada, also tabled at the hearing, noted that Canada's refining industry has lost thousands in the last decades and faces a troubled future.

Oilsands will be an expanding industry for the next 20 years and pipeline has to be expanded, said the panel of economists speaking for Enbridge.

"I"m not saying we should give up on the refining industry," said Mansell.

But it's hard to justify investing millions in refining when the price of bitumen rises to par with crude oil, he added.

About three thousand to four thousands construction jobs will be created and 1,150 permanent jobs if the pipeline is approved from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to Kitimat on the British Columbia Coast, the company says.

The Edmonton-area Alexander First Nation and the B.C. government are next to cross-examine the company at the hearings this week.

Calgary Herald, Wednesday September 5 2012

Byline: Sheila Spratt, Edmonton Journal

Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Canada's Pacific Coast could cost thousands of high-paying refining jobs in Alberta, a labour group warned in Edmonton on Tuesday as the company faced its first day of grilling at public hearings into the contentious project.

Alberta Federation of Labour contends the $6-billion line, which would ship 525,000 barrels a day of oil-sands- derived crude to tankers bound for Asia, would mean 5% less refinery throughput at home and the loss of 8,000 jobs.

Enbridge and the oil industry say it would open up lucrative new markets for growing volumes of Canadian crude in regions overseas where the producers can escape the deep price discounts their oil now sees in the North American market.

"China is in the midst of a building boom in terms of refineries and refining capacity, so our fear is that if our policymakers allow this pipeline to be built we'll end up in a situation where our own homegrown refineries are no longer economic and they'll close down," federation president Gil McGowan said during a break in the hearings.

"We'll end up in a situation where we're sending our raw bitumen oil to China and then buying back the refined product."...

Job Market Monitor, Wednesday September 5, 2012

AFL Shipped Down the Pipeline brochure for the 2012 Joint Review Committee hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline.

After a bumpy ride this summer, Enbridge will face a tough grilling this week on its $6 billion Northern Gateway project as public hearings enter their final phase in which interveners can challenge the company's evidence.

Enbridge will square off with unions and First Nations while big oilsands players, including MEG Energy, Cenovus, Suncor, Nexen and Total appear in a joint witness panel. The Alberta government is also prepared to appear for the "questioning" phase of the federal Joint Review Panel hearings to examine the economic benefits of the proposed $6-billion pipeline project to carry Alberta bitumen to Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia for export to China.

Critics like the Alberta Federation of Labour will argue Canada's refining industry will shrink — with a loss of 8,000 jobs expected — if the pipeline project goes ahead and diverts bitumen feedstock to China. Opponents will also argue there is plenty of room in existing pipelines to handle growing bitumen exports.

Enbridge, however, is " very confident" going into the hearings as it will finally have a chance to respond to critics, says spokesperson Ivan Giesbrecht, noting the company will speak Tuesday.

"This is our first chance to speak; it's going to be a rigorous questioning and we welcome that," Giesbrecht said. "We really feel the project will benefit both provinces and Canada. It's an opportunity for Canadians to listen in on a very democratic process."

Enbridge is also required, by noon Tuesday, to submit a highly critical U.S. report on the 2010 Michigan pipeline spill that saw 12,000 barrels of heavy oil spill into Kalamazoo River from its pipeline. Initially, the federal review panel said it would not take the report, but reversed its decision mid-August.

Enbridge's project — twin pipelines, with one to carry 585,000 barrels of diluted bitumen west and another to carry the diluent — faced growing resistance, starting in late July when B.C. Premier Christy Clark raised the stakes. Her province will not approve the pipeline unless B.C. gets a share of the increased revenues Alberta will gain from shipping more bitumen, she said.

With the project stuck in political hot water, B.C. newspaper tycoon David Black stepped in with a proposal for a $13-billion refinery in Kitimat as a way to bring economic benefit to the province. The oilpatch was not keen on the idea.

Meanwhile, Enbridge came under fire for a smaller spill in late July in Wisconsin. It also hit rough water when it posted a map of the Douglas Channel route into the Kitimat port that left out many islands, rocks and narrow channels that make the route particularly difficult to navigate. Around the same time, the company also announced $500 million in improvements to pipeline safety for the Northern Gateway pipelines which start in Bruderheim northeast of Edmonton. Those include increasing the thickness of the line by 20 per cent, adding 50 per cent more shut-off valves and increasing inspections by 50 per cent.

Company officials said such improvements are meant to respond to concerns raised by First Nations and other members of the public during a federal review that started six months ago.

The federal review panel is jointly operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Alberta government remains firmly committed to the project to diversify markets for bitumen, said Tim Markle, spokesman for Alberta Energy. Oilsands producers will only get higher world prices when they have access to Asian markets, said Markle, noting the price differential is up to $20 a barrel.

The province will be represented at the hearings by Christopher Holly from Alberta Energy and Skip York of Wood Mackenzie Consulting, the consulting company which predicted the province will lose $72 billion over nine years if the pipeline is not built.

Gil McGowan, leader of the Alberta Federation of Labour, disputes the province's figures.

"We think this project will kill more jobs than it will create," said McGowan, noting that Enbridge's own figures estimate a four-per-cent reduction in refining capacity by 2018 in Canada as a result of the pipeline.

"This isn't just about losing value-added jobs in the future, it's now becoming clear that existing jobs in the refining sector are also threatened," McGowan said.

He said "we will be raising questions" that there is no agreement in the evidence of the proposed pipeline's impact on refining jobs in Alberta.

Oilsands producers will get higher prices for their product in Asia, but that will only be temporary, McGowan said, noting that China's industry is state-run so there is no real market pricing.

In a report for Forest Ethics Advocacy, David Hughes, a former geologist with the federal government, says the price differential will be eliminated when the glut at Cushing, Oklahoma in the U.S. Midwest is relieved.

"Once it gets to the Gulf coast, the oil can go around the world and they will be forced to pay world price and that's important," said Hughes, adding that could eliminate the need for the Northern Gateway.

Meanwhile, Canadians should talk about whether "we should liquidate our energy resources to sovereign countries like China" or look at longer-term strategies for national energy security, he added.

The hearings begin Tuesday at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn at 4485 Gateway Blvd. They run until Saturday Sept. 9, then resume again Sept. 17 at 9:30 a.m. for ten days at the Westwood Inn at 18035 Stony Plain Road.

In November, hearings continue in Prince George to deal with pipeline safety and later in Prince Rupert to deal with marine issues.

Last week, just days before the hearing, Enbridge received approval from the Energy Resources Conservation Board Alberta for a new 400,000-barrel-a-day pipeline to bring bitumen from Fort McMurray to its Edmonton hub. The company says the new Woodland pipeline project is not connected to the Northern Gateway.

Edmonton Journal, Tuesday September 4, 2012
Byline: Sheila Spratt

Enbridge Inc. will face tough questions from intervenors at the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel's hearing in Edmonton this afternoon.

Among them are the Government of BC, the Alberta Federation of Labour, Ecojustice (representing ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation) and various First Nations communities.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline involves constructing two pipelines approximately 1,170 km long carrying up to 525,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Bruderheim, AB to Kitimat, BC. The other pipeline would carry 193,000 barrels of condensate per day east to Bruderheim.

Questions will center around issues such as the economic need for the Project, the potential impacts of the proposed Project on commercial interests and financial and tolling matters, according to a release.

The proceedings are being webcast live from 2 pm to 6 pm Mountain (MT), 1 pm-5 pm Pacific Standard (PST). Note: full transcripts are also available after the hearing at the official Joint Review Panel site hearings page.

17:58: Committee closes; will reconvene tomorrow morning at 09:30 MT.

17:57: Chahley: I can't believe how fast times goes when we're looking at these figures.

17:55: Five minutes remaining-- Chahley is asking detailed questions about figures used in the economic tables.

17:49: Now Chahley is fact-checking year-by-year the export numbers...

17:44: Riffling of pages as Chahley hones in on specific economic numbers on report.

17:38: Chahley confirms that those 17 additional modules are not listed. Mansell confirms.

17:37: Chahley asks where in the report Mansell lists these 17 modules. Mansell points to a brief note on page 37.

17:35: Mansell explains that his unique economic model is a framework that has input/output model at its center. It has 17 modules for oil sands, conventional oil and gas, electrical sources, demographic changes, population aging, migration. He has based his modelling on the Alberta economy, and applied nationally over time.

17:34: Chahley asks what else Mansell adjusted for, in addition to labour productivity. Mansell said loyalties are one factor. He flips through his reports for more factors.

17:34: Mansell says that labour productivity changes over time, otherwise there's an overestimate of employment impact.

17:33: Chahley is asking whether the modelling used is static, Mansell insists it's dynamic. Mansell said that "it's much more than simple application of static framework."

17:31: Now Mansell is talking about "varying impact year by year."

17:30: Chahley and Mansell do not seem to be on the same page on the economic modelling factors used to determine the economic impact of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

17:23: Chahley asks further questions on economic impacts of pipeline year by year.

17:15: Chahley now referring to specific models listed in reports by expert witnesses.

17:11: Chahley: this panel has to look at the best interests of Canadians, and need to look at short, mid and long term impact of pipeline-- that's why she says she's spending so much time focusing on that aspect.

17:10: Pipeline is a long term investment-- 30 years is the approximate timeline for looking at economic modeling. (one of the expert witnesses)

17:06: Chahley gets blunt- says when you spend $5.5 billion on a pipeline, that's a shock to the economy, is it good or bad? Questions directly Mansell's economic modelling which shows the pipeline would be a positive gain for the Canadian economy.

17:02: Chahley still grilling Mansell about oil prices and productivity.

16:53: JRP back in session. Chahley dives right back into specific methodologies used in reports by Mansell.

16:39: Break called.

16:17: Chahley keeps pressing on whether refining crude oil is out of the question. Mansell denies it's out of the question.

16:09: Detailed questions about condensate prices (increase/decrease).

16:06: Confirmed (not clear who by the webcast).

16:05: Chahley asks whether Enbridge knows what Asian countries will do with condensate oil once it arrives.

16:00 Carruthers: Going into details of types of oil that can be used to move it through the pipeline system.

15:57: Chahley: Some of it is dilbit, some of it is synbit, how much of each will go through pipes will be determined by how much can be transported by rail, correct?

15:55: Chahley honing in on what specific types of dilbit and synbit will flow through the pipelines.

15:53: Carruthers: confirms that pipelines carry dilbit and synbit (50/50 blend of bitumen and synthetic crude oil).

15:51: Chahley now looking up shipment figures.

15:49: Priddle: Reminds Chahley that systems built as crude oil pipelines are now carrying several grades of crude oil and refined oil products.

15:48: Chahley: The problem with this pipeline is shipping away unproccessed resources if they were processed in Canada it would keep jobs in Canada.

15:40: Earnest won't answer that question.

15:39: Chahley: Enbridge's interests are for corporate bottom line, not for public interest. Asks whether expert witnesses whether they can agree on that.

15:34: Earnest still not answering clearly. Fischer said Enbridge has committed "substantial" amount of money-- close to $130 million to do an "analysis" of economic benefits.

15:29: Earnest dodges Chahley's questions about the economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

15:24: Chahley is going to question mostly about economic benefits of the pipeline.

15:19: Chahley asks whether Northern Gateway and the expert witnesses will accept that between 89 and 89 per cent of the benefits arrives is due to projected increase in oil prices?

15:17: Leanne Chahley from Alberta Federation of Labour begins presentation.

15:16: JRP back in session.

15:05: Alberta Federation of Labour requests five minute break.

15:04: Witnesses now available for questioning.

15:03: Carruthers: Northern Gateway should get approval, while addressing 'remaining concerns.'

14:59: Carruthers: Northern Gateway recognizes the importance of questions re: the Michigan oil spill.

14:55: Carruthers: "Create a framework that puts reconciliation over division, fact over rhetoric..."

14:55: Curruthers: Has taken note of concerns particularly in British Columbia. Starting today Enbridge will respond. It will through witness panel do their best through Joint Review Panel to demonstrate economic benefits as well as addressing concerns.

14:48: Curruthers confirms he is President of Enbridge Northern Gateway.

14:43: Going now into specifics of changes in reports authored by witnesses. None of the changes have a significant impact on their findings.

16:34: Further detailed questioning prices of crude oil.

14:54: Curruthers: Majority of those who have appeared before the panel have argued that projects should be refused.

14:53: Curruthers: compares Enbridge to Canadian National Railway.

14:52: Panel accepts witnesses as experts in these fields.

14:51: Moderator asks witnesses to be qualified as expert witnesses to the Board:

Mansell: expert on economics

Earnest: expert on petroleum refining and transportaion

Priddle: expert in enegry policy and regulations of pipelines on the National Energy Board

14:38: Now going into specific appendices on reports, going through each witness.

14:32: Continuing to confirm who wrote what report, and to confirm all evidence in reports as accurate.

14:30: Correction of minor errors on report.

14:25: Swearing in of expert witnesses, who wrote reports on Enbridge Northern Gateway: Dr.J. Ruitenbeek, Mr.Mark Anielski, Dr. Robert Mansell, John William Carruthers (president of Enbridge Northern Gateway), Paul William Fischer, Neil Earnest, Roland Priddle. Also present near the panel (not witnesses) Dr.Peter Eglington Mr.Murray Fraser, Drew Armstrong.

14:20: Panel moderator announces that members of the Joint Review Panel are not available for media interviews during breaks or after the hearing.

14:14: Reading of various intervenors and questioners.

14:00: Mountain Time (MT)- The hearing in Edmonton, AB begins.

Vancouver Observer, Tuesday September 4, 2012

Byline: Beth Hong (live blog)

Compares pipeline to Canadian Pacific Railway and the St. Lawrence Seaway

Enbridge has told the National Energy Board that the company's $6-billion plan to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast is similar to other massive industrial projects in Canada's history.

Speaking at a hearing in Edmonton Tuesday, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipelines division, compared the project to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the St. Lawrence Seaway, which he says were controversial but ended up benefiting the country.

"Our project is no different," Carruthers told the three-member panel.

"There is a path forward that will ... provide a significant improved quality of life for all Canadians, including Aboriginal Canadians, while protecting the environment."

Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. wants to build the $6-billion pipeline to transport raw bitumen from the oilsands to Kitimat, B.C., where it can then be shipped to Asian markets.

The project has met with widespread opposition in British Columbia, particularly among environmentalists and First Nations people who worry about the potential damage to inland and coastal areas that would be caused by a pipeline leak.

Many opponents have pointed to damage done when a 2010 spill from an Enbridge pipeline damaged waterways and wetlands near Marshall, Mich., and cost $800 million to clean up.

Carruthers directly referenced the Marshall spill in his opening remarks, saying that the company had made improvements to the safety of its pipelines.

"Canadians have asked why, and how that event happened," he said. "Northern Gateway understands the importance of those questions and will answer them as this hearing proceeds."

Labour group questions Enbridge numbers

The Alberta Federation of Labour spent the afternoon questioning Enbridge's experts. The group, which represents organized labour in Alberta, plans to argue that the project is not in the public's interest because it will send refining jobs out of the province.

There is also political opposition to the project. B.C. Premier Christy Clark sparked a battle with her Alberta counterpart, Alison Redford, when she announced that British Columbia would not approve the project unless conditions, including a larger share of royalties, were met.

Two weeks have been set aside for the Edmonton portion of the hearings. The panel will move on to Prince George in October and Prince Rupert in November and December.

Final arguments will be presented to the panel next spring, which must make a recommendation by the end of 2013.

Ottawa is expected to make a decision with six months of the panel's review.

CBC News, Tuesday Sept 4 2012

EDMONTON, Alberta (Reuters) - Enbridge Inc's proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline to Canada's Pacific Coast could cost thousands of high-paying refining jobs in Alberta, a labor group warned on Tuesday as the company faced its first day of grilling at public hearings into the contentious project.

Alberta Federation of Labour contends the C$6 billion ($6.1 billion) line, which would ship 525,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude to tankers bound for Asia, would mean 5 percent less refinery throughput at home and the loss of 8,000 jobs.

Enbridge and the oil industry say it would open up lucrative new markets for growing volumes of Canadian crude in regions overseas where the producers can escape the deep price discounts their oil now sees in the North American market.

"China is in the midst of a building boom in terms of refineries and refining capacity, so our fear is that if our policymakers allow this pipeline to be built we'll end up in a situation where our own homegrown refineries are no longer economic and they'll close down," federation President Gil McGowan said during a break in the hearings.

"We'll end up in a situation where we're sending our raw bitumen oil to China and then buying back the refined product."

Enbridge's evidence shows the project creating 907,067 direct and indirect jobs across the country through 2048.

The current phase of the hearing into the 1,177 km (731 mile) pipeline across the Rockies is examining its financial need and economic benefits to the industry and Canada. Enbridge's numbers show a benefit to the industry of at least C$24 billion through 2035.

It is the first time since proceedings began in January before a federal review panel that Enbridge has had the chance to make its own case for the development, a key part of a strategy to diversify oil markets and forge greater energy trade ties with China and other Asian countries.

The other portion is inviting more Asian investment into the country, as shown by CNOOC Ltd's $15.1 billion bid for Calgary-based Nexen Inc, an oil sands producer.

Until now, the company has watched as many aboriginal communities and environmental groups harshly criticized the proposal, saying it would bring unnecessary risks of oil spills, both along the rugged route and in coastal waters.

Enbridge's case has been undermined by oil spills on other parts of its system and a highly critical report by U.S. regulators into a 20,500 barrel leak in Michigan in 2010.

Enbridge Northern Gateway President John Carruthers acknowledged the opposition in his opening statement, saying that the company has taken note of public concerns.

He compared Northern Gateway pipeline to others major infrastructure projects that have brought large economic rewards to Canada, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, St. Lawrence Seaway and TransCanada pipeline.

He said it was possible to highlight its major economic benefits while noting Embridge was taking its environmental responsibilities seriously.

"It involves assessing, in the same objective fashion, and according to the same standards, the information or evidence that has been presented by those who are opposed to the development of our project," he told the panel. "And it culminates in approving the project under a framework of conditions that will promote reconciliation over division, and fact over rhetoric."

Alberta Federation of Labour was first to grill Enbridge's witness panel, made up of authors if its financial and economic reports, and its lawyer took most of the opening afternoon questioning them on the reliability of long-term forecasting.

The federation has been front and center calling for more plants to extract and refine bitumen oil from Alberta's vast oil sands in order to create jobs, rather than shipping raw materials overseas. The industry has said the market should decide if processing plants are required and that there is enough oil to go around. ($1= $0.99 Canadian)

Rueters Canada, Tuesday September 4, 2012

Byline: Jeffrey Jones

Compares pipeline to Canadian Pacific Railway and the St. Laurence Seaway

Enbridge has told the National Energy Board that the company's $6-billion plan to build a pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast is similar to other massive industrial projects in Canada's history.

Speaking at a hearing in Edmonton Tuesday, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipelines division, compared the project to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the St. Lawrence Seaway, which he says were controversial but ended up benefiting the country.

"Our project is no different," Carruthers told the three-member panel.

"There is a path forward that will ... provide a significant improved quality of life for all Canadians, including Aboriginal Canadians, while protecting the environment."

Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. wants to build the $6-billion pipeline to transport raw bitumen from the oilsands to Kitimat, B.C., where it can then be shipped to Asian markets.

The project has met with widespread opposition in British Columbia, particularly among environmentalists and First Nations people who worry about the potential damage to inland and coastal areas that would be caused by a pipeline leak.

Many opponents have pointed to damage done when a 2010 spill from an Enbridge pipeline damaged waterways and wetlands near Marshall, Mich., and cost $800 million to clean up.

Carruthers directly referenced the Marshall spill in his opening remarks, saying that the company had made improvements to the safety of its pipelines.

"Canadians have asked why, and how that event happened," he said. "Northern Gateway understands the importance of those questions and will answer them as this hearing proceeds."

Labour group questions Enbridge numbers

The Alberta Federation of Labour spent the afternoon questioning Enbridge's experts. The group, which represents organized labour in Alberta, plans to argue that the project is not in the public's interest because it will send refining jobs out of the province.

There is also political opposition to the project. B.C. Premier Christy Clark sparked a battle with her Alberta counterpart, Alison Redford, when she announced that British Columbia would not approve the project unless conditions, including a larger share of royalties, were met.

Two weeks have been set aside for the Edmonton portion of the hearings. The panel will move on to Prince George in October and Prince Rupert in November and December.

Final arguments will be presented to the panel next spring, which must make a recommendation by the end of 2013.

Ottawa is expected to make a decision with six months of the panel's review.

CBC News, Tuesday, September 4, 2012 

TUESDAY BILLS

* Northern Gateway Hearings. The Alberta Federation of Labour says the Enbridge pipeline project will actually eliminate Canadian jobs.

Take those jobs and shove them. Enbridge says the Northern Gateway will employ thousands of people -- but the Alberta Federation of Labour says the oil company is giving us the business.

As It Happens, the Tuesday edition, Tuesday Sept 4 2012

 

After a bumpy ride this summer, Enbridge will face a tough grilling this week on its $6 billion Northern Gateway project as public hearings enter their final phase in which interveners can challenge the company's evidence.

Enbridge will square off with unions and First Nations while big oilsands players, including MEG Energy, Cenovus, Suncor, Nexen and Total appear in a joint witness panel. The Alberta government is also prepared to appear for the "questioning" phase of the federal Joint Review Panel hearings to examine the economic benefits of the proposed $6-billion pipeline project to carry Alberta bitumen to Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia for export to China.

Critics like the Alberta Federation of Labour will argue Canada's refining industry will shrink — with a loss of 8,000 jobs expected — if the pipeline project goes ahead and diverts bitumen feedstock to China. Opponents will also argue there is plenty of room in existing pipelines to handle growing bitumen exports.

Enbridge, however, is " very confident" going into the hearings as it will finally have a chance to respond to critics, says spokesperson Ivan Giesbrecht, noting the company will speak Tuesday.

"This is our first chance to speak; it's going to be a rigorous questioning and we welcome that," Giesbrecht said. "We really feel the project will benefit both provinces and Canada. It's an opportunity for Canadians to listen in on a very democratic process."

Enbridge is also required, by noon Tuesday, to submit a highly critical U.S. report on the 2010 Michigan pipeline spill that saw 12,000 barrels of heavy oil spill into Kalamazoo River from its pipeline. Initially, the federal review panel said it would not take the report, but reversed its decision mid-August.

Enbridge's project — twin pipelines, with one to carry 585,000 barrels of diluted bitumen west and another to carry the diluent — faced growing resistance, starting in late July when B.C. Premier Christy Clark raised the stakes. Her province will not approve the pipeline unless B.C. gets a share of the increased revenues Alberta will gain from shipping more bitumen, she said.

With the project stuck in political hot water, B.C. newspaper tycoon David Black stepped in with a proposal for a $13-billion refinery in Kitimat as a way to bring economic benefit to the province. The oilpatch was not keen on the idea.

Meanwhile, Enbridge came under fire for a smaller spill in late July in Wisconsin. It also hit rough water when it posted a map of the Douglas Channel route into the Kitimat port that left out many islands, rocks and narrow channels that make the route particularly difficult to navigate. Around the same time, the company also announced $500 million in improvements to pipeline safety for the Northern Gateway pipelines which start in Bruderheim northeast of Edmonton. Those include increasing the thickness of the line by 20 per cent, adding 50 per cent more shut-off valves and increasing inspections by 50 per cent.

Company officials said such improvements are meant to respond to concerns raised by First Nations and other members of the public during a federal review that started six months ago.

The federal review panel is jointly operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Alberta government remains firmly committed to the project to diversify markets for bitumen, said Tim Markle, spokesman for Alberta Energy. Oilsands producers will only get higher world prices when they have access to Asian markets, said Markle, noting the price differential is up to $20 a barrel.

The province will be represented at the hearings by Christopher Holly from Alberta Energy and Skip York of Wood Mackenzie Consulting, the consulting company which predicted the province will lose $72 billion over nine years if the pipeline is not built.

Gil McGowan, leader of the Alberta Federation of Labour, disputes the province's figures.

"We think this project will kill more jobs than it will create," said McGowan, noting that Enbridge's own figures estimate a four-per-cent reduction in refining capacity by 2018 in Canada as a result of the pipeline.

"This isn't just about losing value-added jobs in the future, it's now becoming clear that existing jobs in the refining sector are also threatened," McGowan said.

He said "we will be raising questions" that there is no agreement in the evidence of the proposed pipeline's impact on refining jobs in Alberta.

Oilsands producers will get higher prices for their product in Asia, but that will only be temporary, McGowan said, noting that China's industry is state-run so there is no real market pricing.

In a report for Forest Ethics Advocacy, David Hughes, a former geologist with the federal government, says the price differential will be eliminated when the glut at Cushing, Oklahoma in the U.S. Midwest is relieved.

"Once it gets to the Gulf coast, the oil can go around the world and they will be forced to pay world price and that's important," said Hughes, adding that could eliminate the need for the Northern Gateway.

Meanwhile, Canadians should talk about whether "we should liquidate our energy resources to sovereign countries like China" or look at longer-term strategies for national energy security, he added.

The hearings begin Tuesday at 2 p.m. at the Holiday Inn at 4485 Gateway Blvd. They run until Saturday Sept. 9, then resume again Sept. 17 at 9:30 a.m. for ten days at the Westwood Inn at 18035 Stony Plain Road.

In November, hearings continue in Prince George to deal with pipeline safety and later in Prince Rupert to deal with marine issues.

Last week, just days before the hearing, Enbridge received approval from the Energy Resources Conservation Board Alberta for a new 400,000-barrel-a-day pipeline to bring bitumen from Fort McMurray to its Edmonton hub. The company says the new Woodland pipeline project is not connected to the Northern Gateway.

The Vancouver Sun, Monday September 4 2012

Byline: Sheila Sprattt, Edmonton Journal