Category Archives: Oil&Gas

New study shows Canadian industrialization in graphic detail

New study shows Canadian industrialization in graphic detail

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Logging and Forests, Oil&Gas, Tar Sands
Share
New study shows Canadian industrialization in graphic detail
A visualization of industrial impacts across Canada as of 2010 (Global Forest Watch)

A national study suggests that Alberta has disturbed more natural landscape than any other province.

The analysis by Global Forest Watch adds that Wild Rose Country also has two of the three areas in Canada where the rate of disturbance is the highest.

“There were at least three major hotspots, two in Alberta,” said report author Peter Lee.

The report (download here) combines government data, satellite imagery and cropland maps to look at human intrusions in the last decade into all major Canadian ecozones. Those disruptions included everything from roads to seismic lines to clearcuts to croplands.

“We took all the available credible data sets that we could find and combined them all,” said Lee. “We ended up with what we believe is the best available map of human footprint across Canada.”

Alberta leads in the amount of land disturbed at about 410,000 square kilometres. Almost two-thirds of the province — 62 per cent — has seen industrial or agricultural intrusion.

Saskatchewan, at 46 per cent, is second among the larger provinces. Quebec comes nearest in area with 347,000 square kilometres.

The Maritime provinces actually have the highest rate of disturbance. The human footprint in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is 94, 85 and 72 per cent respectively of each province’s total area. But those provinces are so relatively small that the actual amount of disturbed land is dwarfed by totals elsewhere.

When Lee compared the current map to one developed about 10 years ago, he found two of three areas where the rate of development was highest were in Alberta as well —​ one was in the oilsands region; the other along the eastern slopes of the Rockies.

The third area is in a heavily logged part of northern Quebec. New intrusion in northeastern British Columbia, where there is extensive energy development, is almost as heavy.

Lee said development in the three top zones is pushing into previously untouched land at the rate of five to 10 kilometres a year.

The report’s calculations include a 500-metre buffer zone, which corresponds to the distance animals such as woodland caribou tend to keep between themselves and development.

Duncan MacDonnell of Alberta Environment said the government has plans to set aside about 20 per cent of the remaining boreal forest, which covers the northern third of the province.

That includes about 20,000 square kilometres in the oilsands region. MacDonnell said Alberta plans to eventually combine old and new protected areas to create the largest connected boreal conservation area in North America.

Those plans haven’t been implemented and all are the subject of controversy with area aboriginals.

MacDonnell said the province is developing land-use plans for the entire province which are intended to balance pressures on the landscape.

Representatives from the federal government were not available for comment.

Lee notes his findings come at a time when Canadian and provincial policies on development are being increasingly scrutinized, whether they involve forestry, energy or agriculture. He said this sort of basic, common-sense data-gathering should be done by Ottawa.

“It’s those sort of general questions that the person in the street asks,” said Lee. “Where are all the disturbances in Canada? Where are the pristine areas?

“This is a simple monitoring analysis that should be done and could very easily be done by the feds … (but) they’re not doing it.”

Share
Harper guts more fish protections-NEB takes over habitat along pipelines

Harper guts more fish protections: NEB takes over habitat along pipelines

Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share

National Energy Board takes over fish protection along pipelines

It’s the latest in a long line of efforts by the Harper Government to dismantle Canada’s environmental laws in order to facilitate energy development. In a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the National Energy Board – quietly released just before Christmas – DFO relinquished much of its oversight of fish habitat in pipeline corridors.

The decision means that Enbridge and Kinder Morgan – which formally filed its own pipeline application on December 16, the same day the NEB memo was made public – will no longer need to obtain permits from DFO to alter habitat for their projects. “Fish and fish habitat along those pipelines is now the responsibility of the Alberta-based, energy friendly National Energy Board,” notes Robin Rowland of Northwest Energy News, who broke the story yesterday.

NEB takes point on fisheries, species at risk

Under the terms of the agreement, the NEB becomes the lead agency in determining issues that relate to the Species at Risk Act or the Fisheries Act and, only involving DFO should they deem it necessary:

[quote]The NEB will assess a project application and determine if mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent impacts to fish or fish habitat. If the project could result in serious harm for fish then the NEB will inform DFO that a Fisheries Act authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b)  is likely to be required. DFO will review and issue an authorization when appropriate, prior to project construction. Authorizations issued by DFO would relate to those watercourses impacted, not the entire project.

This MOU better integrates the Government of Canada’s initiative to streamline application processes by eliminating the requirement for duplicate reviews.[/quote]

Asks Rowland, “Just how much expertise, if any, in fisheries and fish habitat can be found in the Calgary offices of the National Energy Board?”

First Nations consultation impacted

The memo – particularly the following passage – is likely also to provoke legal challenges from First Nations over the dimishing of their constitutional rights to consultation and accommodation:

[quote]When the Crown contemplates conduct that may adversely affect established or potential Aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to the issuance of authorizations under the Fisheries Act, and/or permits under SARA, the NEB application assessment process will be relied upon by DFO to the extent possible, to ensure Aboriginal groups are consulted as required, and where appropriate accommodated[/quote]

The move hardly comes as a surprise, given the gutting of the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, and many other longstanding Canadian environmental laws in order to push forward the Conservative energy policy. Yet it is sure to provoke a serious backlash amongst British Columbians and First Nations as the ramifications of this quiet deal sink in.

Share
Governor unveils new plan for $65 Billion Alaska gas pipeline

Governor unveils new plan for $65 Billion Alaska gas pipeline

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
Governor unveils new plan for $65 Billion Alaska gas pipeline
Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, circa 1976

by Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press

JUNEAU, Alaska – Gov. Sean Parnell on Friday announced a new way forward on a long-hoped-for natural gas pipeline that includes scrapping the terms of a 2007 law he says no longer works well for the situation.

In a major policy speech in Anchorage, Parnell said the state and Canadian pipeline builder TransCanada Corp. have agreed to terminate their involvement under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. He made clear, however, that TransCanada would remain a partner in the project, just under new terms.

[quote]The proposed line would run from the North Slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion.[/quote]

Parnell said he would seek legislative approval for the state to participate in a new commercial agreement with TransCanada; the North Slope’s three major players, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and ConocoPhillips; and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. He said he expected a set of terms to be signed soon.

Natural Resources Commissioner Joe Balash called the commercial agreement a “broad roadmap” and statement of intent. He said in an interview that legislation would have to be passed to accomplish what is being contemplated and the state plans to enter a separate, more narrowly defined agreement with TransCanada for pipeline services.

The terms of the inducement act will remain in force for the time being, though the parties envision transitioning into the new arrangement once enabling legislation is passed, Balash said.

“Nobody’s letting go of the rope just yet,” he said, but he noted the state and TransCanada had “pre-agreed” to make the transition. A TransCanada spokesman said the company would continue working to advance the pipeline project.

State to be a partner in pipeline, gas exports

Parnell said he would propose legislation that would allow the state to enter into shipping agreements to move and sell gas. The legislation also would ask lawmakers to switch to a flat gross tax and allow for certain leases to pay production taxes with gas. Parnell previously said he would not propose gas tax legislation unless he saw demonstrable progress on the line.

“The bottom line: We will have an investment-quality project when that’s complete,” he said Friday.

Balash said he thinks the Legislature can act on the proposal this session — which is what the commercial agreement contemplates — “in large part because what we’re asking the Legislature to do essentially is set some of the specific terms that would then go into a contract to be negotiated over the next 18 months or so and would then come back to the Legislature for approval.”

“It’s not like we’re asking the Legislature to make the big decisions this year, but we’re asking them to make some pretty important ones,” Balash said. The next set of agreements would set out specific equity terms, he said.

Parnell said having the state participate in a line is a way to protect the state’s interests, and as a partner, Alaskans stand to gain more. He said the structure is attractive to North Slope oil and gas companies, too, because it could reduce their costs.

The scheduled 90-day legislative session begins Jan. 21.

New line to cost $45-65 Billion, terminate in Alaska, not Canada

Alaskans have long seen as a gas line as a way to create jobs, provide energy for residents and shore up revenues as oil production declines. There have been fits and starts over the years, but Parnell and other state officials believe the current project has momentum.

While Parnell in the past argued for continuing to pursue a project under terms of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, even as some state legislators saw it as a dead end, he has indicated he no longer views it as the best way forward. He said the law was designed for one project developer, but the project initially envisioned — a pipeline that would run from the prodigious North Slope into Canada to serve North America markets — has changed, and so have the players.

In 2008, TransCanada won an exclusive license to pursue the project, with a promise of up to $500 million in reimbursable costs from the state. Exxon Mobil later joined TransCanada’s effort. ConocoPhillips and BP, which opposed provisions of the law, pursued a rival line of their own before abandoning it in 2011.

The companies, at Parnell’s urging, united in the last few years behind a liquefied natural gas project capable of overseas exports. The proposed line would run from the slope to south-central Alaska and could cost from $45 billion to more than $65 billion, according to company estimates. The companies have repeatedly said they need competitive, predictable and durable terms on oil and gas taxes and royalties but also have indicated they are open to having the state take an equity position.

Natalie Lowman, a spokeswoman for ConocoPhillips Alaska, said the company sees the new direction laid out by Parnell as a positive step forward and looks forward to working with the state and the Legislature.

Share
Lubicon Lake Nation appeals injunction over oil fracking blockade

Lubicon Lake Nation appeals injunction over oil fracking blockade

Energy and Resources, First Nations, Fracking, Oil&Gas
Share
Lubicon Lake Nation appeals injunction over oil fracking blockade
Photo: Lubicon Lake Nation

CALGARY – A First Nation is appealing a court injunction against a blockade of an energy company’s drilling site in northern Alberta.

The Lubicon Lake Nation says the injunction granted to PennWest Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT) last month gives the company unfettered access to an oil hydraulic fracturing site in the heart of its traditional territory.

In its appeal, the Lubicon Lake Nation says it will raise constitutional issues about aboriginal rights that it says the court failed to consider when making its order.

The First Nation says PennWest wanted a week-long injunction but the judge gave a six-month injunction on Dec. 16.

The protesters had been blocking an access road to PennWest’s drilling site by Haig Lake since late November.

The group said the protest was peaceful and was intended to stop the company from fracking on traditional Lubicon territory.

The protesting band and the federal and provincial governments have been trying to work out a land claim deal since the 1980s. The province continued to issue energy leases in the area, including around Haig Lake.

The Lubicon Lake Nation claims more than $14 billion worth of oil and gas has been extracted from its territory without their consent.

“This is our land until the Government of Canada enters into an agreement with us,” Chief Bernard Ominayak said in a news release Monday.

[quote]PennWest, the province of Alberta, and the courts cannot simply choose to ignore our inherent rights and assist industry at the expense of our land and our people.[/quote]

Read more about the onslaught of legal action Alberta faces from First Nations over various resource issues.

Share
Alberta, BC plan for oil-by-rail in case pipelines fail

Alberta, BC plan for oil-by-rail in case pipelines fail

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
Alberta, BC plan for oil-by-rail in case pipelines fail
A 2012 CN derailment in Alberta

by Steven Chua, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – A task force report has been handed in to the British Columbia and Alberta governments that examines the idea of transporting oilsands’ crude via rail if proposed pipelines don’t get the green light, government documents show.

It’s an idea the environmental group ForestEthics calls “underhanded.”

It’s a “backdoor way for industry to bring tankers to the coast without the same sort of public oversight or public process that we’ve had around the Enbridge pipeline or would have around the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” said Ben West, campaign director for ForestEthics.

Oil-by-rail a back-up for pipelines

A joint provincial working group was announced by premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford in July to develop recommendations related to energy exports and the opening of new export markets for products like bitumen for the two provinces, including pipeline and rail transport.

“Rail can be considered a viable alternative to pipeline movement based on costs of transport,” the terms of reference for the group states.

[quote]If pipelines are not developed, rail will step into the void to deliver bitumen to the West Coast.[/quote]

West said the report raises safety questions, especially in light of two recent high-profile train accidents.

Recent derailments, explosions spark fears

Oil transport by rail has become a contentious topic after a train containing crude oil derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Que., in July, killing 47 people, and another train exploded without injuries last month in North Dakota.

“Myself and other people were pretty freaked out about what happened there,” West said of the two fiery blasts.

The provincial working group was mandated to submit a report to both leaders by the end of December.

An Alberta government official did not respond to a question about the completion or release of the report, while an official in Clark’s office said the report is complete but that no date has been set for a public release.

CN Rail declined comment.

The task force is led by Steve Carr, deputy minister of natural gas development in B.C. and Grant Sprague, deputy minister of energy in Alberta.

No one from either ministry could be reached for comment.

Share
Alberta faces onslaught of oilsands lawsuits

Alberta faces onslaught of oilsands lawsuits

Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Tar Sands
Share
Alberta facing legal onslaught over oilsands
ACFN Chief Allan Adam outside an Alberta court in 2012, challenging Shell’s Jackpine development

by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

EDMONTON – Simmering disputes over the oilsands between Alberta aboriginals and the provincial and federal governments will break into the open in 2014 as virtually every one of the many recent changes in oversight of the controversial industry comes under legal and political attack.

“All litigation, all the time, is what I see on the horizon,” said Larry Innes, lawyer for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Over the last 18 months, Ottawa and Edmonton have rewritten the book on resource development. Everything from how aboriginals will be consulted to land use planning to oilsands monitoring to the basic ground rules for environmental assessment has been changed.

Governments say the new regime is more efficient, predictable and transparent. Aboriginals say it violates their rights and ignores their recommendations.

So as aboriginal groups in British Columbia prepare for an expected attack on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, Alberta aboriginals are pushing back with a long list of lawsuits either now or soon to be before the courts.

Alberta First Nations line up with oilsands lawsuits

The Fort McKay First Nation is appealing an approval of Brion Energy’s plans for a 50,000-barrel-a-day operation northwest of Fort McMurray. It says the province has violated the constitution by setting up an energy regulator expressly forbidden to hear arguments based on aboriginal rights.

The Mikisew Cree and Frog Lake First Nation are before the courts arguing that Ottawa’s recent amendments to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Acts run afoul of their rights.

The Beaver Lake Cree is fighting both levels of government in a case that seeks to force them to consider the cumulative effects of oilsands development when issuing new permits.

A total of 17 First Nations from around Alberta are trying to get legislation on access to public lands tossed out in a long-running case expected to go to trial this year.

The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation plans to file a lawsuit in January attacking Ottawa’s new environmental assessment legislation after the approval of a major oilsands expansion that it says will violate both treaty rights and federal laws.

At the same time, the Alberta government’s other major oilsands initiatives are running into heavy weather.

All six First Nations in the oilsands area have requested a statutory review of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, the government’s attempt to balance development and environmental values. Those same bands, along with many others, have also rejected the province’s plans to centralize and control aboriginal consultation.

One major band — the Fort McKay First Nation — has pulled out of the Joint Oilsands Monitoring program, the showpiece federal-provincial effort to monitor environmental change in the oilsands.

Even the Lubicon Cree First Nation are back in court, with another try in a decades-long attempt to win a reserve and get some royalties on energy extracted from what they say is their land.

Alberta Environment and Minister Robin Campbell declined to be interviewed.

“We work with aboriginal leaders and communities in a variety of areas and will continue to do so,” said spokesman Kevin Zahara. “We will not speculate on possible legal challenges.”

Treaties don’t guarantee development

A big part of the problem is simply the scale of development, said Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary.

“In the oilsands area, it’s really the intensity of the development,” he said.

[quote]The treaties give the province the power to take up lands and the argument is there must be a limit to that. That can’t be an entitlement to take away all lands (to) which First Nations have historically exercised hunting rights.[/quote]

Those concerns grow as governments narrow who has the right to air concerns and what concerns they’re allowed to raise.

“I think that’s a fair characterization,” said Bankes, who said that process has been going on for years. “(There’s a) very narrow and stringent standing test and I think that does mean there’s a level of frustration out there.”

Not only are bands barred from raising aboriginal rights at regulatory hearings, two have recently been denied the right to even speak at ones concerning oilsands projects on their doorstep. Lawsuits happen when discussion fails, said Joe Jobin, chief operating officer of the Fort McKay First Nation.

“First Nations have always tried to work with the government on developing a policy that works for First Nations and for industry,” he said.

[quote]The frustration is that the input is not being meaningfully considered. It’s almost like this attitude, ‘Well, if you don’t like it, take us to court.'[/quote]

The result is higher costs for everyone and uncertainty for industry, said Bankes. He added Alberta is increasingly resembling lawsuit-happy British Columbia, which has few treaties.

“What we’re seeing now is the same sort of litigation that we’ve been seeing in B.C. for a long time. This is now being transplanted to the treaty context of Alberta.

“Government has said to itself, ‘Things are clearer here, there’s more security precisely because we’ve got treaties.’ I guess what the litigation that we’re seeing now is calling into question is, is that really true?”

Innes said Alberta bands that have traditionally preferred to negotiate are increasingly through with talking.

“First Nations who have been investing in the process find the process is stacked against them,” he said.

“Things are coming to a head.”

Share
Lac-Mégantic voted top Canadian news story of 2013

Lac-Megantic voted top Canadian news story of 2013

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas
Share

Lac-Mégantic voted top Canadian news story of 2013

MONTREAL – Editors and news directors across the country have selected the Lac-Megantic train derailment as Canada’s News Story of the Year, garnering 30.6% of the vote – ahead of Senate expenses and the Rob Ford scandal, which drew 24.2% and 22.6%, respectively.

The following are select quotes from news editors across the country on the Lac-Megantic story:

LAC-MEGANTIC, Que. – Quotes from news directors and editors who chose the Lac-Megantic train derailment as Canada’s News Story of the Year for 2013 in the annual poll of news organizations by The Canadian Press:

[quote]When a train roars into a small community’s downtown and the subsequent derailment kills nearly 50 people and destroys more than 30 buildings, it’s a tragedy of massive proportion.[/quote]

— Perry Bergson, managing editor, Prince Albert Daily Herald

— — —

[quote]A major catastrophe that should never have happened and which has propelled discussions of rail safety and the safety of transporting our top export — crude.[/quote]

— Ian Shelton, deputy editor, iPolitics

— — —

[quote]Considering the scale of loss and the many ‘what ifs’ and ‘if onlys’ that made it that much more compelling, the Lac-Megantic tragedy seems the clear choice for news story of the year.[/quote]

— Leo Pare, news and new media editor, Red Deer Advocate

— — —

[quote]The impact of the freight train cars exploding in Lac-Megantic was a tragic and dramatic story all on its own — the trusted railway destroying the core of the small tourist town. But it’s the breadth of the fallout from the disaster that makes it the news story of the year, with questions raised about railway safety; about the transport of dangerous goods; about how uninformed municipalities are about what passes through their backyards; about U.S. vs Canadian regulations. And then there’s the ongoing human story of dignity, heartbreak, trauma, guilt, and efforts to rebuild.[/quote]

— Catherine Wallace, managing editor, Montreal Gazette

— — —

[quote]There are so many ramifications which could could come out of this pipeline versus rail transit of oil rail safety issues and oversight by governments…plus the impact on a small town…which will need millions to rebuild.[/quote]

— George Gall, news sports director, Country 105 CKQM; Energy 99-7 CKPT; 91-9 BOB; CKLY

— — —

[quote]The Lac-Megantic disaster was one which caused everyone who lives in a small Canadian city or town that has freight trains rumbling through it stop and ponder — ‘that could happen to me some day.’ From the shear enormity of the death, destruction and upheaval for a small community’s way of life, to the shaken trust we all have in our rail safety laws, Lac-Megantic will likely become a red-letter day in the world of railway safety going forward.[/quote]

— Murray Guy, assistant managing editor for Times & Transcript (Moncton), Brunswick News

— — —

[quote]Events like the train disaster are not supposed to happen in Canada, but when they do they raise serious questions about the safety of our rail system and just what chemicals are being transported through hundreds of unknowing communities from one end of the country to the other.[/quote]

— Darrell Cole, managing editor, Amherst News (Amherst, N.S.)

— — —

[quote]For residents of many small towns in Canada where the railway often runs through the middle of the community, the story was chilling; a runaway train runs off the rails and explodes, causing destruction to everything in its path. It hits close to home, what happened in Lac-Megantic could have happened in their town. It’s a stark reminder of the hazardous cargo that is travelling through these small communities, with the public largely unaware of the potential danger. It should be a wake-up call for all of us.[/quote]

— Ken Kingston, news director, CJFX-FM (989XFM)

— — —

[quote]Disasters don’t get any bigger. A human tragedy with a lot of political and policy implications going forward.[/quote]

— Adrienne Tanner, deputy editor, Vancouver Sun

— — —

[quote]No story tore at my heart, or had such clear public policy ramifications, as the tragedy in Lac-Megantic.[/quote]

— Chris Hannay, online politics editor, Globe and Mail

— — —

[quote]A tragic rail disaster that has called in to question so many things. Government oversight of transportation, labour cutbacks versus safety concerns, environmental issues concerning the Bakken oil fields…even Quebec versus the rest of Canada in terms of disaster relief and compassion.[/quote]

— David Hughes, executive producer, CTV National News

— — —

[quote]Made everyone feel vulnerable. Could have happened anywhere. So many helpless were killed suddenly, tragically.

[/quote]

— Frank De Palma, newsroom director, The Chronicle-Herald, Halifax

— — —

[quote]A devastated downtown, 47 victims, a terrible fire, an unparalleled environmental disaster for Quebec and the discovery of laxness in the monitoring of train transport.[/quote]

— Maurice Cloutier, editor-in-chief, Sherbrooke La Tribune

— — —

[quote]With its sheer magnitude, the Lac-Megantic explosion stood out in 2013 for many reasons. This human, social, environmental and government drama captured the imagination of Quebecers and Canadians alike while making news pretty much all over the world.[/quote]

— Pierre Champoux, news director, Radio-Canada.ca

— — —

[quote]This tragedy stunned the entire country. It led to people becoming aware of the risks involved in transporting oil by train and of the poor condition of the rail network. These topics resonated in Ottawa.[/quote]

— Eric Aussant, managing editor, Metro newspaper in Montreal

— — —

[quote]Hugely spectacular, but especially in terms of safety for places where trains carry dangerou materials. The federal government reviewed its regulations.[/quote]

— Denis Bouchard, managing editor and deputy publisher, Chicoutimi Le Quotidien

— — —

[quote]The Lac-Megantic tragedy is an unprecedented environmental, economic and humanitarian disaster.[/quote]

— Francois Beaudoin, managing editor, Granby Voix de l’Est

Share
Canadians get lots of coal, oil and gas in holiday trash dump

Canadians get lots of coal, oil and gas in holiday trash dump

Canada, Coal, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics
Share

Canadians get lots of coal, oil and gas in holiday trash dump

The Friday night trash dump is a well-known trick of governments looking to dispense with bad news as quietly as possible. Controversial announcements are made in the last hour of the last day of the week to avoid public scrutiny.

This year, the holiday season has served the same role, only on a much grander scale, with multiple environmental hearings and major resource project announcements occurring at the time of year citizens and media are least able to engage with them. The list is truly breathtaking – here are just a few of the presents we got in our stocking this December:

  • Port Metro Vancouver conducted its public comment period over the highly controversial, proposed Surrey Fraser Docks coal handling facility. The Port received some 3,500 submissions – all but 6 of them speaking against the plan – yet, it shows no real signs of listening to the public and experts, choosing instead to downplay the overwhelmingly negative response in its post-review comments last week.

The litany of such announcements and hearings makes it clear this is more than just a coincidence. It demonstrates a blatant disregard for the public interest in these hugely formative decisions for the future of our health, environment and economy.

If this bunch of Scrooges really believed in the value of their projects, they wouldn’t feel the need to hide them between office parties, holiday baking and eggnog with the family.

Share
No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge

No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge
Former Enbridge CEO and Northern Gateway champion Patrick Daniel

Updated 3:20 PM PST

CALGARY – A review panel has recommended that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast go ahead.

But the panel has attached 209 conditions, which cover everything from protecting caribou habitat to research into how the oil would behave in a marine environment.

The controversial proposal has pitted Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB) against environmental groups and First Nations, who have raised concerns about potential oilspills on land or in the water off the B.C. coast. The panel says any environmental effects can be mitigated effectively if its conditions are met.

Supporters say the pipeline is critical if Alberta is to get its oil to emerging markets in Asia. The panel’s report says that opening up that market is important to the Canadian economy and the benefits far outweigh the risks.

The panel did suggest that Enbridge must be able to prove it would have the financial resources immediately available to respond to any cleanup of a spill or other damage.

“Northern Gateway must file with the (National Energy Board) for approval, at least nine months prior to applying for leave to open, a financial assurances plan … capable of covering the costs of liabilities for … cleanup, remediation and other damages caused by the project during the operation phase,” the report says.

The final decision rests with the federal government, which has roughly six months to respond.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government will thoroughly review the report and consult with aboriginal groups before making that decision.

The cost of the pipeline appears to have sky-rocketed. It had been pegged at more than $6 billion, but the report released Thursday used a $7.9-billion price tag, which includes pre-development costs and marine navigation enhancements.

Enbridge said in a news release that it will work toward meeting the conditions.

“We will closely analyze the panel’s conditions — many of which reflect commitments we put forward at the hearings — and continue to listen and be open to change,” project leader Janet Holder said.

B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak said the province wants to assess whether the panel’s report addresses five conditions B.C. has set out before it will support the pipeline.

[quote]We are not yet in a position to consider support for any heavy oil pipeline in B.C.[/quote]

The Alberta government welcomed the panel’s recommendation that the pipeline go ahead. Environment Minister Diana McQueen called it a “critical milestone toward getting Alberta’s oil to new international markets.”

Reaction from opponents was swift.

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation said political and corporate agendas won out over the interests of the public. And David Miller of the World Widlife Fund questioned how the panel could acknowledge the environmental risks, but still support the pipeline.

“I think the case is very clear that there is a real risk to the environment, the local economy and the social well-being of people who live in this region,” Miller said. “The (joint review panel) agrees with that yet it’s full steam ahead.

“I think that decision is very unwise.”

Miller suggested it’s still important for people to voice their concerns.

[quote]It’s in the political arena now and it’s up to people to continue to speak up. Our First Nations friends have legal rights as well, and I’m quite certain that coastal First Nations and others will be looking to ensure that their legal rights are respected.[/quote]

If approved by the federal government, the pipeline will probably be just the first to put billions of dollars into the coffers of Alberta, Ottawa and other provincial governments — not to mention the bank accounts of Enbridge and the international companies with a stake in the project.

The pipeline faced an uphill battle in B.C. where the environmental movement was bolstered by a decades-old “War in the Woods” against old-growth logging.

Enbridge and the oilpatch drastically underestimated the power of Green Corp., the older, wiser and better-funded modern version of the tie-dyed denizens who were arrested trying to save trees in the 1990s. Flush with cash from green philanthropists largely from south of the border, groups such as Forest Ethics Advocacy, the Dogwood Initiative and Rising Tides mounted a relentless campaign in Canada and abroad.

Growing concern over climate change has been a factor.

Northern Gateway and other pipeline projects — Keystone XL to the U.S. Gulf Coast, the reversal of Enbridge’s Line 9 through Ontario and Quebec, and Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain line to Metro Vancouver — mean production in the Alberta oilsands could triple by 2035, also increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

But protests in B.C. have been more of the grassroots, not-in-my-ocean variety.

There are also concerns that the heavy, molasses-like diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands is more corrosive and difficult to clean up in the event of a spill.

But perhaps the toughest hurdle for the project has been the simmering tension between B.C. First Nations and the federal government.

Unlike the rest of Canada, most First Nations in the westernmost province never signed treaties with the Crown. Decades of treaty negotiations have largely gone nowhere and aboriginal rights have been left to the courts.

Before Enbridge ever filed its application for the pipeline, Ottawa made the decision to let the joint review by the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency stand for its duty to consult with First Nations.

“The federal government would not support a process for aboriginal consultation separate from the (joint review panel) process…,” said an internal Aboriginal Consultation Plan obtained by The Canadian Press using an Access to Information request.

That didn’t go well.

“We’re treated as a stakeholder in this process,” Carrie Henchitt, a lawyer for the Heiltsuk Nation, said as the panel hearings became increasingly adversarial earlier this year. “We are not just stakeholders. We have specific rights very different from other interest groups.”

Many aboriginal groups opposed to the pipeline refused to take part in the review. Several indicated they were preparing court action should the project get the nod.

The political backlash was not limited to First Nations.

The Conservative government became defensive over oilpatch expansion and Oliver branded opponents as “foreign special interests groups” that threatened to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

The government changed the rules to give cabinet the final say on approval and rewrote rules around waterways and environmental protections.

It wasn’t until after the project was mired in controversy that Oliver announced rules that began to address some of the concerns around tanker and pipeline safety, and over liability in the event of a spill.

— With files from Dene Moore in Vancouver

Share
NEB-to-announce-Enbridge-recommendations-today

NEB to announce Enbridge recommendations today

Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
NEB-to-announce-Enbridge-recommendations-today
Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

VANCOUVER – Following months of hearings, years of debate and dozens of protests, the federal panel reviewing the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline will release its report later today.

Much hangs in the balance.

The $6-billion pipeline that would connect the Alberta oilsands to tankers on British Columbia’s coast bound for the emerging markets of Asia has become the beachhead in the battle between economics and the environment.

If approved, the pipeline will likely be just the first to put billions of dollars into the coffers of Alberta, Ottawa and other provincial governments, not to mention the bank accounts of the proponent, Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB), and the international companies with a stake in the project.

“I would guess that in the early planning stages… they thought these were slam-dunks,” Marc Lee, an analyst at the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says of Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and other pipeline projects now facing staunch opposition.

So, what went wrong? What didn’t.

The pipeline was always going to face an uphill battle west of the Rockies, in the province where the environmental movement was bolstered by the decades-old “War in the Woods” against old-growth logging.

Enbridge and the oil patch drastically underestimated the power of Green Corp., the older, wiser and better-funded modern version of the tye-dyed denizens who were arrested trying to save trees in the 1990s. Flush with cash from green philanthropists largely from south of the border, groups like Forest Ethics Advocacy, the Dogwood Initiative and Rising Tides have mounted a relentless campaign in Canada and abroad.

“Now, we could potentially see another ‘war in the woods’ over this pipeline,” Lee says.

Growing concern over climate change has been a factor.

Northern Gateway and other pipeline projects — the Keystone XL to the U.S. Gulf Coast, the reversal of Enbridge’s Line 9 through Ontario and Quebec, and Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain line to Metro Vancouver — mean production in the Alberta oilsands could as much as triple by 2035 and the greenhouse gases it emits along with it.

But while the global concern over greenhouse gas emissions may have spurred funding, protests in B.C. have been more of the grassroots, not-in-my-ocean variety.

There are also concerns that the heavy, molasses-like diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands is more corrosive and difficult to clean up in the event of a spill.

But perhaps the toughest hurdle for the project has been the simmering tension between B.C. First Nations and the federal government.

Unlike the rest of Canada, most First Nations in the westernmost province never signed treaties with the Crown. Decades of treaty negotiations have largely gone nowhere and aboriginal rights have been left to the courts.

Before Enbridge ever filed its application for the pipeline, Ottawa made the fateful decision to let the joint review of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency stand for its duty to consult with First Nations.

“The federal government would not support a process for aboriginal consultation separate from the (joint review panel) process…,” said an internal Aboriginal Consultation Plan obtained by The Canadian Press using an Access to Information request.

That didn’t go well.

“We’re treated as a stakeholder in this process,” Carrie Humchitt, a lawyer for the Heiltsuk Nation, said as the panel hearings became increasingly adversarial earlier this year. “We are not just stakeholders. We have specific rights very different from other interest groups.”

Many aboriginal groups opposed to the pipeline refused to take part in the review. Several have indicated they are already preparing court action should the project get the nod.

“Even if the joint review panel says yes, and even if the Harper government says yes, I don’t think this is going to get built any time soon. This will be in courts for a really long time,” Lee says.

The political backlash was not limited to First Nations.

The Conservative government became defensive over oil patch expansion, with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver branding opponents “foreign special interests groups” that threatened to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

The government changed the rules to give cabinet the final say on the approval, and rewrote the rules around waterways and environmental protections.

It wasn’t until after the project was mired in controversy that Oliver announced rules that began to address some of the concerns around tanker and pipeline safety, and liability in the event of a spill.

Greg D’Avignon, president of the B.C. Business Council, says the outcome of the Northern Gateway project will shape B.C.’s future. Either the province will have a multibillion-dollar project or a reputation as the “no” province.

“The reality is whether you support this particular project or not, that culture is now building a bit of a reputation and we’re going to suffer the consequences in terms of our quality of life, our ability to fund education and health care if we don’t start to figure out how to get things done,” he says.

The demand for oil has not diminished, but it Canada can’t meet those needs the market will go elsewhere, he says.

There is disconnect in the public over the oil industry, D’Avignon says.

“Vancouver Island would shut down in three days if it weren’t for the oil barge that goes out of Burrard Inlet a couple times a week,” he says.

“So, we like the benefits of oil but we don’t want the ability to actually extract it, move it, sell it into the marketplace and create jobs from it.

“And we need to reconcile that, because even if we stopped using oil today, it would be 30 to 40 years before there would be alternative energy sources to pick up that demand in the market place.”

Despite the hurdles, the proponent remains optimistic.

Northern Gateway spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht says years of hard work went into the application, and the company believe it can build the safest pipeline in the world.

“It’s an important step for us, but it’s been a very thorough process by the joint review panel and we’re looking forward to the announcement.”

Share