Tag Archives: Alberta Tar Sands

Tough questions for Enbridge on its alleged support from First Nations

May 9, 2012Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gasDamien Gillis

It seems like every time BC First Nations draw major press coverage on their opposition to Enbridge, the company comes up with increasingly wild claims about how much support they have from First Nations.

Today, amidst Enbridge’s AGM in Toronto, the company is doing damage control in the face of pressure from some of its prominent investors with regards to the proposed Northern Gateway pipelines. NEI Investments has filed a motion asking the company to respond to risks posed by First Nations opposition to the project. According to NEI manager Jamie Bonham, “…[I]f the company cannot provide a compelling rationale that refutes the risks that we’ve identified, then the prudent course of action would be to put the project on hold.” Meanwhile, Vancity is mulling purging Enbridge stock from its mutual funds for the same reason.

But according to Enbridge executives quoted in the mainstream press today – including this must-listen interview with Rick Cluff on CBC’s Early Edition – these concerns are overblown and a whopping 40 to 50-plus percent of First Nations “along the pipeline corridor” have or will have signed onto revenue sharing agreements with the company by month’s end.

But there’s good reason to be skeptical of Enbridge’s claims of First Nations support for its controversial project. Last December, the day after the historic anniversary of the “Save the Fraser Declaration” in Vancouver – whereupon over 60 First Nations signed onto the document or reaffirmed their commitment to oppose Enbridge (with another 70 nations in BC and Alberta standing with them in solidarity) – Enbridge rolled out Elmer Derrick.

The now infamous former treaty negotiator for the Gitxsan First Nation had made an unauthorized deal with the company for a whopping $7 million over 20 years to share in revenues from the pipeline in exchange for supporting Enbridge’s plan. The mainstream media – particularly Postmedia – bought the ruse, hook, line and sinker, with the Vancouver Sun making it front page news before later backpedaling on the story (though a number of key stories on the issue from this embarrassing chapter for the paper are conspicuously no longer available online).

A few other points worth noting on that deal before moving back to the present day: According to the calculations of a colleague, based on the number of Gitxsan spread throughout three villages in Northeast BC and off-reserve, that $7 million worked out to about $3 per person per month over 20 years – barely enough for a cheap can of salmon each…which I suppose would have come in handy when Enbridge destroys their traditional salmon runs with a spill from its pipeline (of course it would have to be Russian or Alaskan salmon).

It also turned out the Gitxsan’s territory doesn’t actually sit along the pipeline route, which added to the frustration of the nation’s neighbours whose territories the pipeline would bisect and who firmly oppose the project. The deal was quickly discredited by the larger Gitxsan community and hereditary leadership, and subsequently formally annulled. Mr. Derrick and two of his colleagues lost their jobs with the Gitxsan Treaty Society over the debacle, but Derrick has since been rewarded with a plum Harper Government appointment to the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

Now, as the Yinka Dene Alliance leads a delegation of BC First Nations to Enbridge’s AGM in Toronto – the culmination of a cross-country whistle-stop tour by train – the company is boasting it has loads of support from First Nations. An Enbridge representative told CBC’s Rick Cluff this morning, “Over 40% of First Nations along the proposed corridor have entered into agreements with Enbridge to take a position, to take a stake in project.” Enbridge Gateway VP Janet Holder went a step further, telling the Globe and Mail that by the end of May she expects most concerned First Nations to have bought into the deal, stating, “It will definitely be a majority.”

Which nations? They won’t say.

What exactly do these deals really look like? They imply they’re all actual revenue sharing partnership deals – but can we be sure they aren’t mixing protocol and impact benefit agreements in there? Of course, we may never know.

How many nations along the Tanker Route? It’s reasonable to infer from the company’s carefully worded statements that it has the support of First Nations “along the pipeline corridor”, that they have none along BC’s precious and perilous coast. The Coastal First Nations – such as the Gitga’at of Hartley Bay and the Heiltsuk of Bella Bella, to name just a couple – remain steadfastly opposed.

Given the fact that the Gitxsan – the only nation Enbridge has actually touted by name – were in fact not technically “along the pipeline corridor”, how many of these dozens of allegedly supportive nations would actually have the pipeline passing through their territories? According to the Globe and Mail, Enbridge defines the “corridor” and eligible aboriginal groups as any “first nations and Métis groups that claim territory within 80 kilometres of its route.” (emphasis added).

How many of these nations are on unceded territory within BC (as opposed to treatied lands in Alberta)? This is an enormous distinction, in legal terms and on a number of other fronts.

When the company says it’s offering these nations a “10% stake” in the project, what exactly does that mean? Enbridge is conveying the false impression that it’s giving away this stake, when in fact it’s loaning the nation or helping to arrange the financing for it to purchase a “stake” in the project. That’s another big distinction often missed by the mainstream media.

Again, I have to come back to the one deal we actually know about – the illegitimate one cut by Mr. Elmer Derrick. $7 million over 20 years. We hear all about the hundreds of billions of dollars of value the Enbridge pipeline would bring to Canada’s economy. How do you get to a measly $7 million from that? Are all these deals as awful as the one they were actually prepared to brag about?

And the most important question of all: How does this First Nations “stake” in the pipeline help to limit Enbridge’s liability in the event of an inevitable oil spill? Will they dump 10% of the cleanup costs on affected nations? Or will they leave them holding the bag altogether? Long after Enbridge has done its damage, First Nations will still be there, left to deal with the mess. Just ask the people of Michigan.

If I’m mistaken in any of my questions or conclusions, I urge Enbridge to correct me where I’m wrong. That would preferable to having to read between the lines of the company’s increasingly boastful and vague statements – and the often misleading interpretations of them by the mainstream media.

The Myth of BC Liberal ‘Neutrality’ on Enbridge

May 7, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Christy Clark, Enbridge, KinderMorgan, Oil and gas, Politics, Robyn Allan, Stephen HarperKevin Logan

“The Development of Nothern Gateway is job one.”
– Christy Clark shorty after becoming Premier

“With respect to northern gateway, let me say our government is pro pipeline,” says the Premier of British Columbia.

Christy Clark made this claim in question period last week. She did so while berating the NDP for opposing the project on the grounds that they are doing so prematurely and without adequate information to make an informed opinion.

This is the definitive moment that marks the turning point in the now long standing myth that the BC liberals are “neutral” or have chosen to take “no position” on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. And it was done with the stunning Liberal hypocrisy we have been forced to endure for too long.

By now anyone following the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Project is well aware that the process is deeply flawed, politically driven and resembles more of a dog and pony show than anything remotely close to an extensive review of the pertinent environmental and economic issues.

The BC Liberals have proven that they do support pipelines, no matter what the cost, just as the Premier admitted in Question Period. They have done so for a long time and with little if any understanding of the far reaching economic and environmental ramifications. And the only reason they cling to a false front of neutrality is to maintain the now long standing cover up of their complicity in advancing pipeline projects.

The myth that they maintain a neutral stance dominates the mainstream barrage of coverage. This is done in order to provide the political escape hatch this government may require in order to cling to power. It also is done to perpetuate the “mass deception” governments, oil and media have undertaken, according to Robyn Allan former ICBC CEO, who has worked to uncover the misdeeds of government and industry boosters.

The time for the Liberal myth of ‘neutrality’ and so called ‘respect for public processes’ has come to an end. This will happen in large part due to the effort of concerned and informed citizens who, at great risk, have not only fully explored the issues but have also uncovered reams of data supporting their claims including unseemly bilateral agreements, extensive economic analysis and strategic components of the proposals that have been kept from the public. The now retired former CEO of ICBC Robyn Allan outlines some of these major concerns in this presentation and her recent open letter to the Premier.

Most recently Ms. Allan has completed a report entitled “Proposed Pipeline and Tanker Spill Risk for BC.” In this exhaustive report Robyn shines the light on how these pipeline proposals have been designed to “low ball” the pipeline capacity in favour of adding additional capacity in the future. This strategy allows for a 60% increase in the daily flow of diluted bitumen in the case of Enbridge’s proposal and in so doing does an end run on exhaustive environmental assessments that would be required had they originally proposed the full capacity. The following is from her report:

There is no reason to believe that the true environmental risk represented by the Northern Gateway Project is being—or ever will be—adequately addressed. The current JRP process has excluded a significant portion of the project’s actual capacity and its implications for pipeline spill and marine spill, while in the future, there is no statutory obligation to do so. All indications from the Federal government suggests there will be no political will either.

Ms. Allan goes on to demand that BC regain its statutory right to a final decision on the Northern Gateway Project:

The government of British Columbia [needs] to take action and protect BC’s statutory right for final decision for this project by removing Northern Gateway from the Equivalency Agreement with
the NEB.

As a result of the fine work of Ms. Allan and others like her, the national and provincial mainstream media has been forced to cover the duplicitous nature of the Liberal stickhandling of this issue despite having moved mountains to maintain the delicate mythology that the liberals have “not taken a position on the issue.” And the blogosphere has lit up (too many to link to) revealing this documentation that proves the Liberals are not only far from neutral but have taken outstanding measures in order to ensure that the pipeline projects proceed virtually unhindered by issues in the best economic interest of British Columbians and our environment.

People concerned about the future of our Province should view Robyn’s presentation and support her recent request for Cabinet to revoke the nearly two year old Equivalency Agreement which diminishes our ability to influence major projects in our Province. Also take the time to read her most recent report and follow up on her request to bring these issues to the attention of the Premier.

And, while we are at it we should encourage the environment Minister to explain why he delegated his Ministerial powers as outlined in section 27 of the act, onto senior staff which enabled the “Equivalency Agreement”, that forfeits our sovereign ability to properly review, participate and influence not just the Northern Gateway Project but four major proposed infrastructure developments. All of which will alter the very fabric of our Province and set BC on a course to a very bleak future. The relevant act clearly outlines the Minister has the right to enter into these agreements, not staff. It seems this was done in order to avoid political scrutiny while greasing the skids for major projects not necessarily in the best interest of British Columbians.

Furthermore, the Equivalency Agreement was absolutely unnecessary as there already was a long-standing agreement in place that would have allowed for Joint Review Panels to be established in order to prevent duplication. Indeed this was the entire purpose of this long standing, renewable agreement. The Minister should explain why he delegated his power to staff to establish the Equivalency Agreement, under what direction and for what purposes given the fact it was entirely unnecessary in order to “avoid duplication” or “streamline” the already entrenched agreement.

Equivalency Agreements were at one time an administrative tool used exclusively by Alberta to allow for that Province to undertake reviews and avoid duplication by the Federal Government. In recent highly contentious legislation, the use of Equivalency Agreements was forwarded by the Harper government to remove the Federal review components on so called “minor projects” making the Provinces sole arbiters. Given that Taseko’s Fish Lake project was rejected by the Federal process but passed the provincial assessment we gain insight into why Harper made these adjustments.

However, in the case of the Equivalency Agreement in British Columbia the exact opposite is occurring and the Province is being cut out of the process in order “to avoid duplication.” This stands in stark contrast to both the traditional application of these agreements and how they are being currently utilized by this government. Our environment Minister needs to clarify why. Otherwise, it seems that not only are they using it to remove the Province from the equation but they are doing so against the grain of the common application of these agreements, while at the same time ignoring the act which dictates the Minister makes these arrangements, not staff.

We should also be asking our Environment Minister when and where the required public notice for this Equivalency Agreement occurred, because in order for an Equivalency Agreement to be enabled it requires notice and a 60 day time period for input on behalf of stakeholders and interested participants.Furthermore, after the 60 day period is complete, the agreement is supposed to be published by the Minister, or put in the Gazette. None of which occurred.

These striking anomalies just scratch the surface of the evidence that the BC Liberals have had an agenda for many years which involved a multi-faceted approach designed to set the legal and administrative stage for the successful development of exhaustive infrastructure projects in order to export Alberta’s Dirty Dilbit. It was done so by intentionally removing the capacity of British Columbian stakeholders to influence the decision making and outcomes while ensuring we had no significant leverage or capacity to negotiate beneficial economic arrangements.

Its time to end the deception and mythology surrounding the future of British Columbia and the oil and gas agenda and start planning a future that benefits all British Columbians.

Kevin Logan was a Ministerial Assistant to former Premier and Minister of Energy Mines and Northern Development Dan Miller.

Ecocide: Crimes Against Nature and Humanity

May 4, 2012Climate Change, Energy and Resources, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, climate change, Ray Grigg, Shades of GreenRay Grigg

On September 30, 2011, a mock trial by judge and jury at the University of Colchester in England found two oil executives of Canada’s tar sands guilty of ecocide. The jury deliberated a mere 50 minutes before reaching its unanimous verdict. During the trial, the evidence supported the contention that development of the tar sands was the biggest crime against nature on the planet, exceeding even BP’s 2010 huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The trial, conducted with real judges, lawyers and jury, respected all judicial procedures. It proceeded “as if ecocide were an international crime against peace, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression, and placed under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court” (Toronto Star, March 31/12). The only difference, of course, was that the corporate oil executives were fictitious.

The trial was the creative effort of an international lawyer and environmental activist, Polly Higgins, who has dedicated her life to eradicating ecocide, which is defined as, “The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished” (Ibid.).

Polly Higgins’ story is illuminating and inspiring. Until 10 years ago, the Scottish-born lawyer was representing corporations charged with pollution offences. That’s when she had an epiphany, a realization that “the executives and directors of corporations” are legally bound “to maximize profits for their shareholders”, making “it illegal for them to prioritize the environment in their business decisions” (Ibid.).

Higgins’ epiphany changed her perspective and her life. Everything corporations do, she realized, is subservient to their legal obligation to shareholders. Corporations worship at the Altar of Profit in the Temple of Mammon under a set of rules that have evolved over the course of centuries. Their security as legal entities has been entrenched and supported by law to safeguard their historic role in the fabric of an economic system. Environmental protection has never been a consideration, except when beneficial to investors. It is still incidental, a recent and intrusive inconvenience that has only occurred as we have become aware of the terrible ecological consequences of unfettered economic activity.

But a paradigm shift is underway — although some people and governments are more aware of this transition than others. To those who don’t believe the system can be changed, Higgins has two wise and ready replies. The first pertains to slavery, an entire economic system of 200 years ago that was wholly based on the brutal exploitation of others. When the British parliamentarian, Wilbur Wilberforce, spoke for the abolition of slavery, he confronted widespread opposition. The status quo insisted that slavery was “necessary”, the “public” demanded it, and eliminating it would “lead to economic collapse”, Higgins said in an interview with the Toronto Star — precisely the present arguments used against eliminating fossil fuels and giving priority to environmental health. Slavery’s end became inevitable when Charles Grant, the man who owned the British East India Company and controlled over half the world’s slave trade, publicly declared that slavery was morally wrong.

Higgins’ second argument pertains to World War II. In January, 1942, American industry was too busy tearing up railway tracks and building cars, she said, to make the 50,000 planes required for the war effort. “The government came back the next day and said it is now illegal for you to make cars; you will make planes” (Ibid.). So they did. The war was won and industry became more powerful and profitable than ever.

If we can win huge economic benefits by eliminating slavery, Higgins argues, and if we can win a world war by revolutionizing production objectives, then we can rebuild an economic system on a sustainable foundation by respecting environmental imperatives. All that’s needed is the political will.

Environmental concerns are rapidly gaining profile. Indeed, they are quickly moving from issues of interest to issues of worry, emergency and crisis. Unanimous public opinion may still be elusive but the trend is clear. Environmental considerations are gaining precedence over corporate interests. The time is fast approaching when all economic considerations will be founded upon sound ecological principles, simply because to do otherwise will be deemed foolhardy and immoral. Governments that resist this trend will be seen as irresponsible, anachronistic and dangerous. In Higgins’ words, “Now we’re starting to have a narrative emerging in big business which says we have to stop destroying the Earth. We have to put people and planet first. This is about the moral imperative trumping the economic imperative” (Ibid.).

The ground is already destabilizing beneath the old economic model, and a new one is emerging. Its form is still taking shape. Like any profound idea, it is reaching a critical mass and a momentum that will not be stopped by resistance, denial or obstruction. Indeed, efforts to thwart its arrival simply draw attention to its validity and imperative. Those who do not yield to its oncoming weight and authority will soon be judged by history for crimes against nature and humanity. Except this time, the trial of ecocide will be real.

Global TV Video Report on Developing Fuel Slick in Great Bear Rainforest, Near Harley Bay

May 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, Oil and gas, PoliticsDamien Gillis

Watch this Global TV report on a developing slick of bunker c fuel in Grenville Channel near Hartley Bay, BC. The provincial government downplayed the spill today in the Legislature. (May 3, 2012)

Watch 3 min video: http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/fuel+slick/video.html?v=2230597754&p=1&s=dd#video

Washington Post: Trans Canada Likely to Reapply for Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Friday

May 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report from the Washington Post, suggesting Trans Canada Pipelines will likely reapply for a permit for its controversial Keystone XL Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to the US Gulf Coast. (May 3, 2012)

The Canadian firm behind the controversial Keystone XL pipeline will reapply as early as Friday for a federal permit to ship carbon-intense crude oil from Alberta to the United States, according to people familiar with the company’s plans.

In January, the Obama administration denied a permit for TransCanada, the firm hoping to build the project, on the grounds that a congressionally mandated deadline of Feb. 21 did not give officials enough time to evaluate the pipeline’s impact. Since then TransCanada has said it would proceed with plans to construct the segment running from Cushing, Okla., to Port Arthur, Tex., and unveiled a new route for the pipeline in Nebraska.

President Obama, environmentalists and many Nebraskans — including the state’s Republican governor Dave Heineman — had raised concerns that the project’s original Nebraska route could imperil the ecologically sensitive Sandhills region, as well as the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the state’s residents.

The move will revive one of the year’s most contentious political issues — which has divided the Democratic base between environmentalists and some unions, and has unified Republicans in support of what they view as a critical source of energy supply for the U.S. — just months before the November elections.

The new route TransCanada proposed in mid-April would steer clear of northwestern Nebraska’s Sandhills region, though it still runs over parts of the Ogallala aquifer. The state’s environmentalists argue that Nebraska officials have defined the Sandhills region too narrowly and say that the revised route will traverse the Sandhills in Nebraska’s northern Holt County.

Former Bank of Canada Governor Dodge: Look East with New Pipelines, Not West with Enbridge

May 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar SandsAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this article on former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge’s recent speech at Edmonton’s McEwan University, in which he questioned the fundamentals and viability of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – suggesting instead that Tar Sands producers look to supply oil-importing Eastern Canadian provinces with Alberta bitumen. (May 1, 2012)

EDMONTON – The former Governor of the Bank of Canada says it may make more sense to ship Alberta’s bitumen to Eastern Canada, in view of the vocal opposition to two proposed pipeline projects to the West Coast.

“I think it’s going to be difficult, right. You’ve got all the loony tunes in Vancouver who don’t want to see Kinder Morgan’s pipeline expanded,” said David Dodge, in an interview with the Journal.

Dodge, who was in Edmonton Tuesday to deliver a speech on the global economic outlook at MacEwan University, said Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat looks like even more of a long shot.

“I think the project to Kitimat looks, objectively, more risky. So why hasn’t much greater effort gone into looking at Prince Rupert and taking (bitumen) out that way? My guess is, the easiest place to get B.C. to buy into the project would be to go to Rupert.”

Dodge’s views echo those of former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, who also favours looking at an alternate pipeline route to Prince Rupert, where ocean-going supertankers can navigate more easily.

But given the level of opposition to any oilsands pipelines in B.C., where Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson has been among the harshest critics of the Kinder Morgan project, Dodge said it may be more feasible to simply ship bitumen east.

“You’ve got to get the stuff out of here somehow, and not necessarily send it all south (to the U.S.). And maybe it’s going to be difficult for other reasons to send it west. So I’m intrigued with the option of getting it to tidewater going east,” he said.

Rafe Mair, Robyn Allan Draw Over 4,000 Listeners to Telephone Townhall on Exporting Alberta Bitumen Through BC

Read this story from the Chilliwack Times on a recent telephone townhall meeting held throughout the riding of Chilliwack-Hope to discuss proposed oil pipelines and tankers in BC in advance of the recent provincial byelection there. (May 1, 2012)

Thousands of residents in the provincial Chilliwack-Hope riding took part in a telephone townhall meeting on the topic of Kinder Morgan’s oil pipeline expansion before Thursday’s byelection.

The call was organized by Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative and went out to everyone listed in the phone book, approximately 14,000 homes.

Dogwood campaigns director Eric Swanson said 4,572 people opted in to the discussion, although most did not stay on the entire time.

“At any given moment we were talking to just under 400 people,” Swanson said.

The call involved a number of poll questions about oil tankers and pipelines. On the line for a discussion were three panelists: former Socred MLA and current political commentator Rafe Mair; economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan; and Abbotsford resident John Vissers, an outspoken critic of the pipeline.

The three main Chilliwack-Hope byelection candidates were asked to provide their positions on the issue, but only New Democrat Gwen O’Mahony responded.

When asked if those on the line supported or opposed projects like Kinder Morgan’s, or the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, 39 per cent supported, 44 per cent opposed and 17 per cent said they didn’t know.

Sixty-eight per cent of respondents said the issue of pipelines and tankers would be a voting issue in the byelection, as opposed to 32 per cent who said it wouldn’t be.

Fraser Institue Took Half Million in Foreign “Charitable” Funding from US Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers

May 4, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story from the Vancouver Observer, revealing that the Texas oil billionaire Koch Brothers have given some $500,000 in charitable funding to the BC-based ultra-right wing Fraser Institute – which has been a supporter of the oil industry and climate change denial campaign. (April 25, 2012)

As the Conservative assault continues against Canadian environmental charities, the Vancouver Observer has learned that since 2007, foreign oil billionaires the Koch brothers have donated over half a million dollars to the “charitable” right-wing Fraser Institute.

According to U.S. tax documents, the Fraser Institute received $150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation in 2008, $175,500 in 2009, and another $150,000 in 2010. The grants were purportedly for “research support” and “educational programs”.

Prior to 2008, the Institute received another $25,000 in funding from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, which is under the umbrella of Koch Family Foundations.

It has long been known that the ultra-conservative Koch Brothers have been donors for the conservative policy think-tank—though this information is not listed the Institute’s Annual Reports—however, the extent of their funding in the past few years demonstrates the foundation’s more recent influence in Canadian politics.

Read article: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2012/04/25/%E2%80%9Ccharitable%E2%80%9D-fraser-institute-accepted-500k-foreign-funding-oil-billionaires

Open Letter to Christy Clark on Enbridge, BC’s Sovereignty

April 24, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Christy Clark, Enbridge, Oil and gas, Politics, Stephen HarperDamien Gillis

The following letter was originally published on economist and former President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Robyn Allan’s blog, robynallan.com.

April 19, 2012

Dear Premier Clark,

Your government has not spoken out for or against the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge Inc., rather preferring to wait until the National Energy Review Board process is complete. I am writing to you today to explain that, unfortunately the current Northern Gateway environmental and public interest process is flawed and as a result the public interest of BC is not protected.

The Federal government, as I am sure you are aware, has publicly endorsed the project, stated it is in the national interest of Canada, and has systematically demonized individuals and groups who oppose the project. This behaviour has made a travesty of the necessary arms length relationship between government and an independent regulatory body.

As long as there was some sense that the Joint Review Panel (JRP) was independent and had the authority to reject the proposal regardless of the political pressure imposed by the Prime Minister’s Office, a semblance of due process was maintained. That necessary condition was violated when Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver unveiled proposed legislation on April 17, 2012.

The Federal Government now intends to further weaken environmental protection and favour large oil companies operating, primarily, in Alberta. This has betrayed any remaining trust in federal energy decisions as they relate to the province of British Columbia.

With the overhaul of the environmental assessment rules and process, and making final decision on oil pipelines—such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway and proposed Kinder Morgan projects—a Federal cabinet prerogative, there is no confidence that the Government of Canada will make decisions that will be in the best public interest of the residents of this province.

A major change in policy in the midst of nation breaking events such as Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan requires deliberate action on the part of your Office to protect the public interest trust and rights of BC residents and First Nations.

Certainly when the NEB process for Northern Gateway commenced in June 2010, the BC government thought the JRP would be objective and have the power to recommend a binding decision which would reflect the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians. I can imagine that the safety and efficiency inherent in one independent review body—which the NEB was believed to be at the time—and the belief that our public interest would be protected were reasons why the Liberal government of BC under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, felt it acceptable to sign away our right to conduct an environmental assessment under B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act.

During my review of the Enbridge economic documents as part of their Application to the NEB, I wondered why there was no real or meaningful review of their case by various ministries of the BC government. The deliberate intent in the Enbridge documents to increase the price of oil for Canadian consumers and businesses, and the lack of concern over the impact our petro-currency has on forestry, agriculture, tourism and manufacturing, appeared to be glaring examples of an economic case intent on presenting only the benefits to the oil industry without due consideration to the economic costs for the rest of us. The development of a strategy to export raw crude to Asia at the cost of value added jobs and control over environmental standards also seemed worthy of provincial comment.

I felt surely, there should be professional economists, paid by taxpayers, that would stand up and present a fair picture of the macroeconomic impact rapid resource expansion and export has on the economy of British Columbia, not to mention the threat to the environment and First Nations rights. That is when I discovered that BC had signed away the right to actively assess the project. I then understood that not only have you, as Premier, elected to remain silent on the issue, but our provincial departments have effectively been muzzled as well.

I draw to your attention the Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement signed between the NEB and BC’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on June 21^st, 2010. I have attached a link to the agreement for your ease of recall.

Essentially the agreement states that the EAO will accept the NEB’s environmental assessment for four proposed projects, including the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, which would otherwise have to be reviewed under BC’s Environmental Assessment Act. The NEB’s review would be treated as an equivalent assessment.

If the province of BC had not signed away its right to the NEB, under the terms of the legislation the EAO would have had to undertake a review. According to the EAO, it is a “neutral agency that manages the review of proposed major projects in British Columbia, as required by the Environmental Assessment Act. The environmental assessment process provides for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects, and provides for meaningful participation by First Nations, proponents, the public, local governments, and provincial agencies.”

We have the power within BC to undertake meaningful environmental assessment within provincial jurisdiction, but signed it away. However, not all is lost. Clause 6 of the Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement states: ”Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon giving 30 days written notice to terminate the other Party”.

May I recommend that the Government of British Columbia inform the Government of Canada that the province is now exercising its right with 30 days notice in order that it may undertake a proper environmental assessment under the terms of the provincial Environmental Assessment Act, for the Enbridge project, and it will not entertain signing such an agreement for the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.

This action will ensure that the public interest of the people of BC will be protected and will not be severely curtailed by the actions of the Government of Canada favouring primarily Alberta’s oil producers.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Robyn Allan

Robyn Allan

cc. Dr. Terry Lake, Minister of the Environment

Mr. Adrian Dix, Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Rob Fleming, Environment Critic

Mr. John Cummins, Conservative Leader

Mr. John van Dongen, Conservative MLA

Mr. Bob Simpson, Independent MLA

Ms. Vicki Huntington, Independent MLA

Local Governments to Fight Kinder Morgan Over Oil Pipeline, Tanker Expansion Plans

April 14, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, KinderMorgan, Oil and gas, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story form the Globe and Mail on BC’s coastal mayors and councilors preparing to fight Kinder Morgan’s plans to triple their bitumen pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver. (April 14, 2012)

Local governments on B.C.’s west coast are girding for a fight with energy giant Kinder Morgan over its $5-billion pipeline expansion plans to move more Alberta oil to the Vancouver Harbour for transport overseas.

A phalanx of mayors is vowing to fight the project, including coastal communities far from the pipeline but exposed to increased oil tanker traffic.

“This is not a comfortable position for Kinder Morgan, they’ll be relying on the federal government to override local government,” said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This may be the hill the Conservatives die on. The response from the public in British Columbia is, not only is this a potential danger to us, but there’s nothing in it for us.”

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson challenged B.C. Premier Christy Clark to take a stand on the plans, saying city residents – including her own Vancouver-Point Grey constituents – won’t support risking an oil spill.

“I will fiercely oppose the expansion of oil tankers in Vancouver’s harbour and the pipeline that feeds them,” he said in an interview. “The Premier should weigh in and I hope it is on the side of our local economies. It’s hard to imagine an oil spill on Kits Beach and Stanley Park – the impact it would have for generations.”

Ms. Clark did not return calls Friday. The Premier has balked at taking a position on a better-known pipeline proposal, the contentious Northern Gateway project.

That project is a key part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s goal to take Canadian resources to Asian markets, but the B.C. government has yet to come out for or against it despite its “Canada starts here” marketing strategy.

The Gateway project is currently the subject of a national review, but the southern pipeline project is further ahead because Kinder Morgan already has a right of way for its relatively small pipeline – called Trans Mountain – from Edmonton to the Vancouver suburb of Burnaby.

On Thursday, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, a Houston energy and pipeline company, announced it has enough customers lined up to begin the official regulatory review process of its plan, which would put another pipeline on the route, nearly tripling the current capacity and bringing an oil tanker a day into Burrard Inlet.

On Friday, at a meeting of Metro Vancouver mayors, talks began on forming a united front, Mr. Corrigan said. “This is something that is going to gain momentum as the mayors put their resources together to respond.”

Mr. Corrigan predicted it will also put the BC Liberal government in a tough position as it struggles to keep federal Conservatives on side. “They are going to be expected by the Conservative government to welcome access for Alberta oil. Their relationship with the federal government is going to be severely tested,” he said.

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.