Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project

with 6 comments

I went to an open house last night, run by the provincial Environmental Assessment Office. The project has been around for a while (the Green Party tried to get people to pay attention to it at the last election). The idea actually goes back  much further and has already been rejected by Richmond twice, according to Harold Steves. The proponents are the consortium of airlines who make up the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation who have set up a website to promote the idea. The boards around the conference room, and the slides used by the presenter at the meeting, go into more detail than the brochure provided at the meeting. Probably the most informative document is the Project Description. On page 14 it describes the screening of fourteen different options from which this proposal emerged.

I think it is fair to say that this gave rise to many of the concerns expressed at the meeting. Most people wanted to point out that there are better ways of protecting the environment than trying to clean it up after there has been an oil spill. The general preference I think is that we don’t put the sensitive habitats at risk needlessly. So the assumptions and methodology used to select this project from the other alternatives are critical. But that will not be the subject of this EA. Both provincial and federal representatives present spent the first 40 minutes of the meeting explaining how their EAs work. And then the proponent got to do his dog and pony show – with questions limited and restricted – and the only answer ever given was “put your concerns in writing and we will answer after the EA is finished”.

I was surprised that the officials even decided to go for a public meeting format. An open house is usually preferred since opponents do not get a microphone, and cannot this let everyone else know what they are talking about. The meeting ran over time. The tactic of the officials and proponent to be be as dull as possible and bore people did not work. Most people stayed to get their word in. The project manager for the project spoke in a soporific monotone and avoided talking about any specific figures that might get quoted back at him.  Yet is was the claims that are made to justify the project where he was weakest. For instance, it was repeatedly said – and is also in the project description – that the current system is “at capacity”. As a number of people pointed out that is not true: the pipeline pumps are only used intermittently, as there is not enough tank storage at the airport (it already being expanded). But any questions about the existing system were deflected by trotting out a lawyer who said that as the current system is owned by Trans Mountain and not VAFFC, they do not have to answer questions about it.

The other obvious option – the use of the existing rail facility at Cherry Point refinery to load trains that could get to the existing rail sidings along River Road where a transfer to a much shorter pipe connection would need to be built – was dismissed out of hand. It is not even specifically addressed among the 14 options (only rail from Alberta was considered) but the project manager asserted it would be “too expensive”. There are, of course, no specific cost figures for any of the options, and when pinned on that point he waffled saying that the final cost of the preferred option could not be determined until its exact configuration was finalized (i.e. the route of the pipe within Richmond). VAFFC have already bought the property on the South Arm in expectation of proceeding.

The other assumptions – about constant growth of traffic at YVR and improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency not being enough to reduce the need for the project – were also not defended. They just came from “other sources” (YVR and Transport Canada) and thus could not be questioned.

Much was made of the fact that the project is not big enough to trigger a provincial EA but the proponent volunteered for one due to local concerns. Well, while technically true, a federal EA is triggered by the proposals use of navigable waterways and federal land (owned by the Port) so one was inevitable, so they might as well go for a combined EA. Fortunately for them, they do not put themselves in much hazard by so doing, since (despite the claims made by provincial officials) BC’s EA process is largely toothless. Some projects just give up, but very few are ever denied a certificate. It’s all about mitigation. The great strength of the opponents is that if fuel delivery were done some other way, mitigation might be much less. The problem is that the EA process does not have to test this assertion. It’s this project or nothing. No other option gets looked at.

Map showing terminal and proposed alternate routes

VAFFC Proposal

For the proponents, their major concern is that they have the ability to go to as many suppliers as possible. They do not want to be in thrall to any one supplier – or delivery system. To some extent, since they are the only customer for the existing pipe, they are using the proposal to put leverage on their suppliers. That concern is actually missing from the matrix used to select the final option but clearly weighs heaviest with the airlines. And it far outweighs all the other concerns.

If we had a truly rigorous EA process each option would be evaluated properly – not just screened out by the proponent before the process actually starts. It is this use of a coarse, and unverifiable “sieve” that gives rise to most of the concerns. Involving the public late, and declining to go into details about how this project is justified, is simply inflammatory. Unfortunately for the proponent – who has been diligently working with governments and first nations – the public has to be consulted. And they can detect very easily when they are being fobbed off.

My prediction is that as more people realize what their homes are going to be exposed to – and memories of that pipeline rupture in Burnaby are fresh in their minds – opposition is bound to grow. As those people realize that the options are not open to discussion, they will get angrier. Richmond is quite clear in its opposition to the project. The EA process will probably certify it, but I doubt that it can mollify those who feel that their interests have been protected. And, of course, for those concerned with the ecology of the Fraser delta, they have been disregarded for so many projects for so long, I am surprised that they still come out to such meetings.

Written by Stephen Rees

April 15, 2010 at 8:11 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thanks for the links, a great read.

    Although I would be in agreement with option 5. The existing YVR pipeline runs thru pretty dense areas in east and south burnaby (which I didn’t know) and is ~ 40 yrs old and I would worry about more intense residential activity around the pipeline. Remember that the 2007 oil spill in burnaby resulted from non-pipeline human activity – a backhoe doing other construction broke it. I was not able to find in the report if the bby pipeline will be decommissioned if the project goes thru.

    The rest of the arguement depend on how you see YVR – is it a future dinosaur once oil runs out or a vital component of our economy for years to come? You can’t sugar coat the fact that plane travel is a fuel/GHG-intesive activity. I really don’t know what will happen in 100 yrs, but I am sympathetic to the latter opinion. In that arguement, I can see why building a pipeline to the USA might be fraught with peril. I suppose they make a similar arguement with fuel trains from from alberta.

    WRT capacity at sea island, I suspect that they want maximal development potential for their north runway cargo handling plans. If they can move fuel silos off sea island, that would be part of their plan.

    And of course, we remove the daily couple dozen tanker trucks off the roads.

    mezzanine

    April 15, 2010 at 1:06 pm

  2. I don’t think anything short of volcanoes popping up on every continent is going to stop air travel any time in the next 50 years. It might become more exclusive like it was in the 1920’s, but there will be enough people with money to keep a lot of planes in the air.

    I don’t like the idea of tankers on the Fraser and think using rail from Cherry Point makes more sense even though it means a border crossing.

    As for a pipeline through a river delta above an active subduction zone, the whole idea is foolish. Look how many pipes sprung leaks in Kobe Japan when they had a moderate size earthquake. Luckily almost all were carrying drinking water or natural gas. Jet fuel is a very different monster.

    David

    April 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm

  3. i guess YVR prefers port access to for maximal options wrt jet fuel supplies. In the report and from other articles a major issue currently is limited refinery production for jet fuel (competing for making other products, like petrol for cars) and an overall trend of a reduction in refineries in north america and more refineries in brazil, china, etc.

    “Helmut Fredrich VP of corporate fuel management for Lufthansa said that fuel prices are not the major problem affecting his airline. He said: “Greater issues are the lack of refineries, cutbacks at existing refineries because of small margins and a fall in demand for gasoline. Oil companies are withdrawing from airports.” Chevron has withdrawn from continental Europe; Conoco has removed itself from Germany and the UK, while both Exxon and BP have also withdrawn from bases in Finland and the UK. Shell, too, is shutting down smaller refineries.

    Lufthansa is managing its own fuel supply in many areas, using barges, trucks, trains, and pipelines into Zurich, Munich, and Vienna. Fredrich said: “It is not so easy to put the product through. We don’t like to do that as it is not our core business, but we are increasingly forced to do so.” ”

    http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/usa/Biofuel-Efforts-Distracting-from-Fuel-Infrastructure-Crisis_35599.html

    mezzanine

    April 15, 2010 at 11:58 pm

  4. Given current events with the Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano and the massive disruption of air services, one would think that any thought of a pipeline would be now put on hold.

    On a PBS public affairs program (the name escapes me) a pundit said that if this ash eruption last for one week longer, there will be several bankruptcies of air carriers, who are collectively loosing $200 million a day!

    Today, it has been reported that the eruption has intensified!

    If this volcanic eruption and disruption to European air travel lasts, say two more weeks, I think there will be a massive change in airlines and monies available for airports.

    I have a gut feeling that we are on a verge of a major travel change.

    Malcolm J.

    April 17, 2010 at 1:52 pm

  5. I heard on the news that the last time this particular volcano erupted, roughly 200 years ago, the eruption continued for 18 months!

    We’re witnessing history folks. I can’t imagine there’s much money or political will to provide bailout money to every airline operating to/from/within Europe.

    Not that a little thing like airlines going bankrupt is going to stop an infrastructure project in BC😦

    David

    April 18, 2010 at 9:11 pm

  6. In the old days the so-called primitive people appeased the Volcano God by throwing some virgins in it…we seem to have an excess of special virgins aka politicians..could be worth a try

    Red frog

    April 20, 2010 at 10:32 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: