On an average day, 35 to 40 tanker trucks filled with jet fuel pass through Richmond on their way from the Cherry Point refinery in Washington state to Vancouver International Airport (YVR).
That accounts for just 20% of the jet fuel consumed at YVR. The rest comes from Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline.
As air travel increases, 200 tanker trucks per day may be needed in a few years, warns Adrian Pollard, project director for Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corp. (VAFFC), unless a $100 million aviation fuel pipeline through Richmond is approved.
Tony Gugliotta, senior vice-president of marketing and business development for Vancouver Airport Authority, said the airport projects growth in air traffic that simply can’t be met by the six-inch diameter Trans Mountain pipeline, which is more than 40 years old.
“It doesn’t have the capacity to deal with the fuel requirements because of the size of the pipeline,” he said. “And it is an older pipeline. We would feel a little more comfortable with it if we replaced it with a new pipeline.”
But a grassroots organization in Richmond called VAPOR (Vancouver Airport Pipeline Opposition for Richmond), says the project carries too heavy a risk for the Fraser River.
“The pipeline’s bad, but what’s really bad is the marine terminal with 80 million litres of jet fuel stored in six-storey tanks at the foot of Williams [Road],” said VAPOR member Carol Day.
Day’s group has local political support. Richmond city council is unanimously opposed to the project, and Liberal MLA Linda Reid (Richmond East) has taken a stand against it.
“I believe the risks for the South Arm of the Fraser River are, frankly, too great,” Reid said. “My fears centre around the offloading facility. I’m not sure why we would have it the furthest point possible from the airport and risk the river each time that product is unloaded.”
The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has received more than 350 submissions, most of them opposing the proposal. The opponents say there are alternatives that have not been fully explored. Port Metro Vancouver is also questioning whether VAFFC has thoroughly explored the alternatives.
“There has not been a strong enough argument presented that replacement of the existing pipeline delivery system is not viable,” Juergen Baumann, the port’s manager of environmental programs, said in a March 18, 2011, letter to the EAO.
The port authority is conducting its own environmental assessment, including a fuel spill risk analysis.
The VAFFC looked at 14 options for fuel delivery and settled on the Richmond pipeline proposal as the best one.
The South Arm is deep enough to allow 1,000-foot-long Panamax fuel tankers to dock there, for one thing. Since VAFFC would own the terminal, it could go to the world market and bring aviation fuel in from anywhere in the world, wherever it is cheapest.
Fuel would be piped off tankers docking at the marine terminal to YVR, with surplus fuel stored in six large tanks holding up to 500,000 barrels of fuel.
The terminal is just upstream from Waterstone Pier condominiums, where homeowners are upset over the prospect of living downstream from the proposed terminal.
Otto Langer, a former Department of Fisheries and Oceans marine biologist, said the VAFFC’s own risk analysis anticipates a spill every one to six years of up to 50 barrels of fuel.
While most of the fuel would be expected to evaporate, even smalls amounts can be deleterious to fish, Langer says in a brief to the EAO.
It’s not just the marine terminal and the risks it poses that worry Richmond residents. Many don’t like the idea of a new pipeline carrying jet fuel cutting through their city, although they already have one – the Trans Mountain pipeline.
The exact alignment of the pipeline has yet to be determined. The plan originally places it south to north via Shell or No. 5 roads, then east-west, generally along Bridgeport Road.
But April 28, the VAFFC asked the EAO for a 120-day suspension while it explored Highway 99 as a possible alternative south-north route. That option will need the provincial Ministry of Transportation’s approval.
The Highway 99 alignment, which would avoid residential areas, makes the plan only marginally more acceptable to the City of Richmond.
“Number 1, we’re opposed to it,” said Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie. “Number 2, if it gets rammed down our throats, we would want the highway option rather than Shell Road.”
However, Brodie said the city wants the VAFFC to reconsider twinning or otherwise upgrading the existing Trans Mountain pipeline. Former Richmond city councillor Rob Howard – now Liberal MLA for Richmond Centre – doesn’t believe that’s a realistic option.
If a 15-kilometre pipeline through one city (Richmond) is generating such intense opposition, he suggests a 42-kilometre pipeline upgrade through three (Burnaby, Vancouver and Richmond) would be an even tougher sell.
“Most of that area has densified [over 40 years], and I just don’t know that that’s a viable option,” Howard said.
While the majority of citizens in Richmond may oppose the plan, various business organizations, including the Vancouver Board of Trade and BC Business Council, support it, Pollard said. And, not surprisingly, so do the airlines.
Duncan Dee, executive vice-president and CEO of Air Canada, warns that airport operations in Vancouver could be jeopardized if one of only two refineries in the region – Cherry Point in Washington state and the Chevron Canada refinery at Burrard Inlet – ever shut down, even temporarily.
“As an airline, we are concerned that we have access to only two sources of fuel,” Dee said in a letter to the City of Richmond November 25, 2010.
“If one of the refineries shut down for a period of days, airport operations would be jeopardized. Air Canada and the other airlines who jointly own VAFFC require a reliable and competitively priced fuel supply.”
Of all the alternatives to the proposal, upgrading the Trans Mountain pipeline appears to have the most support. That would require VAFFC to work with Kinder Morgan on an upgrade, something the company said it’s willing to consider.
“Kinder Morgan Canada is willing to explore options to expand the pipeline system to serve the airport’s needs,” Lexa Hobenshield, Kinder Morgan’s manager of external relations, said in a written response to Business in Vancouver.
“However, expansion requires commercial terms that are acceptable to all parties involved, and a customer that is willing to have those discussions.”
But upgrading the pipeline would not satisfy VAFFC’s desire to control the fuel supply.
“We still have to resolve the supply chain issues at the other end,” Pollard said. “We don’t control any facilities or marine terminals.”
Asked what will happen if the EAO rejects the VAFFC’s application, Gugliotta said it would create uncertainty for the airport authority.
“If there was a disruption, the airport could operate for three days,” Gugliotta said. “With the new tanks [under construction], we’ll be able to operate for a week.
“The ideal situation is you want to have enough fuel to operate for 15 days. If there’s ever any disruption to the supply process and an airport can’t operate, the consequences are just dramatic.”
The EAO is expected to make a decision on the application by the end of this year.