Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

OTTAWA—A biologist, an energy lawyer and an aboriginal geologist will sit down Tuesday in a recreation centre in the wilderness of northern British Columbia to initiate what could be the fiercest environmental standoff ever seen in Canada.

Before the hearings in B.C. and Alberta are completed next year, more than 4,000 people are expected to appear before the three-member panel vetting the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta through the Rockies to the B.C. coast.

Like the now-stalled Keystone XL project in the United States, the planned pipeline to carry tarsands-derived crude oil across the mountains to a new supertanker port in northern B.C. is shaping up as a titanic clash of economic and environmental imperatives.

Fear of pipeline leaks or a tanker spill that would foul some of the world’s most pristine forests and coastal areas has already galvanized unprecedented concern in the green movement, with some groups calling it the “defining environmental battle” of modern times. The army of opponents includes environmentalists from around North America, more than 100 aboriginal groups and thousands of other B.C. citizens. Star power will also be brought into play from the likes of Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio.

On the other side of the issue stand powerful oil interests touting such a pipeline as a crucial nation-building project that will enable Canada to cash in on its tarsands reserves by gaining access to energy-hungry China. Among its supporters, the industry counts none other than Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has staked much of his government’s energy strategy on finding new markets for oilsands crude.

Beginning Tuesday in the Haisla First Nation of Kitamaat village near the B.C. coast, the independent federal review panel — biologist Sheila Legget, energy lawyer Kenneth Bateman and aboriginal geologist Hans Matthews — will amass evidence to give a yes or no verdict on the pipeline. The review will decide if the $5.5 billion project is in Canada’s public interest and whether it meets federal environmental safety regulations, with a report expected in late 2013.

That’s a year later than the Harper government would have liked, but the panel had to make time to hear from the thousands of people who asked to present their views.

This outpouring of interest in the hearings was partly facilitated by green activists, who used social media to help sign up people to testify. The Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative alone takes credit for facilitating testimony by 1,600 of the 4,000-plus people who are stepping forward to comment on the proposed pipeline.

“It’s all kinds of people,” explains Eric Swanson, who heads the Dogwood Initiative’s campaign to keep oil supertankers away from B.C.’s northern coast. “Ever since we started on this campaign, we’ve had people of all political stripes and backgrounds supporting our proposals to protect the coast from oil tankers.”

“For most British Columbians, this is about the coast, about oil tankers and about spills, emotionally and politically,” he said in an interview. More than 68,000 people have signed a petition to ban tankers from the province’s northern ports, Swanson added. “How big a fight does Stephen Harper want to pick?”

The 1,172-kilometre line, which would cross hundreds of rivers and streams and pass through a region renowned for its salmon, wolves, bears and other wildlife, is seen as a threat to the environment and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. It has sparked an eruption of opposition among aboriginals, who maintain the project must be stopped at almost any cost.

"The Enbridge pipeline would risk an oil spill into our rivers and lands that would destroy our food supply, our livelihoods and our cultures,” said Chief Larry Nooski of Nadleh Whut’en First Nation in B.C. “Our laws do not permit crude oil pipelines into our territories. This project isn’t going anywhere.”

A long and bitter fight lies ahead before a decision is reached by the joint review panel on whether Enbridge’s proposed pipeline should go ahead. Canadians got a taste of the controversy to come when Harper accused environmentalists supported by “foreign money” of trying to hijack the regulatory hearings on Northern Gateway.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver reinforced the message Sunday. Asked on CTV’s Question Period about the use of Hollywood star power to challenge pipeline proposals, Oliver said the government is concerned “that people from the U.S. are coming here with very large environmental footprints to lecture Canadians on what we should do with our resources.”

Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema responded, “No one should be fooled by this well-orchestrated campaign by multinational oil companies, their phony front group and the Harper government to silence the opposition to these pipelines and the expansion of the tarsands that they enable.

“The oil industry’s own polling shows that there are millions of Canadians opposed to this new tarsands pipeline,” Hudema said, “and they have a right to be heard, not disenfranchised by some kind of U.S. Republican-style smear campaign.”


Canada News: Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

Sometimes emotion trumps reason!

What are the estimates that is will add to the GDP? The ability to export the oil.

I don't have an inkling! I have a feeling the clash is almost 100% over environmental concerns. Maybe if sane heads sat around a table, some answers could emerge so that the environment would be a moot issue. And maybe if some sane people who are concerned about the environment would take the time to find out what the entire procedure will be some fears could be allayed.

The hearings take place on Jan. 10th..

What is the JRP assessing?

The Panel must consider, “measures…that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects,” as well as, “alternative means of carrying out the project,” as long as these are deemed to be technically and economically feasible. They must also consider any, “measures to enhance any beneficial environmental effects,” as well as emergency response plans.

It’s important to note that the project doesn’t end with the pipeline. The Panel will consider as part of the project a tank farm and marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C., and the tanker traffic within Canada’s territorial waters.

What the project does not include, at least --, are the environmental impacts of oil sands development or the eventual use of the exported oil. As such, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from oil sands production and downstream uses have been ruled beyond the scope of the Panel’s mandate and will not be considered when rendering a decision. The decision to exclude these impacts continues to face -- from environmental groups.

The commercial case, termed the need for the project, must be made by the proponent and consideration must be given by the Panel to whether alternatives to the project exist to satisfy the same commercial demand. In other words, Enbridge needs to demonstrate not only that the pipeline would be utilized, but that the use of their pipeline would not diminish the viability of other, existing pipelines. After showing that there is a demand for more oil transportation capacity to the West Coast, they have to make the case that the Northern Gateway project is the preferable option to accomplish that.

Finally, the Panel is charged with considering concerns raised by Aboriginal groups. The Panel is authorized to recommend “appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts or infringements on Aboriginal and treaty rights and interests.”


What are the key issues likely to be?

There are five key issues in this controversy. First, the well-documented first nations opposition to the pipeline will play a prominent role. Second, despite its formal exclusion by the Panel, the -- production will be a constant theme, with significant attention likely to be focused on greenhouse gas emissions. Third, the -- will be mentioned frequently, and if you don’t know where Kalamazoo is or why it matters, you’ll soon find out. Fourth, the risk of a tanker accident at sea is of great concern to project opponents. Enbridge will have to make the case for the environmental safeguards associated with both the -- and --.

Finally, the -- of the pipeline, both during construction and in the long term will be emphasized by pipeline proponents and called into question by oppoments. In particular, there will likely be extensive discussion of the -- of markets for Alberta oil sands products, and access to world oil prices which are higher than those in the U.S. Midwest.

Enbridge will need to make the commercial case for the pipeline, relying on forecast growth in oil sands production to do so. The National Energy Board has -- a near-doubling of oil sands production between now and the potential in-service date of the pipeline and this, along with similar forecasts from industry, will likely be cited often. Project opponents are likely to call the -- into question.


Northern Gateway: Your guide to the hearings - The Globe and Mail

27 Billion in revenue for three levels of Govt - Ontario - Quebec benefit as suppliers of equipment - manufacturing etc.
131 Billion to Canada's GDP - That is just to start

The 1st nations cannot override the decision. Required by Law to be consulted but they do not have any legal right to refuse. They can disagree as much as they want to.

How many oil tankers presently deliver product to the Eastern and Western seabord of USA / Canada.

And the Fed Govt will push it thru - may lose some BC seats but the extra jobs created in Central Canada will add seats.

But we should be upgrading the product in Canada. Billions more added to the GDP and tax revenue.

I actually agree with you on this one, Goober. Upgrade here.

We are fools if we do not. Also hold the Oil Sands companies feet to the fire to improve their records on water usage, chemical releases, Ggas, land reclamation. Newer tech is on the market now.

Prov Govt to impose limits on raw exports of bitumen. Take a percentage in the pipeline, upgraders, refineries.
Lots of long term revenues streams from a varity of sources. That second pipeline for distallate from the west coast can easily be reversed to East - West.

During the next 20-30 years with the boomers, of which i am one, costs for health care, long term care, along with all the other services will place a high burden on the tax payer.

And oil will be around in one form or another for at least a few hundred years.

[QUOTE=Cliffy;1531271[/QUOTE]

Do you walk on a sidewalk, use a highway, go to a hospitial - recieve a pension. Money paid for that.

Do you think I'm stupid?

Trashing your environment for money is. Logic is trumped by greed, health is compromised by greed, life dies because of greed. How much money do we need? Cut back on all the waste in government. Cut back on buying crap we don't need. We might survive without trashing our life support system.

Do I think you are stupid, No. As you stated before you live in a different matrix than I do.

I replied with reasonable commentary based upon a dumb post about money.

Is their risk in a pipeline – Yes – will it be mitigated as much as possible Yes.

Will a pipeline spill occur – Yes – It then depends upon size, location and containment.
Do I want people who are upset about seeing a pipeline in the bush stop economic development.
Oil Tankers – People do not want them yet how many dock every day in North America?
Oil usage will not disappear.
I already outlined what I believe the Prov Govt and Oil industry should do.

There's risks in everything.

At present, BC has a track record of clear cutting vast tracts of land, dumping 10's of thousands of litres of raw sewage daily into the oceans, highly active port facilities that transport chemicals and other toxic substances like sulphur, development of all kinds of hydro projects throughout the province, etc, etc, etc..

With all of the above in mind, I find it nothing short of a bunch of hypocrites bell-aching about something that will be essential in providing all of the monies that they demand in services and gvt.

Fresh from the economy lab.. they use graduated flasks..

Northern Gateway: the unheard argument

Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to the sea would open Asian markets for Canadian oil that up till now has been captive to the United States, and it would do so with some probabilities of environmental damage and some certainty of insult to aboriginal land titles. All three arguments have been advanced in the media by their proponents and will soon be exposed in public hearings. But one argument has been rather muted so far.

On the environmental side, the media coverage has been almost entirely about the risks of the pipeline itself. Leaks or bursts could seriously damage any of the 600-odd streams it must cross, many of which are key parts of salmon ecosystems. But what about the saltwater side of this transport system?

Enbridge chose Kitimat as its port. This means some 200 tankers a year would cross the shallow and stormy waters of Hecate Sound, duck behind Banks Island, follow the narrow Principe Channel for 120 km, turn east through Otter Channel, cross the track of many Alaska cruise ships at the south end of Granville Channel, and ascend Douglas Channel, another narrow fiord, a further 100 km to Kitimat. Altogether, this is about 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents. Whole volumes have been written about shipwrecks on the B.C. coast, end even with today’s modern navigation systems, ships run aground and sink.

Something for the hearings to consider is what minimum investments would be required by the federal government -- a strong proponent of the pipeline -- to reduce navigational risks to an acceptable minimum. At the least these would include a whole new regulatory scheme, as we have never seen a project of this sort before. Ships and their crews would have to be certified to high standards, which have not yet been set for this environment. The pilotage system would have to be expanded, with new stations at Kitimat and perhaps Banks Island, and stout new boats to service the tankers. (The new pilot boat at Victoria cost $4.5-million, which at least made local yachtsmen fell they weren’t the most extravagant folks afloat.) There would have to be new Coast Guard ships to supervise the transits, and to respond to emergencies. Novel technologies for containing spills and cleaning up in the aftermath would have to be devised and built for the proposed scale of operations in these cold northern waters. New Coast Guard doctrine would need to be prepared, and hundreds of new sailors hired and trained. At least there is time -- five to seven years -- to do this before pipeline operations begin, but only if the feds start now. The cost? Who knows, but $500-million would be a good starting point.

No preparations for all this are yet visible. If provision is not made in February’s budget, the sincerity of Ottawa’s support for Alberta’s pipeline should be questioned.

There is an alternative to the perilous journey to Kitimat, and that is the established industrial port at Prince Rupert. The pipeline would be about 200 km longer, but the sea journey would be comparably shorter. The western end of the route would travel down the Skeena valley, where existing road and rail facilities would lower the costs of construction. Since Enbridge swears its pipeline will be safe, there would presumably be little threat to the huge Skeena salmon run. Most importantly, Prince Rupert gives fairly directly onto Dixon Entrance and the great world ocean, which would considerably lessen the probability of a tanker disaster. New investment by the Coast Guard and the Pilotage Authority would be a lot less, though not zero.

As you follow the unfolding controversy, ask yourself why Enbridge chose the less safe route, and whether we as taxpayers have to pay the premium for the risks the company has created.

THE ECONOMY LAB: Northern Gateway: the unheard argument - The Globe and Mail

It's going to go in whether you want it or not.

Regarding the problems navigating the narrows. Each Tanker will be towed by 4 Tugs. Yes there have been accidents, wrecks but have any been the result of Bulk Carriers being guided / towed by tugs.
The cruise ship – No standards was the problem.
The Exxon Valdez – Capt drunk.
As to below water pinnacles, they can be removed.
But when all is said and done it may be the other port.

Feds play risky game with pro-pipeline talk
Remarks about 'radical' groups hijacking regulatory process raises thorny questions about impartiality of Northern Gateway Project review

I do enjoy the idea that US environmental groups are paying huge amounts of money to have their say on what we do.

Lobbyism.

It's what's for breakfast.

Honestly though, foreign money going into Canadian movements is a good thing, no? It creates jobs in the activism industry, along with other industries like computer, printer, ink, pen, paper, cardboard, etc.

Well the argument coming from B.C. is not necessarily one about the economy if I'm not mistaken.

The only place that I know of in B.C. that dumps raw sewage into the ocean is Victoria. Ironically the same city that houses all the government types that made everyone else in the province put in expensive treatment plants at great expense.

Where money is god and you have an accountant at the helm, you can expect that those in opposition to this project will be demonized. I said it before, Harper is a dangerous man because he is an ideologue, he worships the money god and he will stop art nothing to please his puppet masters. If the money that will be spent on this project alone were used to develop alternative technology, we wouldn't need this god damn pipeline. This is just another nail in our grandchildren's coffin.

I suspect that MF is right in one respect. This is where the line will be carved in Granite. No more lines in sand that the anti work rabble are forever moving, We are finally going to have economic development and prosperity in B.C. again. No more costly and unnecessary public hearings where foreign funded ecoterrorists from outside the area affected can hold peoples livelihoods ransom. Projects will be accepted or rejected on merit not political expediency.

The money extracted from these projects finances your pension cheque every month and pays for my grandchildren's education.

The money worshipers have spoken.

Ecoterrorists indeed. Let the demonization begin. Education will do them no good if they are dead.

Faces of so-called radicalism: Three opponents of the Northern Gateway

Viewed from the government’s perch in Ottawa, the pipeline's opponents are agents of "environmental and other radical groups.' But the faces of the opposition go well beyond the stereotype of anti-development tree-huggers

Mike Hicks
Mike Hicks is a fisherman, a businessman, and stalwart federal Conservative voter; in fact, he once ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate. He has done battle with environmentalists over development on Vancouver Island.

And he is convinced that the Enbridge pipeline, with its requirement for more oil-tanker traffic to bring Alberta oil to market, will spell disaster for marine life in the rich waters off B.C.’s coast, from the tiny krill to the humpback whales that pass by his Port Renfrew fishing lodge every year.

“I don’t have some huge philosophy, I’m very selfish,” he explained Monday. “It’s absolutely inevitable there is going to be an oil-tanker collision in the Juan de Fuca Strait.”

Mr. Hicks now finds himself on the same side as the Dogwood Initiative, an environmental organization he has sparred with in the past. “I’m not a radical environmentalist. Fiscally, I’m a conservative, no question.”

Premier Christy Clark has refused to take a position on the pipeline, and her government has carefully endorsed the federal government promise to speed up the review process only on the grounds that business needs to hear the federal government’s decision more quickly.

But Mr. Hicks, as an elected official for the Capital Regional District on southern Vancouver Island, calculates that he is speaking for his constituents on this one. “The good people of Juan de Fuca who I represent can’t afford the chance of an oil disaster.”

Charles Helm
Dr. Charles Helm is a family physician in Tumbler Ridge and is practical-minded about resource development. “I work in a coal-mining town and people have this bad image of coal,” he said. That, he said, is an undeserved rap when it comes to Tumbler Ridge’s metallurgical coal, used in the manufacturing of steel. Although he won’t commit to any political party, he is a proponent of nuclear energy, putting him more in alignment with the federal Conservatives than with the Greens on energy policy. And he is not rabid about battling “big oil,” describing his exchanges with Enbridge officials as “very pleasant.”

But the avid outdoorsman (and amateur paleontologist) is joining, for the first time in his life, an environmental protest movement.

“I don’t like the word radical,” he said. “As a physician I’m trained to be evidence-based.”

Dr. Helm has lived in Tumbler Ridge for 20 years where he has developed a network of hiking trails. He and his fellow fossil hunters have explored the backcountry intimately, giving Tumbler Ridge a newfound status as a hotbed of dinosaur footprints and fossils.

“There has been so much attention on what this pipeline means for the coast, it seems to me everybody has forgotten that this pipeline is going over a remote stretch of the Rocky Mountains. It’s impact is not minimal,” he said. “There are very few areas that are as truly virgin and pristine.”

Kevin Derksen
For the past seven years, Kevin Derksen has been working to the rural town of Burns Lake on the map as a tourism destination. The cover of Bike magazine has featured the result under the heading, “Miles from nowhere, is Canada’s Burns Lake Mountain Biking Nirvana?” The initiative last year earned the Premier’s Innovation award.

The proposed pipeline would run right through the Burns Lake network of designated trails that that have earned international biking recognition. By the time that happens, the Burns Lake Mountain Biking Society estimates it will have spent $1-million on trail work on a 4,000 hectare area with a camp site, race track and skills area.

Mr. Derkson, who grew up in this resource-dependent town, is sympathetic to the cause of moving Alberta oil to Asian markets. “I get the economics behind it, to relieve ourselves from dependence on the U.S. for our oil markets. Those are huge issues,” Mr. Derksen said Monday. “And our area has been primary industry since the dawn of time. You’re not going to see a lot of hard-core environmentalism here.”

But the tourism jobs are real and ongoing, he said. Enbridge faces a tougher time explaining how residents of Burns Lake will benefit from a pipeline going through their backyard.

“We’ve got this economic development happening, we have hotels benefitting and bike shops opening. The long-term vision is sustainability and bringing dollars into the community,” he said.

“But if this pipeline goes ahead and goes through the rec area, it will kill the project. One you cut a huge swath through the park, it’s lost its attraction.”

Faces of so-called radicalism: Three opponents of the Northern Gateway - The Globe and Mail

Goddamn Bolsheviks.

Why can't technology flourish without trashing the environment? We can put people on the moon! We are well into the 21st century!

Yep, Victoria would be the city in question.

Ironic ain't it? The location that houses such a large population of eco-warriors can't see fit to clean up their own mess, but sure holler like scalded cats the moment that someone else wants to move a project forward.

Just like Goober pointed out yesterday, you rely on money as your life-line Cliffy in terms of social services, roads, parks, healthcare, etc..

Where do you think that the $$ comes from to fund all this?.. The greenies donate it to society maybe?

As for the investment in eco-tech.. Have you put your investment cash into the kitty? Suzuki? The rest of the eco-crowd?

I thought not


Physician - Heal thyself.