Despite over 9,500 public submissions to the Joint Review Panel for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline – with a resounding96% opposed – John Carruthers, the company president in charge of the project, remains confident it will proceed.

Carruthers told reporters outside the final round of hearings in Terrace, BC this week, “I think the chances of it going ahead are very probable.”

Either this is desperate, last-ditch posturing – in which case Mr. Carruthers is misleading his shareholders – or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he believes what he says.

Consider the implications for a moment, given the wholesale rejection of the project from every quarter.

Enbridge has been told, “NO”, six ways from Sunday over the past five years.

An unprecedented, unified “No” from First Nations all along the pipeline and tanker routes – backed by others all around the province and beyond. Over 160 altogether. Their resolve has not wavered – even when Enbridge tried to engineer the splintering of this phalanx through atrumped up, discredited deal with a rogue Gitxsan treaty negotiator, the ham-fisted maneuver backfired badly. The “unbroken wall” of opposition promised by chiefs like Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz Fisrt Nation has held all this time.

Northern municipalities – Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers – have passed resolutions telling Enbridge, “No.”

Ecologists, biologists, statisticians, fishermen, marine safety and oil spill recovery experts, even respected economists have lined up to tell Enbridge, “No.”

The province’s Official Opposition and Government have both, essentially, told Enbridge, “No.”

In fact, the only person who has said “Yes” to Mr. Carruthers is Stephen Harper – and even his support is wavering these days. His top BC minister, James Moore, responded to the Clark Government’s closing statement against the pipeline at the JRP hearings, noting, “there are many pathways for Canadian resources to get out of the country, and we’ll see if Enbridge looks at other opportunities.” According to CBC, “He said his government supports B.C.’s five conditions for heavy oil pipelines…Moore says his government supports getting natural resources out of Canada, whether through Northern Gateway, or other projects, but any company must be accountable to the people living where it wants to build.”

Harper is changing his tune because even he can see what everyone else but Carruthers can: this project is dead in the water.

Mr. Carruthers’ confidence is based on his own subjective certainty that Northern Gateway is “a tremendously needed project for Canadians to get full value for their resources which are critically needed and that need is even more urgent than it’s been.”

This baseless fear-mongering was echoed by Enbridge lawyer Richard Neufeld, who also took the stand Monday to extoll his company’s project. If Enbridge were denied, “Canada would be facing, we submit, an economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions,” Neufeld told the Joint Review Panel.

This laughable, self-serving rhetoric flies in the face of the independent economic analysis of former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan and many others who have warned of the economic perils to Canadians from exporting unrefined bitumen to foreign markets. Even the venerable Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) acknowledges that building a petro-economy leads to net economic losses as manufacturing and other sectors are squeezed by artificially inflated currencies.

It is by no means a given that opening up BC’s coast to raw fossil fuel exports will do anything but imperil our “Super, Natural” brand and the $13.4 Billion tourism economy upon which it depends.

Mr. Carruthers is confusing what’s in the economic interest of Canadians with that of himself and the foreign-owned oil producers who would use his infrastructure to export Canadian jobs and resource wealth to foreign markets. They are not remotely one and the same. When we hear “the economy”, we must always ask, “whose economy?”

And what of the inordinate human, environmental and, yes, economic costs of the climate catastrophe this project would help facilitate? Even the US Government is coming to terms with the socioeconomic costs of carbon. Applying their own calculations to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline yields a prediction of up to half a trillion dollars in carbon-driven social costs.

There is no glut of supply in North America’s pipelines, no “bitumen bubble” driving down Tar Sands prices. Canada is a net importer of oil, for Pete’s sake. American buyers pay less for Canadian dilbit and syncrude because they are inferior products to light crude, thus meriting a discounted price.

That will always be the case, whether the customer is China or America. International crude prices may be higher for now, but dilbit will always be discounted – and the minimal additional profits from international markets are sure to wind up in the largely foreign pockets of shareholders, not trickling down the Canadian public, as we are to believe.

Contrary to Carruthers and Neufeld’s Chicken Little prognostications, the sky will not fall on Canada’s economy should Enbridge face rejection. And what does their opinion count for on this score anyway? They are the project proponent – not independent economists.

That’s what makes this all so insulting – the righteous indignation, the holier-than-thou pontificating, the outrageous scare tactics, the thumbing of noses by these gentlemen from Calgary at BC’s First Nations and citizens.

If Mr. Carruthers is delusional, as I suspect, then that’s his problem I suppose (and that of his shareholders).

If, on the other hand, he’s right and his much-maligned project does go ahead, then what does that say about this country in which we live? When 96% of the engaged citizenry and assorted experts who take the time to prepare and submit their thoughts to a two-year National Energy Board hearing speak against the project; when First Nations who hold unceded, constitutionally protected title and rights to these lands and waters remain unequivocally opposed…and it goes ahead, what does that say about Canada?

If that happens, we can all just quit referring to this country as a democracy. Full stop.

But I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen at this stage. I think Mr. Carruthers is full of it.

What has me more concerned these days is the following scenario: Enbridge gets rejected. Instead, we see three or four “gas pipelines” built to BC’s coast – sailing past regulatory hurdles while the public and media are distracted by Enbridge. The “gas pipelines” are ostensibly to feedboondoggle LNG projects in Kitmat and Prince Rupert – which never materialize because the economic fundamentals simply aren’t there (more on that next column). Said “gas pipelines” get converted to dilbit pipelines, LNG terminals swapped for dilbit terminals. And, presto! It won’t be called Enbridge, but – except for Mr. Carruthers – who cares? Same impact on our economy and environment.

Here are three things to remember about Premier Clark and the Enbridge pipeline:

1. She did not reject the pipeline – she simply said that Enbridge had not met BC’s conditions.

2. She has, simply said “we want money”, which reminds me of the old chestnut where a man invites a lady to bed offering her $25,000 dollars. With much hemming and hawing she accepts. He then offers her $25 dollars instead and she shrieks, “Do you think I’m a common whore”. He replies “we’ve already established that madam…now we’re dickering about the price”. That’s what the premier has done.

3. She hasn’t asked the main question – nor has anyone else including the media. That is, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary you can clean up a leak, assuming you can, how do you expect to get crews and heavy machinery into the Rocky Mountains, Rocky Mountain Trench, Coast Range or Great Bear Rainforest?

For all the crap we’re going to hear in the next year or so, these questions will not be dealt with, simply because they can’t be.

The Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River nearly 3 years ago demonstrates that even when access is easy, these spills are essentially forever, yet we will be smothered by company claims of “world class cleanup” processes, new-style pipelines and so on. This is the oldest gimmick of all –  if you cannot answer the question, change the question to one you can.

We who raise these issues will be said to be against all development, etc., and even the NDP will start its slow but steady reversal of attitude.

Let me predict another couple of things for you.

Site “C” will go ahead, the price will move to $10 billion and the energy will be sold at much reduced rates to gas “frackers” so they can use publicly supplied energy to extract and send shale gas to Prince Rupert and Kitimat to be converted (more energy used again) to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and shipped to foreign markets (using yet more energy) to enrich large corporations at our expense.

There will be no great energy bonanza to the government from this and Santa Claus must be your faithful pen pal to believe that there will be a“Prosperity Fund” with over $100 Billion in it to make us debt-free and actually rolling in dough.

The biggest problem facing Premier Clark is how to get rid of BC Hydro to the private sector, mostly because of the disastrous private river power policy of the Campbell/Clark government. This issue, to their eternal shame, wasn’t even mentioned by the NDP in the last election. In fact, even those who wouldn’t vote NDP under any circumstances should be appalled at the Official Opposition’s dereliction in its duty to oppose this program, because most of them want BC Hydro saved – if it can be.

We’re in for four years of a government in a deep hole because of their terrible misgovernment, faced by an opposition that disgraced themselves and simply won’t be taken seriously no matter whom they select as leader.

The only thing we can hope for is an incensed public which is prepared to turn to massive civil disobedience.

BC Premier Christy Clark’s decision to oppose formally the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline means the project is all but dead.

The announcement, which came in the form of the BC government’s final written submission this morning to the National Energy Board-led review panel for the project, is only mildly surprising. Enbridge has suffered setback after setback throughout the multi-year review and even the Harper government – which retains the final say over the project due to the Liberal Government’s secretive handing away of provincial sovereignty on the matter – has backed away from its ardent support for the embattled pipeline builder. In recent months Harper has shifted his focus to pushing through the proposed Keystone XL pipelinefrom Alberta to the US Gulf Coast.

“British Columbia thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and submissions made to the panel and asked substantive questions about the project, including its route, spill response capacity and financial structure to handle any incidents,” Environment Minister Terry Lake noted.

“Our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings.”

That leaves one other major expansion route for the Alberta Tar Sands to foreign markets: US energy giant Kinder Morgan’s proposal to triple its pipeline capacity to the port of Vancouver. This would result in a twenty-fold rise in tanker traffic through the Salish Sea compared with the early 2000s, before the company purchased the old Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to North Burnaby.

“The position adopted by B.C. on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project as currently proposed is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects,” the Clark Government stated in its final Enbridge submission, leaving the door open to Kinder Morgan.

This makes no sense.

The basis upon which Clark rejected Enbridge – the company’s failure to meet five conditions established by the Liberal Government a year ago – applies equally to Kinder Morgan’s plan.

These conditions are as follows:

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;

• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;

• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;

• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and

• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers

The Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, much like Enbridge, already fails in most of these areas.

The Coast Salish First Nations, through whose unceded traditional territories the pipeline and tankers would transit, have made their opposition clear over the past year.

Marine safety experts have repeatedly warned that neither the government nor Kinder Morgan are adequately prepared for a coastal oil spill. The company on retainer to provide these services, Western Canadian Marine Response Corporation, acknowledged at a Vancouver City Council meeting two years ago that it was certified to clean up a spill of 100,000 barrels, while these tankers would carry 650,000 barrels – possibly more if the company pushes to dredge Second Narrows and move up to larger Suezmax carriers.

The risks from the tanker route, while different from the proposed Enbridge project, are equally severe. These tankers would pass the economic heart of the province, its major population centres, its most important salmon estuary, important whale habitat, the vital farmland of the Fraser River Delta, the Gulf Islands, southern Vancouver Island and our political capital in Victoria. Throughout this journey, these ships would face daunting navigational challenges. Estimates for the cost of an oil spill in the Vancouver area range up to $40 Billion.

An oil spill on BC’s south coast would decimate our “Super, Natural BC” brand, which is at the heart of our $13.4 Billion tourism economy.

As for the economic benefits of the Kinder Morgan expansion to British Columbians…what benefits? A few dozen long-term jobs in the expanded Burnaby tanker terminal? Pitiful royalties and tax revenues for the province?

If the Enbridge pipeline isn’t up to Christy Clark’s standards, then the proposed Kinder Morgan expansion shouldn’t be either.