Category Archives: Pipelines and Supertankers

BC LNG faces growing First Nations opposition

April 16, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Fracking, LNG, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

BC LNG faces growing First Nations opposition — The Unist’ot’en camp’s Toghestiy (left) and Mel Bazil stand in the path of 3 pipelines (Two Island Films)

UPDATE: Fort Nelson First Nation drums government, industry reps out of LNG conference, outraged over lack of consultation on surprise gutting of environmental reviews for gas plants. Government issues swift apology and cancels changes (more below).

One of the biggest myths pervading BC’s energy dialogue goes something like this: While First Nations stand united against the proposed Enbridge pipeline, they overwhelmingly embrace Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

Sure, Premier Christy Clark can tick off a list of aboriginal allies in her effort to build at least five among a dozen terminals proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert. Just last week, she announced with great fanfare LNG revenue sharing agreements with two coastal nations – Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams.

But a growing group of hereditary leaders, grassroots members and their allies, even some elected governments, are rising up in opposition – from the fracking fields of northeast BC that would supply the industry, to the various proposed pipeline routes across the province, to the coastal communities that would house the hulking terminals.

LNG is designed to achieve higher prices for BC’s gas in Asia, by cooling it to -160 degrees celsius, thus liquefying it so it can be loaded onto tankers bound for China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and India. But it may be investors who are getting cold feet amid the myriad challenges facing the industry.

Gitxsan-Cease-and-Desist — Gitxsan Nation hereditary chiefs deliver a cease-and-desist order to TransCanada (Photo: Graeme Pole)

In a little-reported but highly significant development a few weeks ago, a group of Gitxsan hereditary chiefs in the Kispiox Valley, near Hazelton, ordered TransCanada to cease and desist test drilling relating to the pipeline it plans to construct to Prince Rupert on behalf of Malaysian, Japanese and Indian LNG partners.

The issue adds more uncertainty to the province’s nascent LNG industry, on top of the unified opposition of all five clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation to the south; mounting concerns from Treaty 8 and Fort Nelson First Nation in the heart of northeast BC’s fracking country; and increasing scrutiny of the proposed Woodfibre LNG Plant in Squamish territory, near Vancouver.

A brief survey of the geography and indigenous territorial boundaries of BC, juxtaposed with these respective challenges, reveals a far more perilous landscape for this industry to traverse than the rosy picture being painted in Victoria and on press junkets to Asia.

Whether you’re a BC taxpayer about to commit massive public subsidies to this industry, or a board member or shareholder of a company contemplating investing the tens of billions of dollars required to build LNG infrastructure, it may be useful to know the real odds before laying a bet on BC LNG.

A tale of two nations: Hereditary vs. Elected

Understanding the discrepancy between the official story on First Nations’ support for LNG and the emerging, contrary reality requires some sense of the different – often competing – systems of governance amongst BC’s aboriginal communities.

Broadly speaking, there are two main forms of aboriginal government: elected and hereditary. The former is a product of the Indian Act – elected band councils which govern reserves created by the Crown. The latter is an ancestral system of leadership made up of houses and clans – the specific makeup varying from nation to nation. Hereditary governments may also incorporate democratic elements – i.e. not strictly “hereditary” per our western concept of the term – whereby chiefs’ names are passed on through decisions reached in the feast hall or by presiding chiefs or house groups.

Where these systems still exist, hereditary chiefs may hold jurisdiction over their nations’ often vast, resource-rich traditional territories. The Canadian case law on this subject is relatively new and not well defined, but individual nations often have their own laws or internal protocol agreements on the subject of jurisdiction. Elected band councils, meanwhile, are responsible for the much smaller reserves which many First Nations inhabit today. Jurisdiction remains a contentious legal issue, specific to individual nations. That said, a number of deals involving pipelines and energy terminals have been signed by elected councils, which is sewing conflict in some communities.

Gitxsan: Home of Delgamuukw

In Gitxsan territory – which covers some 53,000 square kilometers surrounding the mighty Skeena River in northwest BC – a rogue chief and head of the nation’s treaty society (another entity which can hold considerable sway in aboriginal communities), Elmer Derrick, stoked a firestorm when he signed an unauthorized deal with Enbridge in 2011. Derrick and his cohorts were promptly evicted from the treaty office and the deal was torn up – by the very hereditary chiefs whose support he had erroneously claimed.

The hereditary system is deeply rooted in Gitxsan culture, as it is with their neighbours to the south, the Wet’suwet’en. These two nations together won the landmark Delgamuukw v. British Columbia case at the Supreme Court of Canada. Some of the same 48 hereditary chiefs who initiated the case in 1984 are still alive today, standing in the path of myriad proposed pipelines.

As this federal government summary of the case explains, Delgamuukw legally entrenched the existence of aboriginal title and rights contained in the country’s constitution:

“Delgamuukw confirmed that common law Aboriginal title, recognized as a common law Aboriginal right prior to 1982, was “constitutionalized … in its full form” by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (par. 133)”

The ruling itself noted: “[A]boriginal title confers more than the right to engage in site-specific activities which are aspects of the practices, customs and traditions of distinctive aboriginal cultures…What aboriginal title confers is the right to the land itself.” However, the court stopped short of confirming Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en title, requiring a new case be brought to address that matter specifically.

The ripple effects of this decision continue to be felt today and weigh heavily upon the LNG issue.

Gixtsan chiefs evict TransCanada

Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en map — BC map of First Nations, highlighting Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en lands

Take a look at the BC Government’s map of First Nations territories. Now, draw a line around the neighbouring Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en nations (pictured to the right). Note how they form a 500 km-long vertical wall, smack in the middle of every major pipeline route proposed across northern BC. Now you have a glimpse of the trouble awaiting these projects, were both nations to block their path.

And that is precisely what’s taking root on the ground right now, though you wouldn’t know it from Christy Clark’s endless stream of LNG photo-ops touting First Nations’ embrace of the industry.

In late March, Gitxsan Hereditary Chief Wa’a (Samson Muldoe) delivered a letter to TransCanada workers conducting test drilling in the Kispiox Valley, related to one of the two major pipelines being eyed to take fracked natural gas from northeast BC to Prince Rupert (see video below).

The letter, signed by a number of high-ranking hereditary chiefs, stated, “As rightful guardians of the territory on which this work is being carried out, this is to instruct TransCanada Pipelines and its contractors and representatives to cease and desist from this work immediately and to remove all their equipment, vehicles and personnel by the end of Tuesday, March 25th, 2014, and to not return thereafter.”

To the point of governance and jurisdiction, the letter continued:

“We assert that the persons representing the Gitxsan Nation, with whom TransCanada Pipelines has been dealing to this point, do not have legitimate right to make decisions with regards to [the territory] where the work mentioned is now taking place – and that TransCanada Pipelines has thus failed to properly consult, as required pursuant to the Delgamuukw Supreme Court of Canada 1997 ruling.”

The chiefs identified impacts on Skeena River salmon from pipelines, LNG terminals and potential fracking in the region as the prime motives for their action.

Petronas’ magic trick

The issue is of particular sensitivity given pipeline owner Petronas/Progress Energy’s attempt to erase the Skeena River and estuary from its project description maps (a story broken by The Common Sense Canadian last year). The uproar over the issue, combined with concern about the impacts of the proposed LNG plant on vital estuary habitat during the worst year on record for Skeena sockeye, forced a significant extension to the initial public comment period on the project.

The eviction order is a wake-up call for TransCanada and it should come as no surprise if Spectra Energy, the proponent of the other major pipeline to Prince Rupert, met with a similar notice from the chiefs.

Wet’suwet’en chiefs ban all pipelines

Meanhwhile, several hundred kilometers to the south, Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs banned all pipelines – including the proposed Enbridge pipeline and two major gas conduits – through their territory last summer.

Hereditary Chief Na’moks, leader of the Tsayu Clan, explained to me on camera last October that the heads of all five Wet’suwet’en clans had voted to ban all pipelines through their 22,000 square kilometer territory – with unmistakable resolve.

Like the Gitxsan chiefs, Na’moks raised fracking – the ultimate source of this gas – as a key concern in reaching their decision:

“When you’re talking about fracking and the dangers that come with it – the waste of water, the poisoning of water, the waste of land…when we allow pipelines, we have to take that responsibility that we’re supporting this industry to continue that. As Wet’suwet’en, we can’t do that.”

LNG means 50,000 new holes in the ground: geoscientist

Horn River fracking — A fracking drill in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)

Why all the concern about fracking? Because, despite the oxymoronic “Clean LNG” label applied so liberally by the Clark government, the reality is the enormous volume of LNG exports already licenced by the National Energy Board would require the ramping up of environmentally damaging fracking to supply the feedstock – as much as a five-fold increase from present levels in the province.

According to the retired leader of the Geological Survey of Canada’s national shale gas potential review, globally renowned geoscientist David Hughes, BC’s LNG plans would require 50,000 new fracked wells by 2040 – double all the gas wells drilled in the 60-year history of the province’s natural gas industry to date. This would result in the contamination of tens of billions of litres of fresh water every year – while the LNG and fracking program could very well more than double BC’s entire carbon footprint!

So these chiefs are right to be concerned about the implications of LNG plans in terms of increased fracking and environmental impacts.

Unist’ot’en Clan holds the line

At the end of a series of forest service roads west of the sawmill town of Houston, BC, lies a solar-powered cabin on the banks of the Morice River. It may soon become ground zero in the battle over BC’s proposed pipelines.

There, members of one of the five Wet’suwet’en clans, the Unist’ot’en, have been strategically occupying their land – directly in the path of two gas pipelines and the Enbridge pipeline – for several years now. Their position is simple: No pipelines will cross their territory, period. They’ve already evicted contractors doing survey work for one of the proposed pipelines, Chevron and Apache’s Pacific Trails project.

I’ve visited the camp on two occasions – this past winter and in its early days in the summer of 2012 – for my forthcoming film Fractured Land. It’s a beehive of activity, with supporters regularly joining the camp for weeks to assist with various chores, the construction of new facilities, and gathering and preparing food.

The Unist'ot'en camp has raised close to $20,000 to renovate its bunk house — The Unist’ot’en camp has raised close to $20,000 for bunk house renos

They work to feed themselves in a traditional manner from hunting, trapping and fishing, though one of the camp’s leaders, who goes by the traditional name of Toghestiy, acknowledged to me on a tour of their trapline this winter that with diminished wildlife following years of logging in the region, they are forced to supplement their traditional diet with other food sources.

Though the group runs the risk of being characterized as militant radicals, that would appear, on closer inspection, to be a gross misunderstanding of their motives and philosophy. “We’re not about a fight,” camp regular Mel Bazil explained on our last trip. “I don’t wake up thinking, ‘Is the fight coming on today?’…We’re prepared to protect ourselves, but we’re more prepared to build with people a shared responsibility that we can really believe in – that will not occur from a board room or a government level.”

Many of the camp’s members are are schooled in both western universities and the traditional ways of their people, having left high-ranking jobs in aboriginal governance, social work and other fields to embrace a different way of life, in reaction to serious challenges facing their land and people.

“This planet is in trouble. If we can all agree upon that and not worry about how media and governments are spinning it, we really must all, as a people, take control of ourselves.”

Injunction being sought?

Born into another Wet’suwet’en clan, Toghestiy is married to Freda Huson of the Unist’ot’en, the camp’s frequent spokesperson. The pair were in Vancouver last week for an emergency press conference, after they caught wind of an alleged plan by government and industry officials to obtain an injunction against their camp.

When pressed by the Globe and Mail’s Mark Hume, Chevron representative Gillian Robinson-Riddell denied seeking an injunction. She did, however, seem to acknowledge that the company has yet to secure the social licence it requires from First Nations to commit fully to the project financially:

“We’re working toward a final investment decision but there are a few factors [that have to be confirmed] yet…We are looking for further First Nation support.

Video by Eric Doherty

Camp building broad support

The Unist’ot’en are currently running a crowd funding campaign to further build up their camp. With several weeks to go, they’ve nearly met their goal of $20,000 – evidence of the broad support their cause is attracting. From the looks of it, the group isn’t going anywhere – certainly not without a Herculean effort on behalf of government, industry and law enforcement that could well backfire under public scrutiny.

Canada: The world is watching you

When I asked Ms. Huson what would happen if authorities tried to serve an injunction, she replied:

“Supporters would walk off their jobs and come join us. People from all over have said busloads would come to our camp.” Others as far away as Ontario “would close highways” in sympathy.

“My message is: “Canada, the world is watching you.”

I asked Ms. Huson what she would say to the elected chiefs who have signed LNG deals. “I would ask them, ‘Have you done your homework?'” she replied. “Have you investigated how LNG plants affect the air and water; how you will affect not just your communities, but people upstream and downstream?…And what would your ancestors do?

More First Nations opposition brewing

In northeast BC, First Nations leaders have long worked to balance the natural gas industry’s job benefits to their members with its environmental impacts. But with the shift from conventional gas to riskier fracking, change is in the wind.

Now, as they peer over the horizon at a massive build-up of fracking to feed these proposed LNG terminals, they are increasingly expressing concern for the future. The Fort Nelson First Nation came out swinging in 2012 against 20 proposed long-term water licences for fracking in their territory, forcing the government to pull them off the table – with the exception of one, which is currently being litigated by the band.

In 2013, Chief Sharleen Gale and Lands Manager Lana Lowe co-penned an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, which stopped short of opposing the industry, but raised alarm bells over the implications of LNG for their territory – calling for increased environmental standards and royalty sharing to compensate their community. If anything, their estimate of future impacts was highly conservative, in light geoscientist David Hughes’ figures and the Clark government’s bullish outlook for building LNG plants:

“Should a modest number of LNG plants be built we anticipate at least 3,000 new wells will be drilled and fracked over the next decade. This will remove millions of tonnes of frack sand from our land, and trillions of litres of water from our rivers, unleashing a race for large-scale industrial frack sand mining and freshwater withdrawals…Industry has already proven unable or unwilling to stay within the generous water allocations provided to them for fracking.”

Fort Nelson’s Treaty 8 neighbours, in BC’s Peace Valley Region to the south, have also expressed growing concern about the impacts of water withdrawals for fracking on the drought-stricken territory.

The final straw

Finally, in a surprise turn of events this week, Fort Nelson First Nation members, led by the strong words of Chief Gale, literally drummed out government and industry representatives from a conference the band was hosting on liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The 3-day conference, titled “Striking the Balance”, was designed to discuss both the economic opportunities and potential environmental impacts of increased fracking in the nation’s territory. But things got off on the wrong foot when the BC Liberal government made a surprise announcement on Tuesday that new sweet gas processing plants would be exempted from environmental assessment.

Chief Gale alluded to the betrayal in her comments from the podium at the event today:

“The word from my elders is you treat people kind. You treat them with respect even when they’re stabbing you in the back…so I respectfully ask government to remove themselves from the room.”

Several dozen government officials promptly arose and left, to the beating of Dene drummers. LNG and shale gas industry representatives were asked to stay behind for a few minutes to hear about the nation’s concerns in greater detail, after which they too were dismissed. (see video here).

The message was received loud and clear by the Liberal government, as Energy Minister Mary Polak issued a swift, statement repealing the planned change to the province’s environmental assessment laws.

“I would like to acknowledge First Nations concerns about amendments to the Reviewable Projects Regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act,” stated Polak. “Our government apologizes for failing to discuss the amendment with First Nations prior to its approval.”

Non-BC First Nations take hard line against fracking

Fracking faces increasing opposition from First Nations in other Canadian provinces too. The Council of Yukon First Nations – which represents the majority of aboriginal groups in the territory – imposed a ban of their own last year, on top of the Yukon Government’s own, albeit temporary, moratorium.

Meanwhile, in Mi’kmaq territory last year, test drilling by American fracking company SWN Resources triggered a heated clash between Elsipogtog First Nation protestors and RCMP riot police. The incident sparked a wave of protests in sympathy, as far away as Vancouver. While the issue temporarily cooled off after SWN wrapped up its testing, it is sure to flare up again if and when they return to commence fracking.

As Common Sense Canadian contributor Kevin Logan asked last year, is Elsipogtog the spark that will light the fire of fracking protest amongst other First Nations in places like BC and Alberta? Fort Nelson Chief Gale and Lands Manager Lowe suggested as much in their Globe editorial at the time:

[quote]Sadly it has taken the images from New Brunswick over the past two weeks to raise the debate around “shale gas” to the national stage. It has taken Elsipogtog people being arrested, and images of burning vehicles to illuminate how raw the tension is between the indigenous peoples, and the federal and provincial governments around unchecked resource extraction…We feel particularly close to our relatives in New Brunswick. We share a connection through our treaties and our concern for the land, water and air and the future generations in the face of shale gas.[/quote]

BC LNG a risky bet

The BC Liberal government is banking on support for LNG from First Nations based on the jobs it is dangling before them – as bloated and unrealistic as these claims clearly are. Now-Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman told political pundit Vaughn Palmer in 2012, “One of the greatest outcomes for this would be that every First Nation young person coming through in the next ten years can get a trade or a job…in the LNG business.”

Premier Christy Clark defends LNG industry's carbon footprint — BC Premier Christy Clark (Photo: Tina Lovegreen)

But in order for BC LNG’s ship to set sail, it will require hundreds of billions of dollars in private capital – not to mention huge taxpayer subsidies. And there are already myriad signs that this boat won’t float – from the government’s difficulty in developing a long-delayed export tax regime, to the lack of a single major investment commitment from any proponent in the 8 or so years the industry has been brewing.

At some point, investors will be confronted with the fact that, on top of all the other risks associated with this incredibly costly and volatile industry, they face growing opposition from First Nations.

Even in the best of circumstances, LNG is a gamble. Given the odds facing BC’s attempts to build an industry, I’d think long and hard before laying my chips on the table.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The passage on hereditary vs. elected governments has been updated since original publication to better reflect the nuances of this subject.

Parks Act changed for Kinder Morgan’s illegal pipeline research?

April 14, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

By Andrew Gage

You may have heard about controversial amendments to the Park Act by way of Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, which critics say are to allow industrial “research,” or even industrial activity, in B.C. parks.

Over 160,000 people have signed a petition opposing Bill 4. However, B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak insists that the types of research to be allowed are minor, and that the amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing pipelines in B.C. parks.

Kinder Morgan was illegally researching pipeline

Before Bill 4, any research done in a park had to be “necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.” But as we’ve recently learned, pipeline giant Kinder Morgan has, with a permit from the B.C. government, been conducting research in B.C. parks for their pipeline expansion project since November 2013, four months before Bill 4 was introduced.

As you read this, researchers hired by Trans Mountain L.P., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, are already at work evaluating the feasibility of building its controversial pipeline expansion through five B.C. parks and protected areas, taking soil samples and electro-shocking fish.

The eventual aim is to have these lands taken out of the parks. In some cases the new pipeline will widen the right of way through the park alongside the existing Kinder Morgan oil pipeline, but in other cases entirely new pipeline routes through parks are being considered.

Government admits permits were illegal

This work was authorized by the Ministry of Environment in November 2013, through a park use permit allowing Trans Mountain to conduct “research” related to pipeline construction in Finn Creek Provincial Park, North Thompson River Provincial Park, Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area, Coquihalla Summit Recreation Area and Bridal Veil Falls Provincial Park.

The B.C. government has recently admitted that this industrial park use permit was likely illegal under the Park Act. That’s because the legislation gives B.C. parks a high level of legal protection (who knew?), requiring (as mentioned above) that activities provide a benefit to the park.

So with no public consultation it rushed through Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act. In the legislature, Polak, the environment minister, admitted:

[quote]The reason we brought forward the amendment — and I would say one of the reasons that the consultation has not been aggressive or thorough on this — is that we are seeking to ensure that we have the statutory authority for things that up until now we took for granted that we did….

We’ve been advised that the granting of the permits as we have done likely would not stand the test of a [court] review, and therefore, we need to amend the Park Act to ensure that we can continue on with what we have been doing but with the statutory authority so that we would not be in a case where either the granting of or the denial of the application for a permit could be successfully challenged and overturned based on our lack of authority. [Emphasis added][/quote]

Bill 4 paves path for large-scale industrial activity in parks

Bill 4 explicitly allows the environment minister to authorize research into the “the feasibility of the location, design, construction, use, maintenance … of a pipeline,” and research intended to “inform a [government] decision … in relation to the boundaries of the protected area.” The government has suggested that the Bill 4 amendments were mostly for the film industry or low impact academic research. But Bill 4 is clearly equally about large-scale industrial development, such as the pipeline development being investigated by Kinder Morgan.

Surprisingly, while the government acknowledges that Bill 4 is about authorizing permits like the Kinder Morgan park use permit in future, it does not correct the legal error for a permit issued in November. So in our view, Kinder Morgan continues to be acting under an illegal permit.

Agricultural land to be plowed under for industry too

Meanwhile, following on the heels of Bill 4, the B.C. government has introduced legislation (Bill 24, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act) to make industrial activity and urban development on most lands in B.C.’s agricultural land reserve (ALR) easier, threatening B.C.’s food security.

We hope that these two bills are not part of a broader trend towards weakening laws intended to protect the environment and public values in order to give industry more “flexibility.”

Minister Polak and B.C. Premier Christy Clark need to stand up for our parks. They can start by revoking the illegal Kinder Morgan permit, and by committing not to change B.C.’s laws to accommodate industrial development.

Andrew Gage is an environmental lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law. Follow West Coast Environmental Law on Twitter @WCELaw

Eagle Spirit offers First Nations ‘energy corridor’ as Enbridge alternative

April 14, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

First Nations company proposes 'energy corridor' as Enbridge alternative — Eagle Spirit’s Calvin Helin speaking the Vancouver Board of Trade

VANCOUVER – A plebiscite defeat for the company proposing a $6-billion oil pipeline across northern British Columbia may have opened the door for another mega-project.

Supporters of a First Nation-backed alternative to the Enbridge (TSX:ENB) Northern Gateway Pipeline are expected to make an announcement today in Vancouver.

Chiefs from two northern B.C. First Nations will join officials from aboriginal-owned and controlled Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings to announce the plans.

Eagle Spirit formed in late 2012 to promote its vision of a First Nations-managed energy corridor across northern B.C., carrying everything from fibre optic, electrical and water lines to pipelines moving liquefied natural gas and Alberta oil.

David Negrin, president of the privately held B.C.-based Aquilini Group, and a former chief operating officer with Alaska’s Alyeska Pipeline Service, will attend the announcement.

Northern Gateway officials say they have some work to do after a non-binding weekend plebiscite suggested about 60 per cent of Kitimat residents disapprove of plans to make their community the west coast terminus of Enbridge’s pipeline.

Kitimat rejects Enbridge in pipeline plebiscite

April 13, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Kitimat votes 'No' on Enbridge pipeline — Former Haisla councilor Gerald Amos celebrates the ‘No’ vote (photo: Douglas Channel Watch)

By The Canadian Press

KITIMAT, B.C. – The residents of Kitimat, B.C. have voted against the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project in a non-binding plebiscite.

The ballot count from Saturday’s vote was 1,793 opposed versus 1,278 who supported the multi-billion dollar project — a margin of 58.4 per cent to 41.6 per cent.

“The people have spoken”

The results from two polling stations and an advance vote all showed a clear majority for the “No” side. Said Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan in a statement issued after the vote Saturday night:

[quote]The people have spoken. That’s what we wanted — it’s a democratic process. We’ll be talking about this Monday night at Council, and then we’ll go from there with whatever Council decides.[/quote]

The $6.5-billion project would see two pipelines, one carrying oilsands’ bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat’s port, and a second carrying condensate — a form of natural gas used to dilute the bitumen — from Kitimat back to Alberta.

Kitimat would also be the site of a proposed two-berth marine terminal and tank farm to store the thick Alberta crude before it’s loaded onto tankers for shipment to Asia.

Until this vote, Kitimat had remained neutral in its opinion on the controversial project. It didn’t take part in the joint-review process, which heard from hundreds of people before a federal panel approved the project with 209 conditions.

The federal cabinet is expected to release its decision on Northern Gateway by June.

“Jobs” argument failed to persuade public

Northern Gateway’s campaign has concentrated on the promise of 180 permanent, direct, local jobs worth $17 million, and more spinoff jobs for contractors and suppliers.

Calgary-based Enbridge, the company behind Northern Gateway, has emphasized its commitment to safety and the environment, saying the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel, which held two years of hearings on the project, had made many of the company’s voluntary commitments a mandatory part of the conditions for approval.

“As a long time-resident of northwestern B.C., I passionately believe that Northern Gateway is the right choice for Kitimat and for the future of our community,” Donny van Dyk, Northern Gateway’s Kitimat-based Manager of Coastal Aboriginal and Community Relations, said in a statement issued after Saturday’s vote.

“Over the coming weeks and months we will continue to reach out and listen to our neighbours and friends so that Northern Gateway can build a lasting legacy for the people of our community.”

The project’s main opponent, the local environmental group Douglas Channel Watch, maintains the risk from either a tanker accident or a pipeline breach is too high for the small number of jobs the pipeline would bring to the community.

Vote pitted Kitimat Council vs. Haisla First Nation

The plebiscite had also raised tensions between the District of Kitimat and the nearby Haisla First Nation, which is adamantly opposed to Northern Gateway.

Many Haisla were not allowed to vote because Kitamaat Village, a federal Indian reserve, is outside the municipal boundaries.

In a letter to local media, Haisla Chief Coun. Ellis Ross had called the decision to hold a vote at this late date a “slap in the face” for all the work done by the Haisla on the project.

A demonstration by members of the Haisla Nation at Kitimat’s City Centre Mall quickly turned into a celebration after the vote results were announced. The Haisla Spirit of Kitlope Dancers led the celebration with drumming, singing and dancing.

MP Cullen joins party

Some Kitimat residents also joined the party, as did Nathan Cullen, the NDP Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley.

Cullen, who has been a harsh critic of the project, said Saturday’s vote sends a clear message that Stephen Harper’s government must listen to.

[quote]This is a resounding no to the Conservative policies. This is one of the most powerful grass roots things I have ever been associated with. This is good politics.[/quote]

Gerald Amos, an environmentalist and former member of the Haisla Nation Council, said, “The town of Kitimat has rejected a project that is not good for our economy. It endangers everything we worked for as a people here in Kitimat for the last ten thousand years.”

Vote non-binding

A key reason for holding the vote was to fulfil a 2011 promise made by all municipal election candidates in Kitimat to poll citizens on the pipeline project.

But other than gauging public reaction to the proposed pipeline, it remains unclear — even to Kitimat council — what the non-binding vote will mean.

Even the plebiscite question, as chosen by the District of Kitimat council, was controversial, because it focused on the 209 conditions placed on the project by the Joint Review Panel: “Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report?”

Kitimat Enbridge vote: Grassroots campaign poised to win unfair fight

April 11, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Tensions-high-in-Kitimat-as-Enbridge-pipeline-plebiscite-looms — Signs of the times in Kitimat, BC (Photo: Kathy Ouwehand)

By the Canadian Press

KITIMAT, B.C. – Residents of Kitimat will cast votes in a local plebiscite Saturday for or against the multibillion-dollar Northern Gateway pipeline.

The District of Kitimat has remained neutral on the $6-billion project, but the vote will decide council’s position.

“We’ll see what the people of Kitimat want,” said Mayor Joanne Monaghan.

The city on the North Coast would be the end of the pipeline and home of the marine terminal for loading oil onto tankers. Kitimat council’s neutral stance went so far as to keep the city from participating in a federal review panel on the project.

That panel recommended in December that the pipeline be approved, subject to 209 conditions.

The question at hand

Kitimat residents are being asked:

[quote]Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report?[/quote]

It’s a question about “as hard to nail to the wall as a bit of Jell-O,” said Murray Minchin, a volunteer with the grassroots Douglas Channel Watch.

He describes a campaign that has been outspent, outmanned and outmanoeuvred from the outset. Enbridge’s campaign started months — if not years — ago, Minchin said.

Enbridge spent big bucks wooing Kitimat vote

They faced no spending limits, as provincial election laws didn’t apply to the municipal vote. Northern Gateway had paid canvassers, full-page ads, glossy brochures, a new website and billboards, Minchin said.

Northern Gateway also runs an annual campaign for youth that saw 50 iPads distributed to essay contest winners along the pipeline route in northern B.C. and Alberta, he said.

But Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Enbridge, said the contest has nothing to do with the plebiscite and that only two of the computer tablets went to students in Kitimat.

And yet, Minchin is hopeful the vote will go his way.

Grassroots anti-Gateway campaign grows support

“Four weeks ago we had $200 in the bank. Then we started making lawn signs and started putting those around town and people started coming up to us in the street and handing us money,” he said.

[quote]Somebody even anonymously dropped off a $2,000 money order into one of our mailboxes. Then we got a website that had a donate button.[/quote]

More than $14,000 and 2,000 doorsteps later, Douglas Channel Watch members believe opponents of the pipeline outnumber supporters 3:1.

“Our goal will be to try to get all of those people who said they were going to vote No to actually get out and vote Saturday,” Minchin said.

Results to be revealed at Monday council meeting

Ballots will be counted this weekend and Kitimat council is scheduled to meet Monday night to discuss the results.

Giesbrecht said the vote has been an opportunity to talk to residents.

He declined to say how much the company has spent on the campaign but said there was a temporary website, newspaper and radio ads, and door-to-door canvassers.

The pipeline is worth $5 million in property taxes and 180 jobs for Kitimat, he said.

“It’s a significant proposal for Kitimat, so it’s important that we provide the information that people need to make informed decisions,” Giesbrecht said.

“Regardless of the outcome, our commitment to Kitimat remains unchanged.”

Campaign highlights election law loopholes

Northern Gateway has been a divisive issue across the province and the imbalance in spending power has its critics.

During a provincial election or initiative vote, provincial law limits third-party advertising spending to $3,000 in a single electoral district, and $150,000 overall.

Dermod Travis, of Integrity BC, said those rules don’t apply here but they should.

“It’s really turned into a free-for-all in terms of having any type of democratic order to the vote,” said Travis, whose group was funded by a private businessman to push for democratic reform.

[quote]Having that type of an exercise in a democracy is healthy but it’s not healthy when the scale is so heavily tipped in one direction.[/quote]

But Monaghan said both sides have been out knocking on doors and she expects a true read of what Kitimat residents want.

“Neither of them have gone over that line,” she said of the campaigning.

The federal government is expected to announce a final decision on the pipeline in June.

Kinder Morgan review panel rejects 80% of applicants

April 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Kinder Morgan review panel rejects 80 per cent of applicants — A Vancouver rally against Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline (Photo: Damien Gillis)

by Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – The National Energy Board hearings into Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline expansion through Alberta and British Columbia will begin in August and hear from more than a thousand people, groups and communities.

But only 400 of the more than 2,118 applicants who applied to be interveners in the hearings will be allowed to participate.

Those groups given approval will be allowed to question experts and company officials and present evidence at the hearings.

They include: dozens of First Nations, the Alberta Federation of Labour, B.C. Green MLA and climate scientist Andrew Weaver, BC Nature, the BC Wildlife Federation, BP Canada, BC Hydro, the Burnaby Teachers’ Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, and cities from Kamloops to Victoria.

Environment Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and the federal Fisheries and Oceans department will also have intervener status, as well as the B.C. and Alberta provincial governments and the conservation groups Living Oceans and Raincoast Foundation.

Additional 1,250 invited to submit letter

Another 1,250 individuals and groups will be allowed to submit a comment letter to the panel but won’t be able to participate directly in the hearings.

Of the applications received, 452 that requested intervener status were given commenter status.

Another 468 were denied participation.

They include: New Democrat MP Kennedy Stewart, the Business Council of British Columbia, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canadian Natural Resource Alliance, the City of Fort St. John, Dogwood Initiative and the Okanagan Upcycling Resource Society.

Texas-based Kinder Morgan’s $5.4-billion pipeline expansion would have the capacity to transport up to 890,000 barrels per day from Alberta to the company’s Westridge terminal in Burnaby.

A “rigged” process

Changes to the National Energy Board Act that came into effect in July 2012 limit participation to those directly affected by a project or those with specific expertise or information.

Caitlyn Vernon of the Sierra Club BC said the decision to deny participation is “profoundly undemocratic.” Added Vernon in a statement:

[quote]This is a rigged process, deliberately designed to silence the legitimate voices of British Columbians on an issue that has profound implications for our province. All British Columbians are directly affected by the Kinder Morgan proposal, which threatens B.C. families, jobs, salmon and climate.[/quote]

Trans Mountain took no position on individual applicants.

But the company told the panel “the legislative change is meant to avoid parties that may be affected by a project from being ‘lost in the crowd’ of parties whose issues are unrelated to a specific project,” the board stated in the decision released Wednesday.

Panel defends changes to Act

The panel said the changes to the National Energy Board Act were made to promote fairness and efficiency in the review process.

“If you are directly affected, you will be given an opportunity to present your concerns to the board, and the board will make its decision based on the application and all of the evidence before it,” the agency said.

The review panel will hear aboriginal evidence this August and September and hearings will begin next January.

The panel has until July 2, 2015, to complete its report and recommendation for the federal government.

CNRL pipeline leaks 70,000 litres near Slave Lake

April 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

CNRL pipeline leaks 70,000 litres near Slave Lake — An earlier CNRL leak in Cold Lake, Alberta (Chester Dawson / Wall Street Journal)

SLAVE LAKE, Alta. – A pipeline owned by Canadian Natural Resources Limited has spilled 70,000 litres of oil and processed water northwest of Slave Lake, Alta.

The Alberta Energy Regulator says the breach happened on Monday and was reported by CNRL (TSX:CNQ) the same day.

The regulator says the spill is not an emergency, the oil is not near any people, water or wildlife, and a cleanup is underway.

Low amounts of hydrogen sulphide gas were also detected.

Greenpeace Canada says CNRL has had almost twice as many pipeline incidents as other companies in Alberta.

Calgary-based CNRL could not immediately be reached for comment.

Read: CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation

BP spills oil into Lake Michigan

March 25, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

BP spills oil into Lake Michigan — BP’s Whiting Refinery on Lake Michigan

by The Associated Press

WHITING, Ind. – BP says it is assessing how much crude oil entered Lake Michigan following a malfunction at its northwestern Indiana refinery.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says crews have placed booms across a cove at the company’s Whiting refinery where workers discovered the oil spill Monday afternoon.

Dean says BP believes the oil released during an oil refining malfunction has been confined to that cove.

He says the oil entered the refinery’s cooling water system, which discharges into the lake about 20 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management spokesman Dan Goldblatt says an agency staffer reported seeing a large sheen on the lake about 2 a.m. Tuesday. Dean says that sheen was in the cove and was no longer visible several hours later.

Enbridge, Kinder Morgan opponents mark Exxon Valdez anniversary

March 24, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Enbridge opponents mark 25th anniversary of Exxon oil spill — Art Sterritt and Coastal First Nations remain strongly opposed to Enbridge

VANCOUVER – Opponents of any increase in oil tankers off the B.C. coast are marking the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill by launching a renewed campaign against two major pipeline projects.

Coastal First Nations are running newspaper and radio ads about the impacts they fear from oil spills at sea from Enbridge’s (TSX:ENB) Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipelines.

The coalition of aboriginal communities along the B.C. coast are asking residents to support a ban on oil tankers in their traditional territories.

The Sierra Club says Prince William Sound on the Alaska coast has still not recovered from Exxon Valdez spill on March 24th, 1989.

The two projects proposed in B.C. would mean more than 600 additional tankers a year transporting diluted bitumen from the Pacific coast to Asia.

A federal review panel has recommended approval of the Northern Gateway after finding that a large oil spill would not cause permanent damage, and a decision is expected from the federal government in June.

Crews work to clean up Texas oil spill

March 24, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

by Michael Graczyk, The Associated Press

TEXAS CITY, Texas – The cleanup of an unknown amount of thick, sticky oil that spilled into the Galveston Bay blocked traffic Sunday between the Gulf of Mexico and one of the world’s busiest petrochemical transportation waterways, affecting all vessels, even cruise ships.

A barge carrying nearly a million gallons of marine fuel oil collided with a ship Saturday afternoon, springing a leak. Officials believe only one of the barge’s tanks — which holds 168,000 gallons, was breached, though Coast Guard Petty Officer Andy Kendrick said Sunday it wasn’t clear how much oil spilled.

Crews were skimming oil out of the water and containment booms were brought in to protect environmentally sensitive areas of the Houston ship channel, Kendrick said. The ship channel is closed from the mouth of the Houston ship channel, between Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula, Coast Guard Lt. Sam Danus said.

“Unified command is aware of the situation and is communicating with the cruise ship companies,” Danus said.

Area home to fish and wildlife

The area is home to popular bird habitats, especially during the approaching migratory shorebird season, but Kendrick said there have been no reports of wildlife being impacted.

The Texas City dike, a popular fishing spot that goes out into the Gulf for a few miles, is also closed. Lee Rilat, 58, owns Lee’s Bait and Tackle, the last store before the access road to the dike, which was blocked by a police car on a breezy, overcast Sunday. If it weren’t for the spill, Rilat’s business would be hopping.

[quote]This would be the first spring deal, the first real weekend for fishing.[/quote]

Rilat said. He says ships and barges have collided before, but this is the first time — at least this year — that someone has sprung a leak. His wife, Brenda Rilat, said sea fog was hanging over the bay Saturday.

Rilat, who’s lived in the area most of his life, doesn’t think the spill is too big of a deal.

“It’ll be fine. Everything’s going to be lovely. Mother Nature takes care of its own,” he said.

The collision was still being investigated, the Coast Guard said.

The captain of the 585-foot ship, Summer Wind, reported the spill just after noon Saturday. Six crew members from the tow vessel, which was going from Texas City to Bolivar, were injured, the Coast Guard said.

Kirby Inland Marine, which owns the tow vessel and barge, is working with the Texas General Land Office and many other federal, state and non-profit agencies to respond to the spill, The Coast Guard said. Tara Kilgore, an operations co-ordinator with Kirby Inland Marine, declined to comment Saturday.

“Sticky, gooey, thick, tarry stuff”

Jim Suydam, spokesman for the Texas’ General Land Office, described the type of oil the barge was carrying as “sticky, gooey, thick, tarry stuff.”

“That stuff is terrible to have to clean up,” he said.

Richard Gibbons, the conservation director of the Houston Audubon Society, said there is important shorebird habitat on both sides of the ship channel. One is the Bolivar Flats Shorebird Sanctuary just to the east, which Gibbons said attracts 50,000 to 70,000 shorebirds to shallow mud flats that are perfect foraging habitat.

“The timing really couldn’t be much worse since we’re approaching the peak shorebird migration season,” Gibbons said. He added that tens of thousands of wintering birds remain in the area.

Monday marks the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska. Suydam said that spill spurred the creation of the General Land Office’s Oil Spill and Prevention Division, which is funded by a tax on imported oil that the state legislature passed after the Valdez spill.