Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Letter of CommentContact information and written comments will be placed on the public registry for this project.
Hard copy filings may be made by mail, courier, hand delivery or fax at the address below.
Joint Review Panel - Enbridge Northern Gateway Project
444 Seventh Avenue S.W., 2nd floor mailroom
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8
Facsimile: (403) 292-5503, or toll free at 1-877-288-8803
Date: 30/07/2012
Verkerk, Ben
Contact Information
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Address:
City:
Province:
Postal Code:
Email:
1384 Friesen Road
Kelowna
B.C.
V1X 7P2(250) 491-3636
Please ensure that your letter of comment includes:
· the nature of your interest in the proposed project
· comments on the proposed project
· any relevant information that will explain or support your comments
CommentsAttach additional pages if necessary.
I am writing as a citizen of Canada and of British Columbia to express my opposition to the Enbridge Northern
Gateway Project.
I am opposed to this project because I believe that, despite planned safety measures, spills and leaks from the
proposed pipeline are inevitable and will cause serious harm to the environment. They could also harm people if water
and food sources are polluted. This belief is based on recent news reports about spills and leaks from existing
pipelines owned by Enbridge and others.
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
Further, I believe Enbridge and other pipeline owners either are incapable of properly cleaning up after major pipeline
spills or are unwilling to do so. This belief is based on recent news reports about failed cleanup efforts following spills
and leaks from existing pipelines owned by Enbridge and others.
Thank you for considering my views.
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
To The Secretary of the NEB
Good Morning,
My name is Don Roliheiser. I work Pro Bono, and I have for the
past 15 years. I wish to thank the National Energy Board Staff for
their service and help.
When I found out that Bill 38, changed, and amended the National
Energy Board Act June 27-July 12, 2012. I thought it was an
illegal precedence of changing a National Energy Board Act while
the public hearing was still on. I would have liked to have pursued
a court ruling on this matter. Mainly by changing the act, the
elected officials, Governor of Council, appointed by the Prime
Minister, and cabinet ministers, implemented changing this act.
They should not have affected and interfered with a public hearing
in progress.
(A43153)
2.
Here is my experience:
In the early 70’s, during the Nose Hill Public Hearing, Glen
Holme Land Co. hired me to appraise their 305 acres and represent
their company at the hearing. The first day went well. There was
no second day, as the public Nose Hill Hearing was declared null
and void because an elected official tried to influence the panel,
while a public hearing was still active. I thought of trying to use
my experience in this case, in courts was, while challenging, it was
too counter productive if successful. I would ask this panel to
recommend to the NEB that no elected official shall try to
influence or affect a public hearing, until the public hearing is
adjourned, and prescribe a penalty for credibility purposes.
But instead, I decided to move in a positive direction so this
changed my whole course. I would try to motivate Canadian
Pipeline Companies, and elected officials, at this public hearing, of
(A43153)
3.
the reality of my education, experience and rewards regarding
these land matters with land owners.
I have come to share my expertise and experience as a land expert.
I owned and managed Alberta Business Locators for 40 years. I
had a real estate agent’s license. I sold and bought land for the
most prominent, successful companies, at the time.
These included: Fennerty and Fennerty, Clarence Copithorne,
Carma developers, Bob Blair, and Red Maple Farms, David L.
Crowel, Fowlie Investments, Don Harvey, Alberta Government,
Seimen brothers and Summa Corporation. My dealings with these
companies included expropriation, hearings, court cases, council
meetings and arbitrations.
(A43153)
4.
V-Bar —V Ranch, Jenner Alberta.
I will cite my education:
In 1968, Fennerty and Fennerty lawyers asked me to participate in
one of the largest judicial sales of land, involving one of the
largest deeded ranches in Canada. The V Bar V Ranch had
72,000 acres deeded with 218 separate
land titles, approximately 26 miles of rivers frontage, and the same
amount of miles of fences and roads. I phoned the Appraisal
Institute of Canada, Harry Allum, and asked how long it would
take him or me to appraise it. He told me 3 months or more. I
phoned the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Canada and asked them how long would it take me to appraise,
and they said 3 to 6 months. I did it in 6 days, complete with
recommendations.
(A43153)
5.
This began my education. I went to the V Bar V ranch neighbours
and told them my problem. I had a deadline of only 20 days to
appraise the V Bar V Ranch for the judicial sale of same.
Mr.Anderson, a successful sheep rancher,
with public grade school education, and owner of approx. 20,000
acres and Mr. Flamman, a Metis champion boxer,
who was guarding the ranch and equipment said they would help
me. They showed me the whole 72,000 acres. and showed me how
I could use the old historical map and crayons to document the
ranch, so I could:
1. Swear in court that I saw the whole 72,000 acres
2. Help me find the market data of sales in the area.
(A43153)
6.
Fennerty and Fennerty cancelled the judicial sale of the V
Bar V ranch as their clients stood to loose 90 cents on the
dollar, on a $300,000 first mortgage if the
land undersold. So they bought the second mortgage of
$100,000 +/-, as I had appraised the V Bar V at 1
million and 200 thousand. They bought the ranch, stopped
the sale, to sell portions of the ranch that they
did not want, with separate titles. My first land appraisal and
written recommendations were successftil, in record time,
due to the land owners cooperation and help.
My rewards were to get Clarence Copithorne and the late, great,
Allan Hunter, as clients.
In 1969, Clarence Copithorne lost a famous court case (Copithome
vs. Calgary Power) at the supreme court of Canada. Shell Canada
(A43153)
7.
was going to expropriate more of Clarence’s land at an
Expropriation Hearing. I was hired by Allan Hunter to do the land
appraisal of the easement
area at the hearing. Shell Oil said “No. Don Roitheiser is not
qualified.” So Allan Hunter and Clarence took the case to the
Supreme Court of Alberta. The Supreme Court of Alberta ruled”
Don Rollheiser is a land expert and an expert land witness
qualified.” Therefore Shell Oil errored.
We won the case. My rewards were that that the Supreme Court of
Alberta certified what I already was. As a result, Summa
Corporation became one of my clients.
Clarence Copithome fought for his land rights for over 10 years.
First with a shot gun at the gate and then with persistence in legal
land matters in the highest courts after which he was elected
independent MLA of Cochran area.
(A43153)
8.
Later he was the Minister of Highways for the Lougheed
Alberta Government. This determination and dedication to me,
and all the voters, was inspirational.
With 40 years of experience with landowners and big companies I
learned valuable lessons. You MUST listen to the landowners in
the area and their neighbors. They cannot be bullied! I learned
this valuable lesson dealing with the water line from Calgary to
Airdire.
In 19, I was successfully involved in getting land owners to sell
their land for the pipeline from Calgary to Airdrie. The City of
Calgary and Carma developers were trying to get the land for
pipeline and landowners would not cooperate. There were 3
(A43153)
9.
prominent family land owners in the area I went with a
commissioner of oaths, to talk to their leader. I asked them what
went wrong. I was told that the city lands department, Carma
Developers Land Department, the Mormon church elders all did
everything wrong, and they wouldn’t sell or sign the offer to
purchase that the above people presented to them. The land
owners know their land the best and they wanted to be in control. I
told them that we would change the “offer to purchase” to “offer to
sell” and crossed out the price and told them they could put their
amount in. I found an absentee land owner, who owned the point
of entry, 40 acres at the edge of the city limits. He was living in
Yellow Knife, at the time. I had him flown in from Yellowknife,
instead of talking to him on the phone. In person, I asked if he
would accept the deal and he asked if every one of his neighbours
agreed, then he agreed as well. He said his neighbours know the
value of the land the best and have for 3 generations.
(A43153)
10.
From there the deal was made within days.
This changed my whole perspective and I would try to motivate
Canadian Pipelines and elected officials to not deal in aggressive
and unreasonable manner to achieve their pipeline purpose.
Aggression breeds aggression.
The 2 Canadian Oil companies have started off on the wrong foot.
We must learn from the past mistakes of Canadian pipeline
companies because they think they are
too powerfhl and politically connected. Trans Canada Corporation
tried to take easements and implement the Keystone XL pipeline
in the Nebraska, USA Aquifer, by bullying the landowners and
threating with unreasonable litigation against them, if they did not
sign. (As reported by most newspapers, Calgary Herald etc.)
(A43153)
11.
The USA Administration, rightfully, sided with the USA land
owners. The USA State Department has the power in the USA.
Enbridge Inc. had their pipeline oil spillage, because of a pipeline
rupture in a Michigan river and they acted irresponsibly, in
regulating and monitoring matters, and in bad faith, according to
the press, as they had no clean up for 2 months. The land owners
around these areas have
rights and must be adhered to, especially in foreign countries.
This is also true of First Nations People. In Canada, Governments
and oil companies and big businesses
wrongfully think that they hold the power, economically and
legally. Quebec proved them wrong with the threat of separation,
continually. It has given them the balance of power. First Nations
people can peacefully and legally separate too.
(A43153)
12.
They have all of the natural resources to be successful and there
goes your pipeline, and instead of uniting Canada, the reverse is
true.
Thank you for your time.
Truly
Donald James
(A43153)
ment research and development section, says, the priority eafly lics with the2,600 acres anti the other
,501) would be gravy.”Ward 4 Mdcrman Ed
Oman, about a month ago.asked city administratorsabout the fc’tsibitity of tieveloping housing on 1,500acres at the west end OfNose 11111. (1 it. looks favorable he wII make a motionto have the land taken out of
paiciiiciybOCT t 1275
park reserve and reelassi- var5!. OTt 340 flOtfled for housing. Avcmw. i*1 stre
A study by 10 Calgary west from 11thcGmrnunitics along with the proposed extensiUii’ersity of Calgary and ccc Trail.city plannrs recommended However, thea 2,60(1-acre park. i-lowc’er, in question woultbowing to pressure from from the mainIJiintingtoii hills and Dal— park by a proptliousie communities, council siu jSl1aap!in 1973 voted for the 4.100- Although ltwracre park. vantageotis to
The area is bounded on the which borders orsouth by John Laurie Boule- Mr. Woollerton
Cit faces bcittle on price
FiA\e
/@
cj
The city may soon find itself oinbroUcd in a legal battle over Nose 1-Ilil.
Laic1 (lerelapers want the city either to allow them tobuild houses or-else buy the hind at much higher pricesthan the city appears willing to pay.
City land department head Bob Leitch sai’s the cityhas tino on its side because of its power to prevent useof the land for : vthim but pork or ogrhuiture. in accordance with city council instruct ions. Mr. Lcitch’s (It’—part.nwnl is not act l’ely I r: lug to pick up land, 1w says.
There are few people willing In operal a park orfat-rn on [he bud, (‘xcopt lie’ city (I cUurse, so.clty up—praisers arc able to value the land iuueh lower thanifclassified for residential or Inditsirlal development.
Jack Sinaci of inhcd Mzinwien,cnt, which ownsmore than 300 acies adjoining Brcntwood and JohnLaurie Dootovarci. says his lawyer has advised him thecity cannot freeze [he land use indefinitely.
Mr. Singer says his company is prepared to challengethe city in court to get a ‘fuir and eluitablc price’’ forethe land.
He avs land in tti same area, but of less development j’ntcnt hi i ;as sold for 5:0,ntn) to $30,000 an acre.Thu cliv is reported in have jald only $l000 in acre forNose Hill land in a trade last year with another ClV&tow r.
Don Iollhetser, who hornltes land foi’ Glenhoim LandCo. whirl’ has 305 arr- wesl oH tt h SI re’’t. says Glenhole’ dueso I fgorc ibe uitv’s ru!ie vanld stand un incr’i It1t h’c
afraid to co h r’nIrt.’’
Across the fence from the Gicuhoim land,Thorneliffe. the city appraised VUIUCS at iiroutan acre in its exchange with Carma DeveloperNose liii! land, he l)OifltS out. Following this tiferedGienhoirn $3,800 an acre.
Glenholm will make a decision on whetheilenge the city. he says.
The city is basing offers on prices alreadyNose I-till land. lii a trade-off last year In whirgot land in West, Thorneliffe, the city ended it
the tquiva lent of about 1,0O{) an acre for Nosettt’cet-ding to I It-told suItrt’ia,.
Land director Leitch declined, to make pvalue per acre of78 acres of Nose [jill land obtcomplex deal with No-West land DevelopmLtd. this year. ‘‘1 didn’t want. another contro‘eloping,” he said in an interview, referringdiscussion over last year’s Carma deal.
“There’s r,o legal obligation to reclassify t:says city solicitor Brian Scott.
“Naturally, we’d fight,” be says, ii developa way to talco the matter to court.
Sn far oniy OIIC developer has tried to havelasslfied. In August the city planning cotturned down an application Tamorel beve!oLtd. to have 0 acres by reclassified for houupmcnt..
Joim Macleod. who is handling the laud asestate. eas not. cul3tempiatwg legal actionviewed, ‘‘1 think those things as a rule work diout in duc course,” he said.
- r1 W-j. -r.’I.-r.
/tc’oe Hi!!
By Mike Deihell(Herald Staff Writer)
The 4.100-acre Nose bullpark approved in princioletwo years ago by city council will llkiv becon’ a2,600-act-c purif to reality.
City land director BobLeiteh says his depart ment
is concentrating on thesmaller parcel in acpm-mgland.
Dave Woollerton, supervisor of the city parks depart-
(A43153)
Letter of CommentContact information and written comments will be placed on the public registry for this project.
Hard copy filings may be made by mail, courier, hand delivery or fax at the address below.
Joint Review Panel - Enbridge Northern Gateway Project
444 Seventh Avenue S.W., 2nd floor mailroom
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8
Facsimile: (403) 292-5503, or toll free at 1-877-288-8803
Date: 30/07/2012
Sterritt, James
Contact Information
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Address:
City:
Province:
Postal Code:
Email:
Chief Executive Officer
Kitsilano Indian Band
Box 86
New HAZELTON
British Columbia
V0J 2J0(778) 202-0124
Please ensure that your letter of comment includes:
· the nature of your interest in the proposed project
· comments on the proposed project
· any relevant information that will explain or support your comments
CommentsAttach additional pages if necessary.
Dear esteemed Members of this importasnt Panel:
Because I am Indian of Black,White and Asian ancestry and an adopted Haida with Heavenly titles inherited from my
father that to this day extend along the West coast of the continent, from Alaska, along the coasts and Inlets of British
Columbia and Vancouver Island, and even into Washington and Oregon, where the Potlatch and Totem Poles and our
Kits Wilps Haaxw, Tscin Kitsilano Laax Sal, the Temlaham Family and the Christian Church serving Jesus Christ are
as one in this notice.
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
The right to form the Kitsilano Indian Band on behalf of all Indians is the right of every Indian. The Kitsilano Indian
Band formally provides Adaawk to this Hearing on which to recognize and duly affirm the position advanced in this
notice by Chief Kitsilano. As a judicial body the Panel has authority to pronounce findings on such facts as directly
matter to the outcome of the Hearing.
The title Kitsilano designates the time of the first contact and a treaty between an Indian Prince and a European
Captain from Spain. Hail! Chief! Lano, hence the blanket economy; Kitsilano translates: Christ in Wool. Kitsilano's
matriarchy is Wilps Haaxw Laax Sal, Temalaham family of Hagwilkit; Kitsilano's Totem Pole at Totem Park near
Kitanmaax marks this title. That Pole is the 2nd stick of the book of Ezekiel 37, the Cross and the Totem signify the
ultimate title to the world. You as members of the Panel are bound by Section 35.1 to affirm our title in your
proceedings and we look for you to do that by the following declarations:
Kitsilano and the Kitsilano Indian Band successfuly claim the Indian title to the Province of British Columbia on behalf
of all Indians without prejudice to any rights of others in the same, and
All governments and other individuals in Treaty with, or negotiating with other Indians, do not act for nor do they
claim to represent, Kitsilano and none can represent the majority of Indians in the Province.
Canada and British Columbia are on Indian owned land because Kitsilano owns the Totem Pole which marks the
Indian right to which Canada and British Columbia are subject, while Kitsilano is competent to resolve all land
questions with those holding by good title and by a proven Indian claim.
Note: Kits translates Christ.
The Kitsilano Indian Band is considering the offers by Alberta to provide a pipeline to transport oil to Kitamat. The first
issue is with the export partner and the end use of products made with the oil. If goods merely come to America to be
purchased, then a false economy will bankrupt America and may temporarily enrich upper class China, but finally
China will seek military rule over the Americas, as breadbasket (with the smallest possible population.
To our House, Genghis Khan still looms.
The first thing is to cancel the sale to China. Do not enslave our children. China is welcome to adopt Canada's
constitution, not us.
The second consideration is can uses be made of the oil in this Province? The increased cost to ship to a threatening
regime is to our advantage if our own values are realized in local processes. BC Ferries uses fuel and a merchant
marine can be developed to carry products out of America, once the right cultural balance based on mutual interests
that always support a free economy which thereby keeps the land free forever.
Such a country will persuade the Chinese people to respect our interests and adopt our ways.
Of course some of our Indians retain the same claim as does Premier Clark against Alberta, for larger shares of the pie
as does Canada but a further hemispheric concern is what the Kitsilano Indian Band proposes, the former cause of
the church, now of the Potlatch, uniting the world as one.
Would that one be as China is?
Kitsilano by right, speaks last in the matter.
praise the lord
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
To:The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline puts Can (14032925503) 16:00 07/30/12 EST Pg 1-2
secretary to the Joint Review PanelEnbridqe Northern Gateway Project
I am writing to you in opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline andan increase in crude oil tanker traffic in our coastal waters. Significantconcerns surround the safety of this project, and the adequacy of the assessmentprocess to reach a decision in the best interest of those at risk.
The safety measures that Enbridge argues will minimize the risk of an oil spillare questionable. Double—hulled vessels do not protect against major, high—energycollisions or groundings that cause the majority of oil pollution. Even whenexperienced BC Coastal Pilots are on board accidents are already occurring alongthe proposed tanker route. No matter what measures are implemented, nothing canever guarantee 100% against the risk of human error.
Decision—making power for this development is in the hands of a few appointedofficials from outside the communities at risk. All three of these officials aremembers of the National Energy Board, creating a serious conflict of interest.The fragmented nature of this process means substantial increases in futurepipeline capacity and shipments would not be open for public review; we areseeing this now with the expansion of crude oil shipments through the Port ofVancouver. The pipeline is being proposed at a time when Canadian environmentalpolicy is being weakened by reductions in funding and a lack of meaningful publicparticipation.
A major influencing factor in the development of the Northern Gateway Pipeline isthe need to open the Alberta Tar Sands to Asian markets due to the threat of theus reducing its reliance on dirty energy. Rather than facilitating the furtherexpansion of a shameful Canadian environmental disaster, why can Canada notfollow Americaâ€s lead and take a stand to become a green economy leader?
It is time for us to step back and examine what the creation of this pipelinereally means. While other G8 nations are taking substantial measures to protectthe environment, Canada is arguably moving in the opposite direction. In theclimate of a weakening environmental policy, the decision to build this pipelinewould not only put our coast at risk, but Canadian values as well. What Canadaneeds is a legislated ban on oil tanker traffic in BC’S coastal waer I imploreyou to say no to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.
cm
Sincerely,
Sharon Blondin67 Burke stPenetanguishene, ON L9M 1CS
JUL—30—2012 14:OS P.001
Letter of CommentContact information and written comments will be placed on the public registry for this project.
Hard copy filings may be made by mail, courier, hand delivery or fax at the address below.
Joint Review Panel - Enbridge Northern Gateway Project
444 Seventh Avenue S.W., 2nd floor mailroom
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8
Facsimile: (403) 292-5503, or toll free at 1-877-288-8803
Date: 30/07/2012
Tate, Kate
Contact Information
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Address:
City:
Province:
Postal Code:
Email:
RN
7 Lenore St
Winnipeg
Manitoba
R3G2C1(204) 786-8710
Please ensure that your letter of comment includes:
· the nature of your interest in the proposed project
· comments on the proposed project
· any relevant information that will explain or support your comments
CommentsAttach additional pages if necessary.
As a citizen of Canada I strongly oppose the pipeline and any further extraction work at the oilsands project. Enbridge
pipelines have a history of leaking and spilling large amounts of crude oil on a regular basis. Some examples are
given below.
On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County,
spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume
about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.
In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge's energy and transportation and
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3).
On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge's
Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan. According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder
contributing to 'off-site' impacts.
On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked
open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.The same pipeline
was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~126,000 US gallons (480
m3) of crude. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the
local water table.
In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping
station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to "as close as
possible to its original condition.
In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought
against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations.Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said
"...the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands
throughout the various watersheds. The violations were incurred while building portions of the company's Southern
Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.
In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the
company's Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was
contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby
snow and trees.
April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the
Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.
Protecting our environment includes our forest lands, our rivers and our ocean. Putting a pipeline across the first two
and tankers across the latter will put the future in jeopardy. The land, water and animals are all at risk if we allow a
pipeline to transport oil to tankers.
The oil tankers would have to navigate for ten hours through the strait before getting to the ocean. The waters there
are dangerous even in good weather, and even if the tankers are tethered to “three tugs.” Accidents are bound to
happen and the question is “when,” not “if.”
We can all remember the ruinous effects of the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989. The “oil slick affected
an area almost as large as Vancouver Island and contaminated 2,000 kilometres of shoreline.” (Times Colonist, Jan.
10/12, p. All) Two orca pods were “devastated and one never recovered.” As well, “about 2,800 otters and 250,000
birds died.” (T.C., p. All) After more than two decades, “two-thirds of the affected species have not recovered.” Surely
that statistic alone must cause us to question what on earth we’re doing. The Great Bear Rain Forest is a treasure that
merits our protection. The Queen of the North, another disaster in 2006, held “about 220,000 litres of diesel—roughly
one400th of the capacity of an oil tanker.” (Times Colonist, Jack Knox, p. A3) And Enbridge is seriously thinking of
sending 225 oil tankers per year through our lands and ocean!!
It's time to stop relying on this outdated energy source and develope sustainable sources for the future of our
country.
OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
