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:
BC Hydro scheduled the public hearings for the $10 Billion Site C Dam over the holidays, and only in northern BC, deliberately limiting participation from the general public – even though they will pay dearly for the project if it proceeds. Making matters worse, Site C is not for the public – rather it is to help power the enormously energy-intensive, proposed LNG industry in BC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Kinder Morgan Canada CEO Ian Anderson talks pipelines at the Vancouver Board of Trade in 2013
It’s official. Just days before the National Energy Board is expected to announce its findings on the controversial, proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, US pipeline giant Kinder Morgan has filed its application to build a massive new oil pipeline to its tanker terminal in Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet.
The eight-volume submission – covering everything from project design to aboriginal relations, environmental compliance and risk management – will take some time to chew through. For starters, though, the proposal would add a new pipeline carrying 590,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen and synthetic crude from the Alberta Tar Sands to the company’s Burnaby terminal.
It will inevitably be presented as a logical alternative to Enbridge, as merely a “twinning” of the 50-year-old TransMountain pipeline – but it is much more than that.
Before the Texas-based company, helmed by former Enron executive Richard Kinder, bought the old TransMountain line in 2005, its function was mainly to supply local refineries with crude and bitumen products for the region’s energy needs. At that time, a small bit of surplus oil was loaded onto tankers – on the order of 15 per year – and shipped to other local refineries like the one in Cherry Point, Washington.
From 15 to 400 tankers a year
Since then, Kinder Morgan has increased the old line’s capacity from 200,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil products per day – without any environmental assessment. It has also moved aggressively to ramp up exports – meaning on the order of 5 times as many tankers leaving Vancouver Harbour every year, as the lone remaining local refiner, Chevron, has struggled to get its hands on oil from the pipeline.
But with this “twinning” project – which is really a new pipeline with 590,000 barrels a day of capacity, scalable beyond that – Kinder Morgan would go full hog, transforming Vancouver into a major international oil export hub. Those 15 tankers would explode to upwards of 400 a year, considerably escallating the risk of an diluted bitumen spill.
Kinder Morgan and its Harper Government backers will present the project as a breath of fresh air compared with the intractable dispute with First Nations over the Enbridge project. That too is inaccurate, as the three major Vancouver-area nations – the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam – have all signed onto the “Save the Fraser Declaration” against oil pipelines and tankers on the coast, making it clear that they’re no more amenable to this project than to Northern Gateway.
Pre-Christmas filing no accident
In filing the application the week before Christmas, Kinder Morgan demonstrates that it has every intention of sailing under the radar with its project. The timing of the announcement is no coincidence. But expect this issue to stoke considerable opposition across one of Canada’s largest metro regions.
Some things to watch for in the New Year:
With the Enbridge announcement out of the way, to what extent will First Nations and environmental groups turn their attention to the Kinder Morgan file? The significant infrastructure, mailing lists, social media networks, volunteers, and alliances between different groups already in place from the Enbridge battle could easily be redeployed towards this issue.
The growing divide between the Lower Mainland’s progressive mayors and councils – i.e. Gregor Robertson and Burnaby’s Derek Corrigan – and provincial and federal governments intent on pushing this project through. The popular Robertson is the ace up Vancouver’s sleeve in opposing Kinder Morgan, as he continues to show real leadership on the subject.
Where the NDP goes with its opposition to the project. After Adrian Dix fumbled the party’s announcement on Kinder Morgan in the May election, the NDP is likely to be gun shy on the topic. It shouldn’t. That’s what oppositions are for. And I predict this will be a popular position if they handle it right, which would include giving the lead to local MLAs David Eby and George Heyman, both of whom leveraged the issue successfully in their urban ridings. West End-based Environment Critic Spencer Chandra Herbert should really step up on the file too.
How the Harper Government attempts to further restrict public participation and fast-track the hearings to avoid a repeat of the contentious, drawn-out Enbridge process. It should consider such moves very carefully, as they stand to backfire with the public.
The effect the pipeline debate has on largely Conservative ridings in the Interior and Fraser Valley, whose properties would be straddled by the new pipeline.
Kinder Morgan Canada President and CEO Ian Anderson has been critical of Stephen Harper’s heavy-handed tactics with environmentalists over pipeline concerns. It will be interesting to see how closely the company works with the Conservative Government and whether Harper and co. help or hinder this project.
Finally, the extent to which Vancouver rediscovers its activist roots. This is, after all, the birthplace of Greenpeace and a formidable anti-nuclear movement in decades past. Kinder Morgan could well ignite something this country hasn’t seen for awhile: a massive urban environmental movement.
A group of professional engineers says the risk of a tanker spill is far greater than Enbridge suggests
While the Harper Government reacts to this week’s release of a federal report containing 45 recommendations on improving oil spill response capabilities on BC’s coast, a group of professional engineers is launching a campaign to point out the flaws in Enbridge’s tanker safety plans.
Concerned Professional Engineers (CPE) is a BC-based group boasting “many decades of experience in the design, construction and operation of large projects for the extraction and transportation of natural resources like coal and oil.”
Enbridge downplaying spill risks
The group recently kicked off an online “crowd funding” campaign to help publicize its work, which has involved in-depth analysis of Enbridge’s tanker plans and detailed submissions by its members to the National Energy Board hearings on the project. They say Enbridge’s claim of a 10% oil spill risk from tankers connected to its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is far too low.
“We’ve performed our own, independent review and found Enbridge’s analysis to be lacking,” says CPE.
[quote]This is not good engineering.
[/quote]
Some of the group’s key concerns are as follows:
Enbridge provides no justification or documentation for the ‘scaling factors’ they used to calculate the 10% risk of a major spill.
Enbridge’s liability ends when the tankers leave the terminal. Who’s responsible for a spill along the narrow 300 km waterway from Kitimat to the open ocean?
Enbridge’s risk analysis planned for 220 tankers per year through Douglas Channel. New LNG projects will bring that number to over 600.
Federal scientists, testifying during the JRP hearings, say more research is needed on diluted bitumen before they can be sure a cleanup is even possible.
[quote]The proposed route to the open ocean is nearly 300 km (186 miles) long through constrained channels, some of which are less than 1400 m (4600 ft) wide. This may seem large until you realize that the proposed ships are more than 300 m (1,000 ft) in length and can take several kilometers to slow down or stop. Furthermore, the route is on the northern BC coast, a place famous for its challenging weather, winds, waves, and heavy fog.[/quote]
Getting the word out
The group, whose members were official interveners in the National Energy Board’s Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, is seeking to raise $20,000 to produce and distribute educational media that goes into detail about the real risks posed by Enbridge’s plan. It is careful to point out that it is not opposed to development and trade, rather to unsafe practices:
[quote]We are not opposed to the development and export of natural resources, but we feel very strongly that these projects must be done in a safe and responsible manner, with a full accounting of the risks and visibility to the public.[/quote]
First Nations still unconvinced by safety measures
Proposed tanker routes for Enbridge project
First Nations leaders who attended a press conference held Tuesday in Vancouver by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt were also disappointed with the government’s reaction to the new federal report on tanker safety measures, compiled by a panel of three experts appointed by the government.
In particular, Coastal First Nations President Art Sterritt told me after the conference, “There were no new technological advancements in spill clean-up and no commitment from the government to follow the report’s recommendation of removing an oil spill liability cap for operators.”
As it stands, oil spill liability along the tanker route is capped at $161 million – something the federal report recommends changing – but Oliver and Raitt have shown no indication of acting on that point.
Federal departments question tanker safety
The report follows the revelation that a number of federal departments – including Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada – concurred in a 2010 meeting that “Enbridge had not submitted enough information on the pipeline route,” according to a 2012 Postmedia story drawing on Access to Information documents.
More risks coming down the pipeline
It isn’t just oil tankers that are stirring up concerns with Enbridge’s proposal. Independent economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan has also flagged the lack of safety with Enbridge’s proposed pipeline across northern BC, noting the province lags far behind other jurisdictions in terms of funding for oil spill preparedness – despite claims of “world-leading” safety. In a recent Tyee op-ed, Allan said neither Enbridge nor the province have made any real progress on meeting Premier Christy Clark’s pipeline safety condition – one of 5 for endorsing Northern Gateway.
Allan raised the increased risk of moving diluted bitumen by pipeline – a core concern for CPE with tankers in the marine environment – which the BC Liberal Government seized upon during its own submission to the Joint Review Panel, but seems to have subsequently forgotten:
[quote]The province also raised unique challenges posed by diluted bitumen when it sinks in fresh water. Enbridge consistently denied this at the hearings, despite its own spill experience with the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Enbridge did not include the results of the Kalamazoo spill in its statistics or analysis of spill risk. Enbridge aggressively resisted filing as evidence the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on how the company handled the spill at the hearings.[/quote]
WASHINGTON – A former Harper government appointee used a keynote speech at a Washington event Monday to trample Canadian authorities’ message on oil pipelines while describing the country as an environmental “rogue state.”
Mark Jaccard became one of the first people nominated by the Conservatives to the environmental file when he was named in 2006 to the federal government’s now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
Seven years later, the environmental economist delivered a lengthy rebuke of Canada’s climate-change performance at Monday’s event while the Obama administration grapples with whether to approve the Alberta-U.S. pipeline.
Jaccard, an adviser to different governments and a professor at B.C.’s Simon Fraser University, said he doesn’t want the oilsands shut down — he just doesn’t want them to grow. Said Jaccard:
[quote]On climate, Canada is a rogue state. It’s accelerating the global tragedy … The U.S. government should reject Keystone XL and explain to the Canadian government that it hopes to join with Canada (on a global climate plan).[/quote]
Jaccard was the headline speaker at a summit tied to a well-connected Democratic donor, the so-called “green billionaire” Tom Steyer, and attended by a number of U.S. media outlets.
Jaccard has become an increasingly bitter critic of the federal government. He was even arrested last year after joining a blockade on a train carrying U.S. coal from B.C.
His disenchantment with the Conservative government reached a boil after the 2011 election, Jaccard said in an interview after his speech.
He said he tried to work with the government — not only at the Round Table, but as an adviser to then-environment minister Rona Ambrose. But after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, the rhetoric hardened, the Round Table vanished and it became clear they had no interest in tackling climate change, Jaccard said.
“In 2011, the gloves came off.”
In his career as an author, academic, and adviser to different governments since the Mulroney era, Jaccard also criticized the Liberals for a climate approach he still derides as a “labels-on-fridges-and-Rick-Mercer-ads” strategy to encourage behaviour changes.
More drastic policies are in order, he told his audience: greenhouse-gas emissions need to drop 50 to 75 per cent by 2050 to limit temperature growth to a 2C target — an impossible task with a growing oilpatch, Jaccard said.
The event, and the choice of location, were designed to arm-twist the Obama administration as it faces its Keystone dilemma.
It was held in Georgetown, where President Barack Obama delivered a speech in June saying Keystone would not be approved if it significantly increases greenhouse-gas emissions.
The title of the event was, “Can Keystone Pass The President’s Climate Test?” One speaker after another suggested that, no, Keystone cannot be approved without a significant increase in carbon pollution as a result.
In the hallways, the many Obama supporters speculated about when the long-awaited decision might come down. And some suggested they’ve become increasingly hopeful the project will be blocked, given Obama’s choice of words.
Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm even allowed herself to daydream about what an eventual presidential rejection speech might sound like. A decision is expected in early 2014.
“I think he could deliver a speech that could give him a legacy he would be proud of,” Granholm, the event moderator, said from the stage.
Earlier, Steyer described Keystone as a logical investment for the oil industry that would drive up the value of Canadian oil and ramp up development — which is precisely why he believes it shouldn’t be allowed to proceed.
“(Keystone) is a literal and a figurative line in the sands,” Steyer said. “Keystone is the economic key to unlocking the tarsands and, as such, it fails the president’s test.”
The other side of the Keystone debate was not represented at the event. TransCanada boss Russ Girling (TSX:TRP) and Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., both declined to attend.
Stephen Harper is trying hard to convince other nations not to shun Tar Sands bitumen (Adrian Wyld/CP)
by Bruce Cheadle
OTTAWA – The Conservative government is spending $40 million this year to advertise Canada’s natural resource sector — principally oil and gas — at home and abroad.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver revealed the figure Wednesday as his department seeks another $12.9 million to augment an international campaign designed to portray Canada as a stable and environmentally responsible source of energy.
That will bring NRCan’s 2013-14 ad budget to about $40 million — $24 million for advertising abroad and $16.5 million for the domestic market.
“The government has a responsibility to provide Canadians with facts to assist them in making informed decisions,” Oliver, under opposition questioning, told a Commons committee.
[quote]This engagement and outreach campaign will raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources.[/quote]
The entire federal government advertising budget last year was about $65 million, according to preliminary estimates, with $9 million allotted for Natural Resources.
In 2010-11, NRCan spent just $237,000 on advertising, according to the government figures.
Outside the committee room, Oliver justified the spending by linking it directly to winning over American public opinion in order to get approval of TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4-billion project to carry Alberta bitumen to the Gulf Coast has become a lightning rod for environmental activists as it awaits a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama. Said Oliver:
[quote]Let’s understand what is at stake here,” Oliver said. “When we’re looking at Keystone, for example, we’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs.[/quote]
Asked to justify ad spending for one industrial sector that’s swallowing up almost two thirds of last year’s total government ad budget, Oliver was emphatic: “You justify it by what it’s going to achieve and there are billions, tens of billions of dollars, in play.”
Peter Julian, the NDP natural resources critic who teased out the ad spending at the committee, isn’t buying the government rationale.
“I don’t see how the Harper government can justify spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to do something that the private sector could choose to do,” Julian said after the hearing.
The New Democrat said the ads won’t work because the Conservatives, through their policy choices, have “killed the possibility of social licence” — getting public buy-in, essentially — for major resource projects.
He said that by slashing environmental assessments and limiting “meaningful public consultation” on pipeline proposals, the government has sparked a public backlash.
The backlash, Julian asserted, is “worldwide. Canada has a black eye. There’s no doubt.”
He cited the Obama administration, which has openly urged Canada to up its environmental game, and the European Union, which is targeting higher emissions from oilsands production.
Rather than millions on ads, said Julian, “the way the Harper government can start to gain back the social licence is by starting to make better decisions on the environment, on the economy and on the whole process of approving these new projects.”
To that end, the government is making an effort to establish a baseline of research on cutting edge oilsands technology.
Natural Resources has asked a panel of experts to help catalogue and chart a way forward for technologies that can help reduce the environmental footprint of oilsands development.
Oliver has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to turn its gaze on new and emerging technologies for extracting bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.
A 13-member panel will study what’s currently working and has been asked to identify economic and regulatory hurdles that slow the spread of the most promising technologies.
“There’s a lot of rhetoric, there’s a lot of exaggeration,” Oliver said of the study.
[quote]People can come to different conclusions based on the facts, but let’s start all together. We should all start with the facts.[/quote]
The council was created in 2005 with a 10-year, $30-million government grant and is designed to provide peer-reviewed, science-based assessments to help inform public policy.
Canada is not on track to reach its international pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, but the Conservative government has frequently held out hope that technological breakthroughs will alter that trajectory.
A spokeswoman for the academy, a not-for-profit corporation, says expert panels typically take between 18 and 24 months to report and do not make policy recommendations — but instead provide a base of solid evidence to use in the policy mix.
The panel is to be co-chaired by Eric Newell, the former CEO of Syncrude Canada, and by the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan.
Fisheries expert Otto Langer and MLA Vicki Huntington take on Fraser River jet fuel plan (Tanya Zboya)
A group of BC politicians and community leaders held an emergency meeting yesterday near the mouth of the Fraser River, in the Richmond community of Steveston, to voice their concerns about the plan to build a jet fuel terminal, tank farm and pipeline on the banks of Canada’s largest salmon river.
Independent MLA for nearby riding Delta South, Vicki Huntington, a vocal critic of the project in the Legislature, was joined by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, retired DFO scientist Otto Langer, and the community group VAPOR in a final plea for the B.C. government to reject the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project.
Fraser River jet fuel project would mean tankers in salmon river
The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office has been reviewing a $100 million proposal by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) to build an 80-million-litre fuel terminal and tank farm on the South Arm of the Fraser River in Richmond and run a 15-kilometre pipeline to Vancouver International Airport. A decision is expected soon from the Ministry of Environment. Critics of the jet fuel project are concerned about the consequences of a spill in critical salmon habitat and health risks to residents.
Said Brodie at the Tuesday press conference, “These are tankers that are 950 feet in length — that’s like three football fields long.”
[quote]They’re going to be loaded with jet fuel. They’re going to be regularly coming up the river, introducing an unnecessary risk to the people and to the city of Richmond.[/quote]
The new project would supplement or replace a current pipeline from Chevron’s Burrard Inlet refinery and the use of tanker trucks. Chevron has seen its crude supply from the Trans Mountain Pipeline dwindle as owner Kinder Morgan moves to export more and more of its Alberta oil to other markets – something Chevron complained about to the National Energy Board last year.
The irony is that YVR is now seeking to import jet fuel from Asia, while Kinder Morgan exports unrefined oil to foreign markets.
Decision expected soon
A decision on the project, which has stalled at various points over the past several years, is expected from BC Liberal Environment Minister Mary Polak by December 24. Huntington and other critics say alternatives to the plan have not been properly explored. Huntington charges:
[quote]Unfortunately, our rubber-stamp EAO process has presented the Environment Minister with a Faustian bargain: By Christmas she must decide whether to trade catastrophic environmental risk for tanker access to the Asia-Pacific jet fuel markets.[/quote]
The terminal, tank farm and pipeline would directly impact the local community, posing health risks and “introducing catastrophic risk to the globally-recognized Fraser River estuary,” says Huntington.
After several delays following its 2011 introduction, the proposal cleared a major hurdle with the October release of a pair of reports by the Ministry of Environment, outlining best practices and industry standards and presenting the province’s marine spill response framework.
“The marine report is already in the news for raising red flags about B.C.’s spill response capacity,” says Huntington.
[quote]Yet even if B.C. surpasses world-class standards, our government knows no procedure in the galaxy could fully contain a large jet fuel spill in heart of the fragile Fraser River estuary. It would be a disaster…Just one gallon of jet fuel can spread up to 300 feet on the water’s surface. The Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project would feature Panamax-class fuel tankers carrying over 10,000 gallons of fuel.[/quote]
A pipeline or terminal incident would also threaten vital habitat from 5 million migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, Huntington notes.
Nov. 19th, 2013. A Tuesday. The day started out sunny, but hail fell out of the sky in the afternoon. It was a Victoria day like any other until I found out the Canadian government has been vigorously spying on several Canadian organizations that work for environmental protections and democratic rights.
I read the news in the Vancouver Observer. There, front and centre, was the name of the organization I worked for until recently: Dogwood Initiative.
My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for a long time, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me.
[quote]I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens.[/quote]
Harper Government spying on church gatherings
I told my parents about the article over dinner. They’re retired school teachers who lived in northern Alberta for 35 years before moving to Victoria.
I asked them: “Did you know the Canadian government is spending your tax dollars to spy on your daughter?”
Then I told them how one of the events detailed in e-mails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “Group Leader of Security,” was a workshop in a Kelowna church run by one of my close friends and colleagues, Celine Trojand (who’s about the most warm-hearted person you could ever meet). About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theory of change and creative sign-making (cue the scary music).
CSIS, RCMP, Enbridge working together
In the e-mails, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spying agency, CSIS.
To add insult to injury, another set of documents show CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what The Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.”
These meetings covered “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups.” Guess who is prominently displayed as a sponsor on the agenda of May’s meeting? Enbridge, the proponent of a controversial oilsands pipeline to the coast of British Columbia.
I asked my folks: “Isn’t that scary? CSIS is hosting classified briefings sponsored by Enbridge?” No answer. My parents are not the type to get themselves in a flap about things like this, but I prodded them: “Dad, this is scary, right?”
“It’s scary,” he admitted.
Is this Canada or Nigeria?
How much information is being provided to corporations like Enbridge? What about state-owned Chinese oil companies like Sinopec, which has a $10 million stake in Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal?
What kind of country spies on environmental organizations in the name of the oil industry? It seems more Nigerian than Canadian.
I fought the urge to react with indignation, a sentiment I find all too common in the environmental movement. I also didn’t want to be overwrought about it. Fact is though, the more I thought about those documents, the more I began to feel a sense of loss for my country.
Enemies of the State
I’m not the touchy-feely type. Everyone from my conservative cousins in Alberta to my former colleagues at the Calgary Herald could attest to that. I grew up in northern Alberta playing hockey and going to bush parties. I think our oil and gas deposits, including the oilsands, are a great asset to our country — if developed in the public interest. Yes, that’s a big “if” — but Canadians own these resources and the number one priority when developing them should be that Canadians benefit.
For speaking up for the public interest and speaking out against the export of raw bitumen through the Great Bear Rainforest, hundreds of people like me have been called radicals and painted as enemies of the state, as somehow un-Canadian. That last bit is what hits me in the gut.
Exporting raw bitumen, Canadian jobs
I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens. I’ve argued that after 25 years of oilsands development, Albertans should have something to show for it — not be facing budget crises and closing hospital beds; that Albertans aren’t collecting a fair share of resource revenues; that we should develop resources at a responsible pace that doesn’t cause rampant inflation, undermining Canadians’ quality of life and hurting other sectors of the economy; that we should prioritize Canadian energy security (half of Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil). And I’ve agreed with the Alberta Federation of Labour that exporting raw bitumen and 50,000 jobs to China doesn’t make sense for Canadians.
Enbridge hearings drew unprecedented public turnout
Now, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s a stretch to portray any of those statements as unpatriotic or radical. In fact, one of my proudest moments as a Canadian was encouraging citizens to register to speak at the public hearings on Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker proposal for B.C. With a team of committed people at Dogwood, in collaboration with several other groups, we helped more than 4,000 people sign up to have their say — seven times more than in any previous National Energy Board hearing.
It was this act of public participation that sparked the beginnings of the federal government’s attacks on people who oppose certain resource development proposals. Helping citizens to participate in an archaic public hearing process is a vital part of democracy— not something to be maligned.
Corporate media ignores Harper Government spying
What makes me sad is the thought that we’ve been reduced to being the type of country that spies on its own citizens when they speak out against certain corporate interests. Not only that, but our government then turns around and shares that intelligence with those corporations.
Disappointingly, a scan of today’s news coverage indicates Canada’s major newspapers never picked up the spying story, save for one 343-word brief on page 9 of the Vancouver Province. Is it now so accepted that the Canadian government is in bed with the oil industry that it doesn’t even make news any more? Now that’s really sad.
Whether you agree or disagree with my ideas about responsible natural resource development, I’d hope we could all agree Canada should be a country where we can have open and informed debate about the most important issues of our time — without fear of being attacked and spied on by our own government.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis was also featured in an email from CSIS to the National Energy Board, spying on Enbridge critics, as revealed in this story from The Vancouver Observer.
Valhalla Wilderness Society is reporting that a pair of proposed natural gas pipelines connected to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals planned for Prince Rupert will no longer pass through two important grizzly bear sanctuaries. The changes come following public pressure from Valhalla and other conservation groups.
The two pipelines – one to be built by Spectra, the other by TransCanada Corp on behalf of Malaysian energy giant Petronas – were due to pass through the the Kwinimass and Khutzeymateen conservancies, created in 2006 to protect important bear habitat. Illegal survey work in the area by a TransCanada subcontractor drew repeated warnings from BC Parks this summer and provoked criticism in the media.
According to a Thursday newsletter from Valhalla:
[quote]The withdrawal of the proposed pipeline routes was apparently due to prompt action undertaken by VWS coastal campaigner, Wayne McCrory along with the protests of many others. Although we do not have 100% confirmation from the companies, themselves, our information comes from very reliable sources in government, and from our legal representative.[/quote]
The Petronas-owned Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project would be the largest pipeline in Canadian history at 4 feet in diameter, carrying 2-3.6 billion cubic feet per day of gas to a large LNG terminal north of Prince Rupert. The project would require the logging of pristine rainforest for a right-of-way of up to 200 metres wide – plus access roads and compressor stations.
McCrory referred to the plan in the media in September as “a shocking and unconscionable betrayal of the bears, the Park Act, and the Great Bear Rainforest decision of 2006.”
TransCanada had also applied for permits to do geotechnical studies that would involve drilling. According to Valhalla, “The park use permit application has now been withdrawn, as well.”
The other pipeline proposed for the area, belonging to Spectra, would be the same diameter and carry even more gas – up to 4.2 billion cubic feet per day. “Spectra has told people that it will not be going through the protected areas,” says Valahalla. “However, the company’s PR person has stated that the Khutzeymateen routing is not yet fully off the table.”
These two mammoth pipelines represent only a portion of those currently proposed to criss-cross the wilderness of northern BC, as this new map illustrates. There are five serious gas pipeline proposals, six more that have been floated, plus the Enbridge Northern Gateway twin bitumen and condensate lines – all part of the “gold rush mentality surrounding the BC government’s LNG promotion efforts in Asia,” says Valhalla.
