City of Burnaby Presentation Kinder Morgan National Energy Board - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

City of Burnaby Presentation Kinder Morgan National Energy Board (NEB) Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) 2014 March

Presentation Outline Scope of Project • Overview of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) • Facilities and Infrastructure Expansion in Burnaby • Emergency Response National Energy Board • Stakeholders • Public Hearing Process • NEB Decision Making Process City Response • Overview of the City Response • Key Issues for Burnaby • Listening to the Concerns of Burnaby Residents

Overview Trans Mountain Expansion Project

How has the Scope of the Project Changed? KM’s Initial Proposal Application to the NEB 750,000 bpd 890,000 bpd Dual line operation Product: Heavy crude “Twinning” of Pipeline Langley to Burnaby – new corridor 980 km of new pipeline 1000 km of new pipeline (reactivation of lines) Expansion concentrated Pump Station, Storage and in Burnaby Marine Terminal Expansion

Commercial Basis for the Expansion • Export • Open Season 2011 - 2012 • 13 shippers with firm service transportation agreements for 15- and 20-year terms • Total contracted volume under these agreements: 707,500 bpd of the proposed 890,000 bpd

Infrastructure and Facilities Expansion in Burnaby

This map illustrates the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline through Burnaby

Pipeline Routing Through Burnaby

Pipeline Right-of-Way • What is a right-of-way? • Ownership and rights • NEB Act and NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations and negotiated easement agreements Written Permission/Permit Required for works within the Safety Zone: • Operating vehicles or mobile equipment over the right of way where a roadway does not exist; • Reducing the depth of soil covering the pipeline; • Ploughing below 30 cm (1 foot); • Ground levelling; • Installing drainage systems; • Augering; • Fencing; etc.

Pipeline Expansion within Burnaby Initial Proposal Current Proposal Line 1 (existing): Dual- line operation to 350,000 bpd* introduce heavy crude product Line 2 (heavy crude): 540,000 bpd “Twinning” new pipeline within Separate new corridor existing ROW, where possible * KM has indicated Line 1 may also be used for heavy crude at lowered capacities

This map illustrates the route options Kinder Morgan presented to the City in December 2012.

The highlighted areas represent the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

The circles represent the neighbourhoods that would be directly affected by the proposed routing WESTRIDGE/ and alignment study LOCHDALE areas. FOREST GROVE/ LAKE CITY LOUGHEED TOWN CENTRE

Pipeline Expansion Westridge Neighbourhood Initial Proposal Current Proposal Creating a new route Consolidation of Burnaby through Westridge Mountain Terminal – Neighbourhood to Westridge Marine Terminal accommodate two 30” distribution line pipelines 2 distribution lines through 3 distribution lines through the neighbourhood within a the neighbourhood within single ROW two ROWs

FOREST GROVE ELEMENARY WESTRIDGE ELEMENTARY LOCHDALE ELEMENTARY STONEY CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL LYNDHURST ELEMENTARY CAMERON ELEMENTARY BURNABY MOUNTAIN SECONDARY This map highlights the schools that may be impacted by the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

BURNABY MOUNTAIN CONSERVATION AREA BURNABY MOUNTAIN/ BURNABY 200 CONSERVATION AREAS BRUNETTE RIVER AND CONSERVATION AREA This map highlights the conservation and environmentally sensitive areas that may be affected by the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

Construction of previously twinned section of the TMPL Jasper, Alberta

Burnaby Mountain Terminal

Existing Site Context 7185 Shellmont Street | 189 acre site

Existing Burnaby Mountain Terminal Site 13 storage tanks | 125,000 bbl – 130,000 bbl | Capacity: 1.7 million bbl

Existing Site Context 2 Local Watersheds

Conceptual Burnaby Mountain Terminal Expansion New Storage Tank Replacement Storage Tank * Note: this layout is for demonstration purposes only. 14 new storage tanks | 250,000 bbl – 325, 000 bbl | Capacity: 5.6 million bbl

189 acre site Current Volume of Oil Per Unit: 8,995 bbl per acre (3,535 m 3 per hectare)

189 acre site Current Volume of Oil Per Unit: 8,995 bbl per acre (3,535 m 3 per hectare)

189 acre site Proposed Volume of Oil Per Unit: 29,630 bbl per acre (11,640 m 3 per hectare)

Distribution of the TMEP Storage Capacity

Current Trans Mountain Storage Capacity Four Storage Terminals within the Trans Mountain Pipeline System: Edmonton • • Kamloops • Sumas • Burnaby In Operation 40 storage tanks  Total capacity of 5.3 million barrels October 2014 (Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project in service) * 54 storage tanks  Total capacity of 10.8 million barrels * Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project – 15 new storage tanks (one replacement tank) approved under separate application to the NEB in 2008, and amended in 2011 for additional capacity

Summary of TMEP Storage Tank Capacity Burnaby Sumas Kamloops Edmonton* • 35 tanks • 13 tanks • 6 tanks • 2 tanks • 8.0 mil. bbl • 715,000 bbl • 160,768 bbl • 1.7 mil. bbl + 5 tanks + 14 tanks + 1 tank no tanks proposed (one replacement) (one replacement) 26 tanks 7 tanks 2 tanks 39 tanks 5.6 mil. bbl 890,000 bbl 160,768 bbl 9.25 mil. bbl * Including the Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project

20 new tanks distributed between the existing terminals = 72 storage tanks total with a capacity of 15.8 million barrels For comparison 3 Aframax tankers can load approximately 1.7 million barrels

Emergency Spill Response - Land

Current Approach to Oil Safety on Land • Regulatory Framework – NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations • Accident Prevention – Canada • Whistle Blower Hotline • Third-Party Damage and One-Call system • Accident Prevention – Kinder Morgan • SCADA system – 24 hours monitoring from control centre • Right-of-way surveillance – visual surveillance • “Smart-pigs” – in-line inspections

KM Proposed Land Safety Measures • Kinder Morgan has indicated that they will be reviewing their spill prevention and Emergency Response Plan, requirement of the NEB • KM will be seeking mutual aid agreements with the industry to assist in event of an emergency - Chevron, Suncor, Shell, Imperial Oil • Canadian Energy Pipeline Association have established the Mutual Emergency Assistance Agreement (MEAA), effective January 2014

KM Proposed Emergency Response on Land • Kinder Morgan is seeking the use of Burnaby infrastructure and resources, as part of their proposal: • Fire Department and other municipal resources as “first-responders” to leaks, spills, fires, and other emergencies • Tie into the Curtis-Duthie Water Pump Station as a back-up water feed for the Burnaby Mountain Terminal (among other options)

KM’s Trans Mountain Track Record (2005 – Present) • 1,320 bbl of crude leaked out of the Sumas Terminal (Abbotsford), polluting Kilgard Creek 2005 • Burnaby Oil Spill (1,572 bbl) 2007 2009 • 1,258 bbl oil leaked from Burnaby Mountain Terminal (contained on-site) • 692 bbl of oil spilled from ruptured pipeline at Sumas Terminal (Jan.) • Leak in containment area at Sumas Terminal (April) 2012 • 12 bbl of oil leaked from pipeline outside of Merritt BC • 25 bbl of oil leak detected outside of Hope BC 2013

Burnaby Oil Spill 2007 • Where: Inlet Drive, Burnaby • Volume: 250 m 3 (1,572 bbl) • Response Time: 24 minutes • 50 homes impacted; 250 Burnaby residents evacuated; 1200 m of shoreline along the Burrard Inlet impacted – long term impact to local ecosystems & wildlife • Cost of Clean-Up: undisclosed by KM but estimated at + $15 M • Cause: Human error • Court findings determined Kinder Morgan and 2 contractor companies at fault

Effects of the 2007 Burnaby Oil Spill

Kalamazoo River Oil Spill 2010 • Where: Michigan, USA • Volume: 3,320 m 3 (20,882 bbl) of heavy crude (diluted bitumen) spilled. • Largest land-based spill in North American history. • Response Time: + 18 hours • 30-50 households displaced; significant and long-term impacts to environment and ecosystems; clean-up ongoing • Cost of Clean-Up: $1 B (2013) • Cause: pipeline corrosion (40 years old pipe); poor response time • At Fault: Enbridge

Westridge Marine Terminal

Existing Westridge Marine Terminal Site 7065 Bayview Drive | 15 acre site

Photo Credit: Stephen Rees Existing Westridge Marine Terminal

Conceptual Westridge Marine Terminal Expansion Kinder Morgan has indicated that the existing dock may be decommissioned in the future. 1.4 ha foreshore expansion

Kinder Morgan visual representation of the proposed Westridge Marine Terminal Expansion

Westridge Marine Terminal Activity • From 8 tankers per month to 34 tankers per month (from 3% to 14%) • Each tanker transporting between 550,000 – 580,000 bbl EXISTING PROPOSED

Marine Emergency Spill Response