Read this June 1, 2011 article from Alberta Oil Magazine on the three major pipeline proposals to enable the Tar Sands to expand delivery to Asia and the US.
Alberta Oil Magazine: Three pipeline builders race to reach new markets
Tag Archives: BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers
The cost of oil on B.C.’s priceless coast – Sun op-ed
From the Vancouver Sun – June 18, 2011
by Chris Genovali and Misty MacDuffee
If the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is approved, an estimated
225 supertankers a year would enter Kitimat to load about 318 million
litres (two million barrels) of oil for shipment to American and Asian
markets (“Pipelines to prosperity,” Harvey Enchin, Issues & Ideas,
June 16). Loaded tankers would pass directly through Wright Sound, a
body of water with more than 5,000 vessels moving through it annually.
More than 400,000 vessel movements occur annually on the B.C. coast, so
it is not surprising that accidents are common, including collisions,
groundings and fires on board. Even vessels with state-of-the-art
navigational equipment are vulnerable.
The marine approaches to
the coast of northern B.C. and the port of Kitimat are dangerous. This
area is at least as dangerous as Prince William Sound, where the Exxon
Valdez hit Bligh Reef in Valdez Arm, in a navigable channel almost 10
kilometres (6.2 miles) wide. To enter Kitimat, supertankers will need to
transit Douglas Channel, which is 1.35 kilometres (0.84 miles) wide at
the narrowest point. Severe weather heightens the risk of shipping
accidents.
Should an accident occur involving a large ship,
serious inadequacies in response capabilities would hinder rescue and
containment operations. The south coast, for example, relies heavily on
the availability of American rescue tugs based out of Washington state
to respond to problems. Moreover, procedures between the provincial
government and the federal government to coordinate responses to large
vessel incidents at sea are not well harmonized. In the past, this has
resulted in considerable delays, as evidenced in the Leroy Trucking
barge incident, or no response at all, as in the sinking of the Queen of
the North.
A November 2010 article by Postmedia News revealed
that, according to an internal audit, “The Canadian Coast Guard lacks
the training, equipment and management systems to fulfil its duties to
respond to offshore pollution incidents such as oil spills … The audit
paints an alarming picture of an agency that would play a key role in
Canada’s response to a major oil spill off the world’s longest
coastline.” The article also identifies the relatively paltry budget of
$9.8 million for the coast guard’s environmental response unit.
Enbridge
manager of engineering Ray Doering’s recent claim in the Kitimat
Northern Sentinel that a spill “is likely never going to occur”
contradicts Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel’s statements in an April 2010 Globe
and Mail article in which he said, “Can we promise there will never be
an accident? No. Nobody can.”
Enbridge officials assert they
would not be financially liable for any oil spill at sea, while a June
2010 Vancouver Sun report revealed that owners of the tankers are liable
for the costs of oil recovery, cleanup and compensation for
environmental damage ― but only to the limit of their liability
insurance. Economists have tried to predict the costs of an oil spill
cleanup.
Globally, the cost to industry for spill cleanup averages
$16,000 US per tonne, not including the costs to restore habitat or
repair socio-economic damages to the communities impacted.
In
2003, the cost of cleaning up a 378,000-litre heavy fuel oil spill in
San Francisco Bay was an estimated $93 million. Forty to sixty per cent
of the estimated cost was attributed to restoring habitat and
compensating for socio-economic losses. However, in 2007 when the Cosco
Busan spilled a little over half that amount into the bay, the cost for
the cleanup alone was $70 million. In other words, true costs
dramatically exceeded the estimates.
Attaching a dollar value to
the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is
an extremely difficult task. The Exxon Valdez spill was the most
expensive in history; the true costs were estimated to be $9.5 billion,
of which only $2.5 billion were related to the cleanup. While
Exxon-Mobil paid more than $1 billion, U.S. taxpayers ended up footing
the bill for the rest.
But does any oil spill damage cost estimate
even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to
extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?
Chris
Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.
Misty MacDuffee is a conservation biologist with Raincoast.
NDP MP Fin Donnelly Reintroduces Bills on Salmon & Oil Tankers
This week in Ottawa, NDP MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam-Port Moody Fin Donnelly reintroduced two private members bills he authored last year. The first calls for a legislated ban on oil supertanker traffic on BC’s North and Central Coast. The second, called the Wild Salmon Protection Act, calls for open net pen salmon farms to be transitioned to land-based closed-containment technology.
Donnelly reintroduced his oil supertanker bill yesterday, seconded by BC MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, whose riding would encompass much of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline route and tanker port in the coastal community of Kitimat.
“British Columbians have been clear. They want to protect our north coast and permanently ban oil tanker traffic though the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound,” said New Democrat Fisheries and Oceans Critic Fin Donnelly. “A major spill off BC’s north coast would be catastrophic to the ecosystem and would negatively affect the economy in this area.”
A recent poll reconfirmed 80% of British Columbians oppose oil tanker traffic off the province’s rugged north coast – which is consistent with polling figures over the past year.
Donnelly said in Ottawa, “I urge Parliament to consider the risks associated with oil super tankers travelling off BC’s north coast and legislate a permanent ban.”
As the NDP’s Fisheries Critic, Donnelly has also been pushing his wild salmon bill in Ottawa for over a year now, with support from the likes of renown biologist Alexandra Morton, Hollywood icon and sports fisherman William Shatner, Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Broughton First Nations, and famed Vancouver chef Robert Clark.
According to Donnelly, “The bill would direct the Fisheries Minister to develop, table and implement a transition plan to move to closed containment.”
“My bill has received tremendous support since I first introduced it in Parliament last year,” said Donnelly. “Thousands of British Columbians have signed postcards and petitions to encourage the federal government to adopt this legislation. I hope that the federal government will listen and pass this critical legislation.”
First nations speak for themselves on pipelines
A response from chiefs of five First Nations to the patronizing accusation made by Peter Foster in the Vancouver Sun that they are being manipulated by environmentalists to oppose the Enbridge pipeline. “The lands and rivers which the proposed Enbridge pipeline would cross
are habitat for moose, grizzly bears, salmon, deer, migratory birds, and
other wildlife. Our food, stories, ceremonies, and our entire culture
is tied to the land and the wildlife it supports – a spill could
devastate our way of life.” Read article
Kinder Morgan proposes SECOND KITIMAT BITUMEN PIPELINE
From Northwest Coast Energy News – June 2, 2011
by Robin Rowland
In a story broken early Thursday, June 2, by the Vancouver website Tyee
and confirmed by Northwest Coast Energy news, another major energy
player, Kinder Morgan is proposing a second pipeline to carry bitumen
from the Alberta oil sands to the port of Kitimat.
The proposal
was part of a presentation to industry analysts during a conference on
March 24, 2011, with a PDF of the Power Point presentation posted on the
Kinder Morgan Website.
The likely controversial proposal was not picked up by the media until Tyee broke the story.
The
presentation says the proposed pipeline is one of several alternatives
proposed for the expansion of the existing Kinder Morgan Transmountain
Pipeline. In this scenario the pipeline to Kitimat would branch off
from the Transmountain Pipeline go through Prince George and then
apparently follow existing pipeline routes to Kitimat and not follow the
proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway route.
The Kinder Morgan presentation says the Transmountain pipeline branch to
Kitimat would cost $4 billion, compared to the $5,5 billion that
Enbridge has budgeted for the Northern Gateway project. The
Transmountain pipeline would have a capacity of 450 thousand barrels a
day compared to the Northern Gateway capacity of 550 thousand barrels a
day.
Tyee says:
A power point presentation
for investors by Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan Canada Group,
provides a wealth of information that has not been widely shared with
the general public or local governments:
Tyee says Kinder Morgan is also asking the National Energy Board for a
immediate jump in the bitumen going through the port of Vancouver
They are also requesting to divert more Alberta crude and bitumen
capacity to the Westbridge tanker terminal in Burrard Inlet and away
from existing land-based refineries in B.C. and Washington. If approved,
this would immediately expand crude capacity through Vancouver from
52,000 bpd to 79,000 bpd — an increase of more than 50 per cent
.
According to the documents seen by Tyee, the Vancouver end of the
project would require the dredging of Second Narrows to allow large
supertankers to visit the port. Tanker traffic in Vancouver would
increase, Tyee says
Tanker transits through Vancouver will increase to 216 per year in 2016, up from 71 in 2010 and 22 in 2005.
All this is being propelled by increasing energy demand from China. It
also appears that Kinder Morgan wants to increase the Vancouver capacity
because of the delays in the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, which
means that Alberta oil patch is seeking new ways to get the raw bitumen
to China.
Links:
Kinder Morgan Canada presentation on the Kitimat pipeline and the Vancouver port expansion (PDF)
Kinder Morgan application to the National Energy Board (PDF))
Read original article
Without Keystone XL, oil sands face choke point
From the Globe and Mail – June 8, 2011
by Nathan Vanderklippe and Shawn McCarthy
Amid the controversy engulfing TransCanada Corp.’s (TRP-T42.02-0.43-1.01%)
Keystone XL pipeline, which this week suffered another potential
setback at the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an
uncomfortable prospect is arising for Canada’s oil patch.
If the
$7-billion (U.S.) project is not built, the energy sector faces the
prospect of being “landlocked in bitumen,” with no way to get mounting
crude production to market. Without the massive new line, whose
environmental impact has become the subject of heated debate in the
U.S., existing pipelines could be constrained in as little as four
years.
That’s in part because oil sands producers likely only have until
2015 before they run out of customers in existing markets, as refineries
in the Midwest reach their capacity for processing Canada’s heavy oil.
They would then be stuck with growing volumes of oil, waiting for other
options to materialize. Some of those alternatives would be uncertain
and could take years to achieve, such as building new pipe across
contentious areas of British Columbia.
And a backup in crude, if
it were to happen, would almost certainly lead to diminished profits.
History has shown that pipeline restraints can lower the price of a
barrel of oil by multiple dollars – a consequence that speaks to the
importance the industry has placed on getting XL built. Billions of
dollars in spending are predicated, in part, on having that new pipeline
capacity in place.
“Unless we get increased [market] access, like
with Keystone XL, we’re going to be stuck,” said Ralph Glass, an
economist and vice-president at AJM Petroleum Consultants in Calgary.
“We’re
heading into the same situation with crude oil as we did with natural
gas, in that we’re going to hit a wall at some point in time and our
production is going to be the one backed out of the system, like natural
gas has been backed out of the U.S. system. I think it will have a
dramatic impact.”
For the oil patch, the possibility that the XL
project will falter is so outside expectations that many haven’t even
considered it. Indeed, companies have already signed up for the majority
of its capacity.
“None of us are really planning for that,” Devon Canada president Chris Seasons said.
TransCanada
argues that the pipeline’s contributions to U.S. employment and oil
supply will prove too compelling for the Obama administration to turn
down.
“We do not believe there will be a ‘world without Keystone,’
” TransCanada spokesman James Millar said in an e-mailed comment. “We
cannot see a scenario where the U.S. would say no to jobs and energy
security in getting oil from a stable nation in Canada.”
Yet the
pipeline has stirred a rancorous debate in the U.S., with critics
questioning whether it would imperil key water resources and further tie
that country’s economy to hydrocarbons. More questions arose this week
when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to the State
Department, which is charged with approving the project. The letter
outlined a lengthy list of concerns about XL and argued that the State
Department’s draft environmental impact statement is seriously flawed
and needs more work.
That has set the stage, some believe, for a
likely delay in the final approval decision, although the State
Department still expects to make that decision later this year.
On
that decision hangs not just a major source of future revenue for
TransCanada. In many ways, Canada’s entire oil and gas industry could be
affected. For example, Brian Ferguson, the chief executive officer of
Cenovus Energy Inc., has said Keystone XL is essential to allow future
oil sands growth. Tens of billions of dollars hang in the balance.
Building
new pipelines is so critical to Alberta’s future that the province’s
Energy Minister, Ron Liepert, thinks it needs national consideration.
“If
there was something that kept me up at night, it would be the fear that
before too long we’re going to be landlocked in bitumen,” he said.
“We’re not going to be an energy superpower if we can’t get the oil out
of Alberta.”
Mr. Liepert, who is co-hosting a meeting of federal
and provincial energy ministers in Kananaskis, Alta., in July, is urging
his counterparts to adopt an energy strategy that would make the
development of crude oil-export pipelines a matter of national
importance. He is also hoping Ottawa will strike a continental energy
pact that would commit the U.S. to providing market access to Canadian
oil in return for security of supply.
Were such a strategy to be
struck, it might alleviate “these project-by-project delays that I think
are just going to get longer and longer,” Mr. Liepert said, noting that
oil sands growth forecasts suggest several more XL-sized projects will
be needed in future years.
For Canadian producers, some other
options are available, including expanding and reconfiguring Enbridge
Inc.’s pipeline system to push oil farther east, where it can displace
some Atlantic imports.
But one of the most serious concerns lies
in getting heavy oil sands crude to refineries that can process it – an
issue likely to grow in importance in coming years. Keystone XL would
bring oil to the Gulf Coast, home to the world’s largest refining
complex. Most of today’s exports flow to the Midwest; several proposed
new pipes could bring more volume to the Gulf Coast – although it may be
a brief reprieve, since the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
expects existing pipelines to be full by 2017 or 2018.
Problems
are likely to arise long before then, however, especially since
Midwestern refineries are likely to reach their heavy oil limit by 2015
amid a surge in U.S. domestic light crude production, according to work
by IHS CERA.
“Therefore it is even more important that heavy crude
like the Canadian oil sands can get to a market that can process it,”
said Jackie Forrest, Calgary-based director of global oil for the
international research firm.
Read original article
Globe & Mail: Enbridge still short on pipeline support from First Nations
From the Globe and Mail – June 9, 2011
by Nathan Vanderklippe
Enbridge Inc. (ENB-T30.42-0.32-1.04%)
is struggling to win aboriginal support for its Northern Gateway
project, despite major financial promises and efforts to curry support
through sponsoring golf tournaments, powwows and rodeos, regulatory
documents filed by the company show.
The $5.5-billion pipeline, designed to transport Alberta crude to the
B.C. coast for export to Asia and California, has garnered major
industry support, but substantial opposition from first nations that
believe it will endanger the environment.
Enbridge has pledged some $1-billion in financial sweeteners to first
nations, including a 10-per-cent equity stake in the project and
promises of hiring guarantees and hundreds of millions in spending on
aboriginal businesses. It has promised economic benefits to any B.C.
group with reserve land within 80 kilometres of the proposed right of
way.
But documents filed with the National Energy Board by Enbridge, which is
seeking regulatory approval for the project, show that a surprising
number of groups do not appear interested in the offer, which was first
made public in February.
Enbridge has presented its benefits-package offer to 35 groups and first
nations. As of March 31, another 13 had not received the benefits
package. Many, including a series of coastal nations, have outright
refused to meet with the company.
And even some of those who initially agreed to look over the offer now
say they aren’t interested. Take the Tl’azt’en Nation. It is listed as
having received the benefits package. But its chief, Ralph Pierre, says
bluntly that his people have “rejected it and refused to even go through
the package.”
The Enbridge documents say the Tl’azt’en have invited Enbridge to speak
with leaders about financial specifics in the package. But Mr. Pierre
said the package is “still sitting right here in front of me right now
and I’m just not interested in opening it, to tell you the truth.”
Discerning how many first nations actually support Northern Gateway has
been challenging, in part because Enbridge has declined to provide
numbers. But the document suggests the tally is low.
Two groups – the Macleod Lake Indian Band and the Alexis Nakota Sioux
Nation – have requested that the company relocate pumping stations onto
their land, as a way of increasing the benefits that could flow their
way.
But when Enbridge held an all-expenses paid weekend in Banff earlier
this year for a “Best Practices in Aboriginal Business and Economic
Development” conference, only five nations were represented. Enbridge
spokesman Paul Stanway says the company invited only half a dozen whose
“fit was established based on the focus of the Banff program and
corresponding identified aspirations of invitees.”
Critics, however, took the short list – which included several nations
known to be pipeline supporters, as well as the Tl’azt’en, where a
leadership change has eroded support – as evidence that Enbridge has few
on its side.
“What it indicates to me is that, after six years of trying, they’ve got
five nations showing up to these things. So for love or money, they
can’t get solid support,” said Eric Swanson, a campaigner for the
Dogwood Initiative, a Victoria-based environmental lobby group.
Enbridge, however, says first nations interest in business opportunities
are substantial. An aboriginal business summit held in early 2010
brought out representatives of 42 communities along the pipeline route.
“In March, 2011, Northern Gateway polled some of the aboriginal groups
to determine the level of interest for a second aboriginal business
summit,” the company says in the filings. “All aboriginal groups
contacted expressed a strong interest.”
Read original article
Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate
I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.
- The private Energy Policy will continue
- Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
- BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
- BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
- New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
- Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
- New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
- The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
- The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
- The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
- Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
- Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
- Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue
The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
Can she be stopped?
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.
New York Times: Oil Sands Project in Canada Will Go On if Pipeline Is Blocked
From the New York Times June 7, 2011
by Ian Austen
OTTAWA — One way or another — by rail or ship or a network of pipelines — Canada will export oil from its vast northern oil sands projects to the United States and other markets.
So the regulatory battle over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which
would link the oil sands to the Gulf Coast of the United States, may be
little more than a symbolic clash of ideology, industry experts say.
Even if the Obama administration rejects the Keystone plan, the pace of
oil sands development in northern Alberta is unlikely to slow.
Oil producers in Canada have several alternatives for reaching the
United States market. And recent investments by Chinese companies in the
oil sands suggest that a growing alternative market lies across the
Pacific.
“The Canadian oil sands will continue to be developed irrespective of
whether the pipeline goes ahead,” said Russell K. Girling, the president
and chief executive of TransCanada, the company behind the $7 billion project.
That determination to proceed has become almost beside the point in the
battle over Keystone XL’s fate, which has dragged on since November
2008.
Environmentalists are using the project as a proxy for their general
antagonism toward oil sands production, which consumes large amounts of
water and energy and can be destructive to the boreal forest that sits
on top of the tarry rock from which the oil is extracted.
“This is really a campaign against tar sands expansion rather than a
single pipeline,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the director of the
international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an
environmental group that is a leading American critic of the process.
Advocates, meanwhile, say that oil sands extraction is getting cleaner
and represents a potentially major source of oil from a politically
stable ally that will help ensure America’s energy security.
The stakes are enormous. The oils sands have reserves of 171.3 billion barrels, according to estimates
by the provincial government of Alberta — enough to change the balance
of world oil markets, some energy experts say; by comparison, Saudi
Arabia has reserves of 264.2 billion barrels.
Because of that, the debate over the pipeline has been unusually
protracted and fractious, and, according to some analysts, characterized
by hyperbole on both sides.
“This situation has reached such talismanic significance that whatever
the U.S. government does will be read far more deeply than the substance
merits,” said Michael A. Levi, the senior fellow for energy and the
environment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The State Department, which must approve the project because it crosses
international borders, is nearing the end of its environmental review
and then will examine national interest questions. It has said it
expects to make a ruling by the end of the year.
As the world’s largest importer of oil and a next-door neighbor of
Canada, the United States is the most attractive and logical market for
oil sands crude and already buys virtually all that Canada exports. But
producers are eager to move their product all the way to the Gulf of
Mexico, where there are more refineries capable of handling the
unusually thick crude.
It is now shipped through an existing pipeline — an earlier part of the
Keystone project — to Cushing, Okla., where large storage facilities are
fed by a variety of pipelines. There, it is priced against lighter oil
and generally commands a lower price.
Because demand for oil in the United States is unlikely to fall
significantly in the foreseeable future, Canadian producers are sure to
look for other ways to ship their oil south if the Keystone XL project
is rejected. While backup plans are not fully developed, other options
do exist.
Shipping by rail is one. Last October, in a joint venture with the
Canadian National Railway of Montreal, Altex Energy, an oil shipping
company, began shipping relatively small amounts of tar sands crude
along Canadian National’s tracks directly to the Gulf of Mexico.
Not only does rail avoid billions of dollars in infrastructure
investment, it also escapes any regulatory reviews in the United States.
“It’s no different than shipping grain,” said Glen Perry, the president of Altex, which is based in Calgary, Alberta.
Mr. Perry acknowledged that rail was considerably more expensive than
pipeline shipping. Pipelines, however, require the oil sands crude to be
diluted with chemicals that thin it and make it flow more easily. Rail
cars do not.
In addition to rail, there are other pipelines available. The Trans
Mountain pipeline owned by Kinder Morgan already moves Alberta oil,
including tar sands production, to ports on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Some
of that travels by sea to refineries in the United States.
While that pipeline is operating at near capacity, Kinder Morgan is considering increasing its capacity to the coast and has already upgraded the line inland.
Enbridge, another large Canadian pipeline company, is proposing its own
line, from just north of Edmonton, Alberta, to the northern British
Columbia port of Kitimat.
While both of those projects have encountered opposition from
environmentalists and some aboriginal groups, the political climate
favors the energy industry. Last month Canadians re-elected a
Conservative government that has its traditional power base in Alberta,
which has staunchly promoted the oil sands.
Other pipeline projects could develop if Keystone XL does not. It is technically feasible to convert one of two natural gas
pipelines to eastern Canada to carry oil. Once there, shipments could
enter the United States through existing trans-border crossings in
Ontario and Quebec.
Ronald Liepert, the energy minister in Alberta, said that while Canada
would prefer to sell its oil to the United States, “this commodity will
go someplace.”
In particular, he said, China is already a major consumer of other
Canadian natural resources and a small investor in the oil sands. “I can
predict confidently that at some point China will take every drop of
oil Canada can produce.”
Read original article
The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today
I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:
- It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
- There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
- The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
- There is no reasonable alternative.
- It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.
The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly. Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:
- First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
- Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
- Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
- Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
with the “merits” of the project.)
- Fifth, the protests continue.
- Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”.
Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.