National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

LMCI Meeting Summary - Jacob de Raadt - 12 May 2008

12 May 2008
White Rock, British Columbia

Agenda:

• Overview of LMCI
• Discussion
• Next Steps

Stream 1 - Company Interactions with Landowners

• Include potentially affected landowners early on in the examination of routing options for new pipelines and power lines.
• Could be valuable information if landowners could know how other landowners are being compensated - this would depend on all the landowners and the company agreeing to divulge compensation details.
• When landowners know more about the "big picture"/the details of the development and review process, they are in a better position to negotiate with companies.
• "NIMBY" effect - origins in the 1840's - William Wordsworth - railway alignments.
• Could the Plans Profile and Book of Reference (PPBoR) identify landownership - as a way for the NEB to identify landowners affected by pipelines and power lines within its jurisdiction?
• The evolution of landowner associations is a good step to allow landowners to be more involved in the entire development process for a new facility.
• During the design phase, companies should provide maps at their open houses and meetings to show the property of potentially affected landowners - landowners need to see how a RoW will cross and affect not only their property but also the others on the route(s). Perhaps Google maps or ortho photos would be helpful.
• When companies consult with potentially affected landowners on a new project, the company needs to present the "big picture" of what might happen in the future with additional development (e.g., more lines, more pipes within the same RoW, higher voltage lines).
• To prevent 3rd party strikes on pipelines, could companies draw markers on road ways (i.e., like the yellow dotted line, but something that indicates a pipeline is underneath) - is there more that could be done to prevent ruptures like the one on the Kinder Morgan oil line in Burnaby last summer?
• Personal experience with "one-call" didn't work - as a consulting engineer in the 1990's, Mr. de Raadt needed to get information on the location of a pipeline directly from the company. Good cooperation from Kinder Morgan in Burnaby.

Stream 2 - Improving Access of NEB Processes

• Mr. de Raadt's experiences based on involvement in SE2 pre-hearing phase.
• The SE2 process took a long time - felt the application should have been turned down earlier.
• Mr. de Raadt felt he had had input into the process and the review of the project.
• It was useful to receive the transcripts of the hearing as Mr. de Raadt was out of the country when the hearing took place - he attended two of the pre-hearing meetings. The proponent's lawyer objected vehemently when Mr. de Raadt mentioned "Canadian sovereignty" as an issue in a letter for the public hearing.
• Felt the pre-hearing public meetings were well run by NEB staff, but it was challenging for the public because people wanted to tell staff their views on the project - they didn't want to only hear about the process.
• NEB staff had to explain the process to US intervenors - our use of the English language and what certain terms mean (legally) in Canada are different than our US counterparts. This can cause confusion.
• Does the NEB look at total costs to society, beyond the costs of construction, when assessing projects? (e.g., health, environment, socio-economics, comparable maintenance costs for the various alternatives, etc.). The potential effect of electro-magnetic fields from power lines on human health was a big issue in the Sumas Energy 2 (SE2) hearing.
• How does the NEB know how much power is being transported along power lines under its jurisdiction? Property owners under BC Hydro's transmission lines in Surrey are aware that the load on the system is substantially more these days than when the lines were constructed, and particularly more in cold weather. Should the power line operators not give some kind of guarantee that "this is the limit"?

Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues

• When a right-of-way (RoW) is abandoned to whom does the ownership revert? To the original land owner from whom the land was taken (with whom the agreement was made), or to the current land owner because the RoW ran with the land? Within whose jurisdiction does the RoW fall? (federal, provincial, local)
• What happens if the land use has changed between the time the pipeline or power line was installed and the time it was abandoned? (e.g., new subdivision or zoning changes from rural to shopping centre). Is it possible to re-distribute the land post-abandonment if not everybody is in agreement - like the road closure procedures in B.C.)?
• Look at the experiences of railway abandonment (Canadian Transportation Agency) in the Prairie provinces where the land reverted to the province who in turn gave the land to the counties/municipalities and what happened - the lessons learned, both good and bad.
• Can an abandoned RoW be used for other purposes - other utilities or even roads?
• The statutory RoW also needs to be discharged on the property titles - by way of a legal survey, consolidation and re-registrations in the Land Title Office. There is a difference between "physically remove", "abandon", "cessation" and "remove". Mr. de Raadt suggest the NEB will need some extra definitions.
• What would be basis of assessing the values of these slivers of land?
• The fourth bullet on Table 1 on page 5 uses a phrase "After a pipeline is constructed, the right-of-way and..." The word “constructed” is wrong here, but I do not know if you want to replace it with the word "abandoned", "removed", "retired" or something else.
• The last bullet on Table 1 on page 6 describes criteria of "whether pipe should be removed or abandoned in place". Whether the trench operates or may operate as an unwanted drainage feature may also have an impact on this decision. Construction practices used in former days (using pea gravel for backfill, without proper compaction) are often the cause of problems where the water ends up at the end of the trench or (particularly) where it crosses sanitary sewers as infiltration.
• With abandonment comes the condoning of violations through the years - like sanitary sewer connections installed right underneath Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain RoW without their knowledge, accessory buildings built within the Trans Mountain RoW without their knowledge. There was one pipeline built and abandoned without any of this regulatory framework - the Canol pipeline from Norman Wells, NWT to Whitehorse, Yukon.

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28