Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

Map shows multiple proposed oil, gas pipelines in BC’s carbon corridor

November 13, 2013Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

A new map (scroll down to view) reveals the full scope of oil and gas pipelines proposed to criss-cross BC. Compiled by Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Skeena Wild, the graphic depicts the planned routes for a staggering six new pipelines – five designed to carry natural gas to proposed liquefaction (LNG) plants in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, plus the twin bitumen and condensate Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge.

Plans for an additional six gas pipelines have yet to be formalized.

While Enbridge has faced fierce opposition, the various gas pipelines have sailed largely under the radar thus far. One has already received approval – Chevron and Apache’s Pacific Trails line to Kitimat – while the others are at varying stages of design and environmental review.

These pipelines have sparked a variety of concerns for local residents and conservationists – including impacts on an important grizzly sanctuary from the proposed line to supply Malaysian energy giant Petronas’ LNG terminal near Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which TransCanada Corp has been hired to build, is slated to run through the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy. Preliminary work has already drawn multiple warnings from BC Parks over unpermitted helicopters and work crews in the area.

In other communities like Hazelton and the Kispiox Valley, residents are concerned about a flurry of invasive industrial activity by Spectra – looking to build its own pipeline to Prince Rupert – and TransCanada, long before permits have been obtained. “They are all over the place here,” resident and founder of the citizen information website NoMorePipelines.ca, Graeme Pole told the Globe and Mail in September.

[quote]There are literally armadas of trucks going up these roads with ATVs in the back. And they are flying helicopters overhead, going to places we can’t reach.[/quote]

The Northwest Institue’s Pat Moss echoed these concerns, exclaiming, “At this point, it’s a free for all…it’s a gold rush mentality.”

The companies have defended their practices, but it’s easy to see how concerns on the ground are mounting. Given the scope and potential impact of all these different pipelines across BC’s northern wilderness and related LNG plants, a key criticism of the review process has been the lack of any consideration of the cumulative impacts or big-picture planning and public engagement. More details on the individual pipelines and LNG plants below.

Fact sheet on proposed gas pipelines

Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project

Owner: Petronas/Progress
Destination: Prince Rupert
Estimated length: 900+ km
Builder: TransCanada
Size and volume: 48″ diameter / 2 – 3.6 billion cubic feet/day (bcf/d)

Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project

Owner: Spectra and BG Group (50/50)
Destination: Prince Rupert
Estimated length: 850 km
Builder: Spectra
Size and volume: 48″ diameter / 4.2 billion cubic feet/day

Coastal Gas Link

Owner: Shell (linked to Shell’s LNG Canada project with partners Mitsubishi, Korea Gas and PetroChina)
Destination: Kitimat
Estimated length: 650 km
Builder: TransCanada
Size and volume: 48″ diameter = 1.7 – 5 bcf/d

Pacific Trails Pipeline

Owner: Chevron, Apache Corp
Destination: Kitimat
Estimated length: 463 km
Size and volume: 42″ diameter / 1 bcf/d

PNG Pipeline Looping Project

Owner: Pacific Northern Gas
Destination: Twinning of existing pipeline between Kitimat and Summit Lake, BC
Estimated length: 525 km of new pipe
Size and volume: 24″ diameter

Support for First Nations critical after Clark-Redford pipeline deal

November 8, 2013Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Support for First Nations critical following Clark-Redford pipeline deal — Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

You would have thought that they would have had the decency to wait until the Joint Review Panel had made its report before the two western-most premiers made a deal on the pipelines. Of course there was no need to because the federal government that prizes “process” so much has already made it clear it wasn’t going to pay any to attention the panel unless it supports pipelines.

I wonder what my MP, Conservative John Weston thinks of this considering how he’s been so vocal about “process”, it being his constant buzzword for environmental matters. Will he stand up in the House and condemn his government and the provincial governments for cocking a snook at the “process” he praised as for the reason for gutting the protection of fish habitat?

There is no sense getting worked up about Christy Clark and Alison Redford’s pact – yet. I suspect all environmentalists will condemn this cynical bit of business, where BC trades its environment for pipelines. I can assure you that The Common Sense Canadian will do so and will keep it up as long as necessary.

What is more important now is support for First Nations as they formulate their battle plan and thereafter.

One can never be sure of steadfastness until it is seen in action. Reading between the lines, one would have to conclude that Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and the senior governments are satisfied that they can get over this hurdle. From my meetings with leaders and working the room at conventions, I don’t believe this. First Nations leaders are politicians too and must answer to their voters. Whether those voters can – pardon the bluntness – be bought off or not remains to be seen.

If First Nations – particularly the coastal nations who have been unshakable in their resolve – maintain their position hitherto, it will obviously do very little good to the governments and corporations who have to ship their grisly product once they get it to the coast.

I’m too damned old to be shocked or surprised at what a government or company will do for a vote or some money.

I don’t know what my colleagues in the environmental movement will do – I suspect we will know soon.

For me, this creaky crock will fight these pipelines and tankers as long as he has the breath to do so.

Justin Trudeau, Oil Man

November 6, 2013Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsDamien Gillis

Justin Trudeau, the Oil Man — Justin Trudeau addresses a progressive think tank in Washington, DC (photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)

To Justin Trudeau, it’s not that Keystone XL is a bad idea, it’s that Stephen Harper can’t sell it.

For many Canadians, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau represents a fresh-faced, progressive alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government. And yet, in terms of energy policy, it’s increasingly clear that he and Harper differ little. Both support the development of the Tar Sands and are backing efforts to move bitumen to new customers in Asia. Both are championing the controversial, proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the US Gulf Coast.

Through a series of recent speeches advocating for Keystone and other projects, it appears the biggest distinction the Liberal leader offers between himself and his chief political rival is the manner in which he sells the Tar Sands.

Justin made Alberta his first destination after being minted as Liberal leader, suggesting at the time that Mr. Harper was doing a bad job of representing Kesytone and the Tar Sands.

Harper alienates both friend and foe

Mr. Trudeau echoed those sentiments in a speech last week (read in full here), on the eve of the Conservative Party convention, at Calgary’s Petroleum Club. There, he made the case to a room full of western energy power brokers that Mr. Harper’s political style is hamstringing their efforts. “Alberta’s interests have been compromised more than just about anyone else’s by Mr. Harper’s divisiveness,” he told them.

“It has made enemies of people who ought to be your friends, and turned what should have been a reasonable debate into an over-the-top rhetorical war. Most importantly, it has impeded progress.”

Mr. Trudeau’s comments follow those of Kinder Morgan Canada CEO Ian Anderson, also delivered at Calgary’s Petroleum Club a few weeks ago, criticizing Harper’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for his heavy-handed tactics with pipeline critics. Anderson suggested the Harper Government’s approach has only made life more difficult for companies like his, which is seeking to build a controversial pipeline expansion to Vancouver.

Justifying Keystone

In his own speech to Canada’s oil men and women, Mr. Trudeau made no bones about his support for projects like Keystone:

[quote]Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL because, having examined the facts, and accepting the judgment of the National Energy Board, I believe it is in the national interest…On balance, it would create jobs and growth, strengthen our ties with the world’s most important market, and generate wealth…Most of all, it is in keeping with what I believe is a fundamental role of the Government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources, and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.[/quote]

So it’s not the idea of Keystone or potential east and west-bound pipelines in Canada on which Justin disagrees with the PM. It is simply that Mr. Harper lacks the diplomatic chops, the soft touch required to peddle this economic vision to Canadians and the world.

“Whether it is the bullying around Keystone and Northern Gateway, their one-sided approach to regulation with C-38, or the demonization of people who care about the environment, the message from Mr. Harper and his government has been clear: this is a black and white, us vs. them world, and you are either with us or against us,” Trudeau told his Calgary audience.

Mr. Trudeau goes to Washington

Justin is shopping his message abroad as well. Two weeks ago, he was in Washington, DC, delivering a speech to a generally anti-Keystone crowd at the Centre for American Progress. “The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run,” Trudeau declared.

And there is evidence that his approach is gaining traction. According to the Toronto Star, Matt Brown, a senior fellow at the Centre – which has taken a position against Keystone – observed later on Twitter, “many in the room had found the Liberal leader’s position ‘compelling’ and ‘balanced’.”

How Mr. Trudeau’s remarks struck Canada’s energy moguls is another question. But one thing is clear: this bunch has money and isn’t shy about getting involved in elections. In BC’s recent contest, they played both sides, funnelling millions to the Liberal and NDP campaigns.

If Justin Trudeau really does have their back…If he’s able to spin a kinder, gentler Tar Sands…If he’s able to persuade our southern neighbours in ways Mr. Harper can’t, all while the PM’s political woes mount…surely these Calgary nabobs will give serious thought to backing young Justin.

And – who knows – an honourary membership at the Petroleum Club.

Canadian communities to rally for climate as BC, Alberta pen pipeline deal

November 5, 2013Climate Change, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersKevin Grandia

Canadian communities to rally for climate as BC, Alberta pen pipeline deal — Last year’s “Defend Our Coast” rally in Victoria (photo: TJ Watt)

Just this morning, BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Allison Redford have announced that they have penned a deal to ram a pipeline from Northern Alberta’s oil sands fields to the West Coast. And according to news reports, there is “tentative” support for other pipelines.

In Canada we are at a major cross-roads, with some big government leaders pushing pipelines that will lock the country permanently into the “petro-state” column, while at the same time scientists, environmental experts and economists saying that we are lighting a “carbon bomb” for the long term.

Politicians, like Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Clark and Redford think building massive pipelines to the US and off our coasts to send unprocessed oil sands from Alberta to out-of-country export facilities is a wonderful idea.

At the same time, scientists at esteemed scientific organizations like NASA, say that building Keystone and pumping more oil sands out of Alberta pretty much guarantees runaway climate change and atmospheric disruption.

On one hand, a political win and some short term payouts that will mainly go to foreign oil companies like ExxonMobil and PetroChina. On the other hand, extreme weather, droughts, wildfires and heat waves for generations to come.

Big bucks for foreign oil companies, drought and wildfires for Canadians! The choice is yours. Seems like a no-brainer to me. I think my kids deserve a safe and stable future.

Time to stand up.

On Nov. 16th, Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast will gather at events to voice their opposition to the direction politicians like Stephen Harper want to take our country.

Will you be there?

Vimeo video by Zack Embree

Ontario skips provincial review of Enbridge Line 9

October 29, 2013Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsCanadian Press

TORONTO – Ontario won’t conduct its own environmental assessment of a plan to reverse the flow of the Line 9 oil pipeline that runs through the province, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli said Monday.

Calgary-based Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) wants to reverse Line 9 and increase its capacity to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day, up from the current 240,000 barrels.

It has also asked for permission to move different types of oil between southwestern Ontario and Montreal, including a heavier form of crude.

Liberals abandon provincial assessment

The proposal has sparked protests by hundreds of demonstrators, who have rallied outside the National Energy Board hearings in Toronto and Montreal.

Ontario’s New Democrats are pushing for a separate provincial assessment of the proposal, but Chiarelli said that’s not necessary.

The assessment is a federal responsibility because the pipeline crosses provincial boundaries, he said.

Ontario has intervened in the recent hearings to emphasize that public safety and environmental protection must come first, he said.

The province also called for a “stress test” for the whole system to be assured that the pipeline is safe, Chiarelli said.

“At this point in time, constitutionally we have to rely on what’s there in federal legislation,” he said.

Complain to your local MP

Chiarelli said that if residents feel that the National Energy Board isn’t doing its job to protect the public, then they should complain to their local MP and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“If Ontario does its own environmental assessment … that cannot override,” he said.

“That might inform, but the National Energy Board is responsible for getting the right information on which to make a decision.”

NDP: Ontario has responsibility for protecting water

It’s not the black-and-white issue that Chiarelli makes it out to be, said NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns.

Ontario has passed legislation that spills into areas of federal jurisdiction, such as the Toxics Reduction Act, he said. Other provinces are looking at consultations over pipeline projects.

“The NEB may have jurisdiction over approving a pipeline, but Ontario has a responsibility for protecting its water, it has a responsibility for protecting its land and its air,” he said.

[quote]The federal government can challenge Ontario if it wants, but Ontario is the only jurisdiction that’s going to look out for itself on this.[/quote]

Sending the Tar Sands East

Line 9 originally transported oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal but was reversed in the late 1990s to pump imported crude westward.

Enbridge is now proposing to flow oil back eastward to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

The NEB panel has heard from interveners who said the reversal would put First Nations communities at risk, threaten water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.

The Common Sense Canadian has documented similar criticism of the BC Liberal Government’s choice to forgo a provincial assessment of the proposes Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

Rafe Mair: Enbridge pipeline should face BC referendum

October 24, 2013Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaRafe Mair

Rafe Mair-Enbridge pipeline should face BC referendum — Thousands of citizens spoke out against Enbridge at last year’s “Defend Our Coast” rally” (TJ Watt photo)

The cynicism of both our senior governments regarding tankers and pipelines is appalling.

The pact between Premier Clark and Alberta Premier Redford – followed two days later by the Harper government’s Speech from the Throne – does precisely what many of us have said all along was their intention, to approve pipelines and tankers, irrespective of the findings of the Joint Review Panel (a farce), the wishes of First Nations and the wishes of the people.

This is not the time to despair but for two separate lines of action.

Enbridge pipeline requires referendum

First, and critically important in the short term, the people of BC must demand and press for a province-wide referendum. Would anyone suggest that the ravaging of our environment is less important than on the way we vote – i.e. the STV referendum – or a tax, as in HST? Would Premier Clark dare to take that position?

What it will take is a concerted effort, one where we all fight no matter what organizations we represent.

I suggest that all environmental organizations get under one roof for this struggle – it can be anyone of many. The Wilderness Committee, Living Oceans Society, Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, Pacific Wild, and the list goes on. I can say that The Common Sense Canadian would get behind such an effort.

Civil Disobedience

We must also be prepared, and let the government know we are prepared for massive civil disobedience. It must be peaceful and large enough that there aren’t enough jails to begin to hold all the protesters.

I believe that will happen spontaneously, so let’s for the moment deal with the referendum.

Public must demand referendum

As a starting point, let’s everyone make it clear in letters, emails and social media messages to Premier Clark that we demand no less than the right to decide the fate of our province. And let’s start now.

And, I make this plea to fellow activists – let’s get a plan for action up and running as soon as we can. I repeat that we at The Common Sense Canadian will be there to share developments on this front with the public – and to make a strong case for why this initiative is so necessary.

We simply cannot sit on our backsides and let these bastards get away with it.

A referendum, Madam Premier, and now!

Koch Brothers could make $100 Billion from Keystone XL pipeline

October 21, 2013Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersKevin Grandia

Koch Brothers could make $100 Billion on Keystone XL Pipeline — American oil billionaires David and Charles Koch

A new study released today concludes that Koch Industries and its subsidiaries stand to make as much as $100 billion in profits if the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is given the go-ahead by U.S. President Obama.

The report, titled Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb, and produced by the think tank International Forum on Globalization (IFG), finds that David and Charles Koch and their privately-owned company, Koch Industries, own more than 2 million acres of land in Northern Alberta, the source of the tar sands oil that will be pumped to the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline.

[quote]The Kochs have repeatedly claimed that they have no interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline, this report shows that is false.” Said Nathalie Lowenthal-Savy , a researcher with IFG. “We noticed Koch Funded Tea Party members and think tanks pushing for the pipeline. We dug deeper and found $100 billion in potential profit, $50 million sent to organizations supporting the pipeline, and perhaps 2 million acres of land. That sounds like an interest to me.” Nathalie continued, “We all know they will use that money to fund and expand their influence network, subvert democracy, crush unions like in Wisconsin, and get more extremists elected to congress.[/quote]

Download a PDF copy of the study here: Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Final day of Enbridge Line 9 hearings cancelled for ‘security concerns’

October 21, 2013Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersCanadian Press

Line 9 hearings cancelled — Protestors at Line 9 hearing in Montreal last week (photo: Erin Sparks)

TORONTO – The final day of hearings on a proposal to reverse the flow of a pipeline that runs between southern Ontario and Montreal were cancelled Saturday due to security concerns.

But that didn’t deter dozens of protesters who rallied outside the site of the scrapped hearing to oppose Enbridge’s plan to reverse its Line 9 and increase its capacity to carry crude oil.

“They try to make it seem like we’re not going to have a spill. And it’s very likely that a spill will happen somewhere along this line,” said protester Nigel Barriffe, who lives near Line 9 in northwest Toronto.

Enbridge was to make its closing submissions to the National Energy Board on its plan to reverse the line and increase the pipeline’s capacity to move crude oil.

But the National Energy Board announced late Friday that Saturday’s hearings were off, saying the way the previous day’s hearings ended raised concerns about the security of participants. Protesters were out in force for Friday’s panel hearing, but there was no violence during that demonstration or Saturday’s rally.

The NEB didn’t provide a date for when Enbridge will present its closing arguments.

Protest organizer Amanda Lickers said the NEB should have found a way to let Enbridge make its case in support of the reversal.

[quote]I think that if they were really concerned about security they could have still done it over the web… there could have been ways to make the presentation happen.[/quote]

The panel heard this week from interveners stating the reversal would put First Nations communities at risk, threaten water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.

Jan Morrissey of a Toronto residents’ group showed up early Saturday morning for the hearing, only to learn it was cancelled.

Morrissey said she’s disappointed she won’t get to hear Enbridge’s final reply to arguments made to the board by critics of the reversal.

“It’s sort of like reading a book and not getting to see the last chapter,” she said.

The reversal would increase the line’s capacity to 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day, up from the current 240,000 barrels.

Enbridge has also asked for permission to move different types of oil, including a heavier form of crude from the Alberta oilsands.

Opponents claim the crude Enbridge wants to transport is more corrosive and will stress the aging infrastructure and increase the chance of a leak.

But Enbridge has said what will flow through the line will not be a raw oilsands product — although there will be a mix of light crude and processed bitumen.

Line 9 originally shuttled oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal but was reversed in the late 90s in response to market conditions to pump imported crude westward.

Enbridge is now proposing to flow oil back eastward to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

Rafe: Fix is in on Enbridge as Clark and Redford put on show

October 17, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadaRafe Mair

Clark & Redford: What their cozy relationship means for BC pipelines — BC and Alberta Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford (CP photo)

I assure you that this will not take long.

We’ve been screwed, blued and tattooed folks.

You may have read the story last week that First Nations have charged that the Enbridge pipeline has already started.

At the same time, the BC/Alberta Deputy Ministers Working Group is announced and the fix is in. No doubt about it.

There are two shared goals in the document touting this partnership:

Opening new markets and expanding export opportunities for oil, gas and other resources
Creating jobs and strengthening the economy of each province and Canada through the development of the oil and gas sector.

The document talks about oil spillage on land and sea, but never does it say that a project might not be allowed because of the “risk” of pipelines and tankers. It’s a given that there will be pipelines and tankers, PERIOD.

It mumbles platitudes like a “world class prevention and preparedness” regime.

First Nations’ Enbridge spill concerns being ignored

I’m sure First Nations will be delighted to know Clark and Redford will supply them with “accommodation”, which “can include mitigation measures or even economic compensation”. (emphasis added)

Mitigation is a weasel word for saying that although damage is coming, we will do our very best to minimize it – honest to goodness, cross our hearts and hope to die – we will give you prosthetic devices for the arms and legs we’re going to cut off.

[quote]Health permitting (I’m a little long in the tooth) I’ll place myself in front of the first dirt remover.[/quote]

And, dear friends, there may be wampum for you if you’re good little Indians and place your “Xs”on the dotted line. Somehow I don’t see First Nations being convinced by this document that they will be treated any better than the Carrier-Sekani or Haisla were at the time of Alcan’s Kemano hydroelectric project in the 50s. This government, like the Bourbons, “has learned nothing and forgotten nothing”.

Carving up the booty

The rest of this 10-page document deals with carving up the booty – partly in bribes for First Nations, but mostly between themselves.

One of the major players – are you ready for this? – is Fazil Mihlar, a former fellow of the Fraser Institute and editor of The Vancouver Sun. Mihlar recently left the paper to become the BC Liberal Government’s Assistant Deputy Minister of the new Oil and Strategic Initiatives Division.

Act as if pipelines are a done deal

There is little to say except we must now choose our weapons and we should stop beating about the bush. There is no point in pleading with these bastards for their mind is made up. We must treat the situation as if the pipelines were a done deal – because they are.

We’ve reported on the false facade of Clark’s supposed reservations about Enbridge over the past year, juxtaposed with the realties of trade deals and the province’s legal abdication of responsibility on the pipeline decision – this new information simply reinforces our concerns all along.

Peaceful civil disobedience is the only weapon left and we must prepare for that. As I have said for sometime, health permitting (I’m a little long in the tooth) I’ll place myself in front of the first dirt remover.

Writing letters is always a good idea but it does nothing. Your MLA and MP have no power to do anything.

The opposition to these pipelines and tankers must contain the solemn undertaking to physically stop them. Anything else will be taken by your government as bluff and bluster.

Rafe to Christy: Hold a referendum

For the first time in nearly 82 years on this planet I find myself ashamed – not just pissed off – but ashamed of my government. The people, indigenous or otherwise, have not been consulted and won’t be.

I leave with this challenge to Premier Clark: hold a referendum.

Or are you afraid that, as with the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, the public will be informed and let you know they want nothing to do with your disgraceful deals?

Yes, hold a referendum and let us decide the fate of our beautiful province with one of the last real wilderness areas in the world.

[signoff1]

Harper’s Keystone XL lobbying trip funded by $65,000 in tax dollars

October 16, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

by Carol Linnitt – Originally posted on DeSmog Canada

The hotel rental for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s September visit to New York City cost Canadian taxpayers a total of $56,582.91, according to documents recently released by CTV News.

“Canada and the U.S. are making important progress on enhancing trade, travel and investment flows between our two countries, including securing our borders, speeding up trade and travel, modernizing infrastructure in integrated sectors of the North American economy, and harmonizing regulations,” Harper said at the event. “But there is much more that can be done, and must be done, to make our economic relationship more productive and seamless.”

The event, organized by the Canadian American Business Council, gave Harper the opportunity to tell an audience of American business executives that he wouldn’t “take no for an answer” on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, planned to carry tar sands crude from Alberta to oil refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Hotel bill mistakenly sent to CTV

The hotel bill for the luxurious New York Palace Hotel, which was mistakenly sent to CTV’s Washington bureau, suggests Harper’s speaking engagement was a staged promotional gathering for the Keystone XL, rather that a typical guest speaker event which are usually paid for by the host.

The hotel charges include coffee services for $6,650.00, room rental for $33,500.00 and audio visual services of $14,709.15. An overall service charge for the room and coffee came to $9,234.50.

According to CTV, the event was co-hosted with the Canadian American Business Council, which claimed to ‘share’ the costs for the event with the Harper Government.

Maryscott Greenwood, senior advisor for the Council said, “the costs were shared…we paid for pieces of it.”

The “Voice of Business”

On their website the Canadian American Business Council claims to be “the voice of business in the world’s most prosperous relationship. Established in 1987 in Washington, D.C., the Council is a non-profit, non-partisan, issues-oriented organization dedicated to elevating the private sector perspective on issues that affect our two nations, Canada and the United States.”

Membership to the Council requires a $5,500 annual fee, with conference sponsorships running up to $25,000 per event. Members of the Council include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Embassy, the Government of Alberta and TransCanada among many other major oil and gas companies.

In 2012, the Council listed “Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring Canadian crude oil to the U.S. gulf refineries” in its top ten ‘list of issues.’

The Council’s Washington offices are located inside a major law and lobbing firm, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP, that represents TransCanada’s Keystone XL project.

Andrew Shaw, who works for the Council, is also a registered lobbyist for the Keystone XL pipeline with KcKenna, Long & Aldridge. Shaw was hired by TransCanada to lobby on the topic of “permitting issues regarding the Keystone XL pipeline,” lobbying disclosure documents show.

According to further lobbyist documents, Shaw was also hired by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby firm, to speak with members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives about American environmental legislation or policies that might have implications on the development of Canada’s tar sands.

TransCanada spends millions on US lobbying

A recent white paper report released by DeSmog Canada shows TransCanada has spent $2.78 million on in-company lobbyists and $1.26 million on U.S. based lobby firms, including McKenna, Long & Aldridge, since 2010.

The white paper also shows that since 2010-2011 the Harper Government’s spending of taxpayer funds to promote the tar sands and Canada’s environmental performance has increased by 7000 percent with plans to further increase in the 2013-2014 year.

For more information on lobbying for the Keystone XL, see this backgrounder put together by Friends of the Earth or read about the pipeline on DeSmogblog.com.