Resource Development

Earlier today  the BC Government released its long awaited Independent Expert Engineering Investigation Review Panel Report on the Mount Polley Tailings Pond breach. This Panel was empowered to investigate and report on the cause of the failure of the tailings pond facility that occurred on August 4^th, 2014 at the Mount Polley Mine. In addition, they were asked to provide recommendations about how such an incident could be avoided in the future.

It’s important to note that while the panel was asked to point to the cause of the breach, it was restricted from assigning guilt or impeding two other ongoing investigations.

In their conclusions, the panel determined that the “dominant contribution” to the failure was the design of the tailings dam. The design failed to take into consideration key geological issues with the foundation. This was referred to by the panel as the “loading of the gun”. What “pulled the trigger”, and ultimately caused the breach, was the construction of a downstream slope at too steep an angle to account for the weakness in the tailings pond’s foundations. Essentially the wall of the tailings pond could not support the load being placed on it, and gave way without any warning.

This report’s contribution goes far beyond simply identifying the cause of this specific breach – it contains a number of important recommendations, which, if enacted, will go a long way towards improving the safety of how mines handle their tailings.

According to the expert panel, tailings pond technologies, such as those implemented at Mount Polley, have not fundamentally changed in the past one hundred years. Yet, alternatives to conventional tailings ponds exist and have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions. The question is: why are these other technologies that have been shown to reduce the risk and impact of tailings failures not standard practice in B.C.?

Going forward, we need to do more than simply look at updating new standards of practice and technologies. We also need to explore how the technologies and practices that we have been using – and that were used at Mount Polley – were allowed to fall behind in the first place. One of the key lessons contained in this report is that a thorough safety analysis should come before a conversation about the economic viability of a mine. The government has announced that a number of new mines will be opening over the next few years. In my opinion, it’s critical that proposed new mines are developed within the the scope of recommendations contained in this report.

The Minister of Energy and Mines, Bill Bennett, has committed to a number of initial steps that will explore whether other tailings ponds are at risk of failing due to similar causes that led to the Mount Polley breach. However, there has not been enough clarity about the steps government is taking to look to address the underlying issues that have allowed BC’s mining practices and technology to fall behind best-practice standards.

One of the most important comments in the report is the statement that that in order to achieve zero failures, incremental changes will not be sufficient. This critically important report provides guidance to both government and industry as to how tailings should be safely handled now and into the future using 21st century technologies and practices. It’s imperative that both government and industry act upon all the recommendations of this report.

I will be writing further on this topic in the coming weeks.

This post is part of an ongoing series in which MLA Andrew Weaver will be sharing key information from inside the National Energy Board hearings on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. To see previous posts, please click here.

Diluted Bitumen in BC Coast Waters

 The ongoing dispute between the City of Burnaby and Trans Mountain has been in the news a fair amount lately. It’s evident to me that the residents of Burnaby are being well-represented by their elected leaders and civic employees. As part of the Trans Mountain National Energy Board hearings, the City of Burnaby has been asking pointed and difficult questions, raising critical issues of concern, and communicating effectively with their residents.  The City of Burnaby is rightly concerned about the potential risk of a diluted bitumen spill at the proposed expanded terminal facility in Burrard Inlet, as well as the potential ramification of having an enhanced pipeline capacity through it’s neighbourhoods or underneath Burnaby Mountain. But what hasn’t received enough attention is the potential risks that our coastal communities face once diluted bitumen is loaded onto tankers.

Bitumen is the raw product extracted from the Alberta oil sands. It is heavier and more viscous than conventional crude oil and so must be either upgraded or diluted with other petroleum products in order for it to flow through pipelines. This combination of bitumen and diluent is referred to as diluted bitumen, or dilbit. There is very little research on how dilbit and the chemicals used to dilute it behave if a spill occurs in fresh water or marine environments.

A recent federal government study concludes that, unlike other crude oils, dilbit will sink in the presence of suspended particulate matter (e.g. sediment particles in the ocean). Suspended particulate matter is very common in B.C.’s coastal waters, meaning that any dilbit spill will likely lead to submerged oil. Currently we have no ability to clean up oil that sinks below the surface, making dilbit a particularly risky substance to transport.

So for coastal British Columbia, a specific reason for concern regarding the transport of dilbit is that we know very little about how it would behave if it were to be spilled into a marine environment. Evidence from the July 2010 Kalamazoo River dilbit spill in Michigan also provides a pretty clear indication that dilbit would sink when combined with sediments. One thing we have no shortage of  in our coastal waters is suspended sediments. Next time you travel on a BC ferry from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen, have a look at the water. Water originating from the Fraser River has a very distinct milky colour associated with its high sediment content.

Please provide your references

As you might imagine, the scientific uncertainty as to the fate and behaviour of a potential dilbit spill prompted me to pose a number of questions to Trans Mountain through the National Energy Board hearing process. Some of my questions were relatively straightforward:

On page 11, of the report A Comparison of the Properties of Diluted Bitumen Crudes with Other Oils, submitted to the National Energy Board as part of the Trans Mountain application, the study of Tsaprailis et al 2013 is referred to. It is the only study cited with respect to penetration of various types of oil into sand. As I could not find the reference, I simply asked the obvious questions?:

1. Is this study peer reviewed?
2. Is this study published in a scientific journal?
3. Are there any peer reviewed scientific journal studies that have examined dilbit penetration into sands? If so, please list them.

Here’s the answer I got:

1. Trans Mountain is unaware of the review process used for the Tsaprailis et al 2013 report but assumes that it was peer reviewed by the client (AIEES).
2. Trans Mountain does not have this information.
3. Trans Mountain is unaware of any scientific publication on dilbit penetration into sediment other than Brown et al. (1992).

You can imagine my frustration. I am trying to examine the scientific evidence underpinning Trans Mountain’s submission and I can’t get access to, or information about, key references they are using in their application.

It gets worse.

On page 5 of the report  A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters, that Trans Mountain submitted in support of their application, it states: “the literature review resulted in only six reported studies focused specifically on dilbits in available on-line searches.” All I asked for was information on how I could find them:

1. Please list these six studies with URLs so that I can access them.
2. Do any of these studies appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

You would think it would be trivial to respond to these. But instead of an answer, I was directed to a bibliography that included 75 references which may or may not include the six that were being referred to. Fortunately the National Energy Board compelled Trans Mountain to provide a full and adequate response to my original question and I await receipt of the six references.

Does Diluted Bitumen Sink or Float on Marine Waters?

Transmountain relied heavily on work they commissioned in the report entitled: A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters. This is referred to as the so-called Gainford study. This study undertook tank experiments using saline water (typical of Burrard inlet) that did not include suspended sediments. Yet according to the aforementioned federal study:

“high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as floating tarballs”

and

“Under conditions simulating breaking waves, where chemical dispersants have proven effective with conventional crude oils, a commercial chemical dispersant (Corexit 9500) had quite limited effectiveness in dispersing dilbit.“

So I asked the obvious questions, noting that the tank experiments were all conducted with conditions claimed to be typical of Burrard Inlet. Have any tank experiments been conducted:

1. with more saline conditions typical of the Strait of Juan de Fuca? If not, why not?
2. with colder conditions typical of winter? If not, why not?
3. in the presence of strong horizontal and/or vertical sheer? If not, why not?
4.  in the presence of whirlpools? If not, why not?
5. in the presence of downwelling conditions with downwelling velocities reaching greater than 40-50 cm/s as observed in [observed tidal fronts in the region]? If not, why not?

I received, what can only be described as a very odd response: “Additional studies were conducted by the Government of Canada (2013), under more saline conditions and different temperatures.” In other words, I was referred right back to the report that I cite above claiming that dilbit has the potential to sink. In response to this reply I responded:

“This response is unacceptable. I am aware of the government on Canada studies. As noted in [the Government of Canada (2013) ] report does not provide any details of any research that may or may not get done. I submit that Trans Mountain has not adequately answered the question(s), and request that an appropriate answer be provided.”

To which all I received from Trans Mountain was:

“The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain‘s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.“

This interaction is very troubling to me since in its report entitled Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Future Oil Spill Response Approach Plan, Recommendations on Bases and Equipment, Full Report, submitted by Trans Mountain as evidence in support of its application, it states that:

“During the course of the ten days test the diluted bitumen floated on the water and could be retrieved effectively using conventional skimming equipment.“

It is clear to me that unless compelled to do so, Trans Mountain does not plan to conduct additional tank studies. The question I ask is this. Is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund federal government science in direct support of industry? Or should the industrial proponent of a project be required to pay for the necessary scientific studies? The answer is obvious to me.

Summary

In summary, it is clear that there is a profound gap in scientific knowledge as to what would happen if diluted bitumen were to be released into the Salish Sea.

Yet we must not forget that in British Columbia dilbit is already being piped through the existing Kinder Morgan line to Burnaby where it is loaded onto tankers. About one tanker a week laden with dilbit is passing along the coast of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding on its way to refineries in Asia or California.

Was there an environmental review process when dilbit replaced traditional crude in the existing line? If not, why not?

The British Columbia government has outlined five conditions that must be met for their acceptance of heavy oil pipelines projects. These are

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

I support these five conditions. But in addition and for the reasons outline above, the BC Green Party and I have added a sixth condition:

• A moratorium for dilbit transport along the British Columbia Coast.

The justification is clear. The BC government’s five conditions must be applied to existing as well as future projects.

Today in the legislature I was up in Question Period. I took the opportunity to ask the government to outline the steps they are taking to address growing concerns about the lack of response to the short-term environmental, social and economic impacts stemming from the Mount Polley tailings pond breach. Below is the text of my exchange with the Minister of the Environment. I think you will find that it was a very informative discussion.

MY QUESTION

Honourable speaker, It does not serve the public interest to either overestimate or underestimate the scale of what happened at Mount Polley.

We know that on August 4th 2014, the tailings pond at Mount Polley mine breached and 25 million cubic metres of water, tailings and construction material was released into Hazleton Creek, Lake Polley and Quesnel Lake. We also know that on August 5^th the Ministry of Environment issued a Pollution Abatement Order to Mount Polley Mining Corporation to comply with a detailed list of requirements pursuant to Section 83 of the Environmental Management Act.

Madame speaker, in May of this year (just weeks before the Mount Polley incident), and after extensive consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the Ministry developed both a Policy on, and accompanying Procedures for, Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values.

My question through you, honourable speaker, to the Minister of the Environment is this:

The government has an environmental mitigation policy and procedure. Is the government applying them to Mount Polley disaster as part of the pollution abatement order. If not, why not?

MINISTER POLAK’S RESPONSE

I thank the member for the question. We would not ordinarily apply the environmental mitigation policy and procedure to a situation like this, simply because it’s really designed for activities that avoid, minimize, restore or offset what we see as foreseeable impacts of developments when we’re in the planning phase.

However, in this instance — and, of course, it’s unprecedented — I’m advised by staff that as they are reviewing the long-term remediation plan and the comprehensive environmental impact assessment, they’re finding that these guidelines are proving very useful as tools in order to fully develop that plan. It doesn’t directly relate, but it certainly is a part of the review that the ministry, along with other agencies, is conducting on the long-term plan.

MY SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

Honourable Speaker, I recently visited the Mount Polley region.

I’ve spoken with local residents, First Nations, mining officials, limnologists, geologists, geochemists and many others. Numerous British Columbians have independently contacted me.

Honourable speaker it is clear to me that British Columbians want to know how government plans to:

• deal with any local environmental impacts;
• deal with any local social impacts;
• deal with the significance that this event is having on the BC mining industry – a pillar of BC’s economy

My question through you to the minister is this. Will the government please outline its environmental, social and economic mitigation strategy for dealing with the repercussions of the Mount Polley tailings pond breach.

MINISTER POLAK’S RESPONSE

Of course, the member has very eloquently articulated just the breadth of the impact of this disaster. It really does take a holistic approach. I will touch only briefly on the responsibilities of other ministries and then outline what’s next in terms of the Ministry of Environment.

I’ve mentioned earlier on that the Ministries of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation have had people in the area working directly with communities, with First Nations. In terms of mining, I know that the Minister of Energy and Mines has been in regular conversations with leaders in the mining industry broadly about the issues this presents for them.

For us…. And it’s very important for me to acknowledge the work of some very key people, that being the Quesnel River Research Centre through UNBC and also one of our key staff people, Jennifer McGuire, who is the head of our regional operations in environmental protection.

We have, as a result, arrived at a couple of working groups, one of which, the environmental working group, you will be aware of from the letter of understanding that we have with the two First Nations. There’s also the Mount Polley science advisory panel. I’ll just quickly…. Representative scientists from DFO, MOE, FLNRO, Environment Canada. There’s industry, of course, First Nations and other university researchers.

Lastly, in the end, they will review the plan. The first phase will take us to June of 2015. The rest of the plan will take us from June of 2015 out into the future. All of that will be made public when the reviews are complete.

Today I rose in the legislature to give the required two day’s notice that I will bring forward an amendment to the Throne Speech. Delta South Independent MLA Vicki Huntington seconded my notice of motion.

When I speak to the Throne Speech, and subsequently the amendment on Thursday, I will outline an alternative vision for diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

Notice to Amend Motion

Be it resolved that the motion “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session,” be amended by adding the following:

And that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia accepts the responsibility of demonstrating the leadership to choose growth, to move forward and create a legacy for our children, but also recognizes that this leadership means not gambling our future prosperity on a hypothetical windfall from LNG, and instead supports the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

Media Statement: September 22, 2014
BC Government Silent on Mount Polley

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, is calling on the B.C. Government to take immediate steps to address growing concerns about the lack of response to the short-term environmental and economic impacts stemming from the Mount Polley tailings pond breach.

“The Mount Polley tailings pond breach happened over a month and a half ago,” said Andrew Weaver. “Yet local residents are still being kept in the dark about what their government and Imperial Metals are doing to remedy the immediate economic and environmental fall-out from the incident.”

So far the government has only provided information on its monitoring efforts and its commitment to determining the cause of the breach. Local residents are concerned that the government is not doing enough to address more immediate issues, such as financial support for affected families or reclamation of impacted areas.

Andrew Weaver visited the Scwepemc Sacred Fire during his August 28^th trip to the region. The Sacred Fire, which was lit on August 18^th near the entrance to the mine site, has becomes a community gathering point for those affected to voice their concerns.

“I had an opportunity to hear from people about what they believe needs to be done” said Andrew Weaver. “What I heard more than anything is that residents do not trust that the BC government or Imperial Metals are doing what is necessary to address their concerns. We need to change that.”

Since Andrew Weaver returned from Mount Polley more than three weeks ago, these concerns have continued to grow. His office has received correspondence from residents of Likely, BC, who remain concerned that they have still not heard what steps the BC Government is taking to address the more immediate concerns.

“The fact is, residents of the Mount Polley region shouldn’t have to approach an MLA from Vancouver Island to get answers from the government about what is happening to their region. This is a clear sign that more needs to be done.”

A full report of Andrew Weaver’s trip to the Likely, BC region can be found on his website:  http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/2014/09/10/mount-polley-breach-here/

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382