I guess that depends on whose word you take. What is satisfactory? Sure, for some people there is never enough, for others they are fine with minimal and ineffective box checking exercises.
Regardless, the onus is on the petitioner to pay.
Titanic clash looms over proposed Northern Gateway pipeline
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I guess that depends on whose word you take. What is satisfactory? Sure, for some people there is never enough, for others they are fine with minimal and ineffective box checking exercises.
Regardless, the onus is on the petitioner to pay.
Gvt sets the minimum standards on the industry. More often than not, a p/l company will work to exceed that standard to mitigate the long term risks (and therefore costs).
... And they do.
In terms of my earlier comment about a user-pay scenario - if a group of users wish to have measures in place that are above the gvt regulated standards, that cost will be passed onto them.
Lets not fool ourselves here, all of the costs are built-in and passed along to the consumer in one form or another.
Actually, salmon that was spawned in streams are too small to eat.[/QUOTE]
Actually all wild Salmon are spawned in streams and freshwater lakes. Check out Hell's gate Fishway and Adams Lake Salmon Run. Also Skeena River.
Actually all wild Salmon are spawned in streams and freshwater lakes. Check out Hell's gate Fishway and Adams Lake Salmon Run. Also Skeena River.
Just 90% Cliffy? You must be slipping in your old age.
The Oscars are coming up pretty soon aren't they? You'll definitely be a contender for a couple of awards there in the category of most imaginative writing of a piece of fiction and best performance of a Drama Queen.
You most certainly do not have any answers, but your imagination and acting ability make up for a lot.
... And Cliffy will happily offer his humble services as judge, jury and executioner in assessing what the individual needs of folks are.
Again, this reeks of the self-serving attitude just as long as Cliffy's needs are met and has an acceptable level of comfort, everything else is heinous and wasteful.
Northern Gateway needs aboriginal consent: chief
OTTAWA — Enbridge Inc’s controversial plan to build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast from oil-rich Alberta requires the consent of aboriginal bands, some of whom staunchly oppose the project, Canada’s top native leader said on Wednesday.
The contention underlines the difficulties facing Enbridge as it tries to push through the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project, which would cross land belonging to many Indian bands, or first nations, so the oil sands-derived crude could be shipped to Asia and California.
Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said bands had “the right to free, prior and informed consent” over projects affecting their territory.
“We need to move away … from the notion that we are only stakeholders when it comes to major projects. Whether it be a pipeline or a mine, first nations have real rights (and) those rights must be recognized when it comes to any development in this country,” he told a news conference in Ottawa.
The oil industry and Canada’s federal government want the 525,000 barrel a day pipeline to proceed as quickly as possible as a way to diversify markets and increase returns for the Alberta tar sands, the world’s third-largest oil deposit. Hearings into the development began this month.
Native Indians, who make up around 1.2 million of Canada’s 34.5 million population, largely live on reserves and suffer high levels of poverty, crime, unemployment and poor health. However, Canada’s booming resource industries are increasingly seeking access to those lands.
Enbridge has offered aboriginal communities affected by its proposal to share in 10 percent of pipeline’s ownership and C$1 billion of community development money. A company executive said in Edmonton on Tuesday that 40 percent of first nations along the route have signed on to the equity offering.
However, many in British Columbia have said they do not want the project to move forward under any conditions, citing fears of oil spills on ancestral lands and in coastal waters.
In a blow to Enbridge’s aboriginal relations last week, a deal it signed with British Columbia’s Gitxsan First Nation fell apart when chiefs voted down the agreement, which had been signed in December by one of their ranks.
Canada’s right-of-center Conservative government says Northern Gateway and other similar proposals will help boost exports of tar sands-derived crude and provide lots of employment for natives and economic development for their communities.
The project took on more urgency for the government and an industry spending billions of dollars tapping the oil sands after Washington this month rejected TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL pipeline to Texas from Alberta.
“There’s money on the table, there’s equity participation and there’s jobs. So it’s our hope to continue to have a dialogue with first nations and see whether we can, together, achieve our common objectives,” Joe Oliver, Canada’s natural resources minister, said in Calgary.
“We have a moral and constitutional obligation to consult, to accommodate, and we will of course do that, and the regulatory process contemplates it.”
Oliver said the government has not been talking about intervening in the regulatory process should the proceedings not go as it hopes. Some aboriginal groups have said they are already preparing legal cases should the pipeline be approved against their wishes.
Increasingly unhappy aboriginal leaders say one big reason for their troubles is what they describe as the refusal of Ottawa to live up to treaties signed centuries ago between native bands and former colonial ruler Britain.
They say those agreements gave them rights over resources on their lands and are still valid.
“We have continued to lurch from crisis to crisis with deep social ills and deplorable conditions in our communities, very often when these communities are adjacent to major natural resources projects,” said Atleo.
He said he wanted to break away from what he called the “Ottawa knows best” mentality.
Atleo spoke a day after hundreds of first nations chiefs held a formal meeting in Ottawa with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and senior cabinet ministers to press for more powers to improve living conditions and for more rights over resources.
Tempers are rising, and one senior British Columbia chief said this week that “an aboriginal uprising is inevitable” unless Ottawa handed over more control.
Northern Gateway needs aboriginal consent: chief | Energy | News | Financial Post
OTTAWA — Enbridge Inc’s controversial plan to build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast from oil-rich Alberta requires the consent of aboriginal bands, some of whom staunchly oppose the project, Canada’s top native leader said on Wednesday.
The contention underlines the difficulties facing Enbridge as it tries to push through the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project, which would cross land belonging to many Indian bands, or first nations, so the oil sands-derived crude could be shipped to Asia and California.
Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said bands had “the right to free, prior and informed consent” over projects affecting their territory.
“We need to move away … from the notion that we are only stakeholders when it comes to major projects. Whether it be a pipeline or a mine, first nations have real rights (and) those rights must be recognized when it comes to any development in this country,” he told a news conference in Ottawa.
The oil industry and Canada’s federal government want the 525,000 barrel a day pipeline to proceed as quickly as possible as a way to diversify markets and increase returns for the Alberta tar sands, the world’s third-largest oil deposit. Hearings into the development began this month.
Native Indians, who make up around 1.2 million of Canada’s 34.5 million population, largely live on reserves and suffer high levels of poverty, crime, unemployment and poor health. However, Canada’s booming resource industries are increasingly seeking access to those lands.
Enbridge has offered aboriginal communities affected by its proposal to share in 10 percent of pipeline’s ownership and C$1 billion of community development money. A company executive said in Edmonton on Tuesday that 40 percent of first nations along the route have signed on to the equity offering.
However, many in British Columbia have said they do not want the project to move forward under any conditions, citing fears of oil spills on ancestral lands and in coastal waters.
In a blow to Enbridge’s aboriginal relations last week, a deal it signed with British Columbia’s Gitxsan First Nation fell apart when chiefs voted down the agreement, which had been signed in December by one of their ranks.
Canada’s right-of-center Conservative government says Northern Gateway and other similar proposals will help boost exports of tar sands-derived crude and provide lots of employment for natives and economic development for their communities.
The project took on more urgency for the government and an industry spending billions of dollars tapping the oil sands after Washington this month rejected TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL pipeline to Texas from Alberta.
“There’s money on the table, there’s equity participation and there’s jobs. So it’s our hope to continue to have a dialogue with first nations and see whether we can, together, achieve our common objectives,” Joe Oliver, Canada’s natural resources minister, said in Calgary.
“We have a moral and constitutional obligation to consult, to accommodate, and we will of course do that, and the regulatory process contemplates it.”
Oliver said the government has not been talking about intervening in the regulatory process should the proceedings not go as it hopes. Some aboriginal groups have said they are already preparing legal cases should the pipeline be approved against their wishes.
Increasingly unhappy aboriginal leaders say one big reason for their troubles is what they describe as the refusal of Ottawa to live up to treaties signed centuries ago between native bands and former colonial ruler Britain.
They say those agreements gave them rights over resources on their lands and are still valid.
“We have continued to lurch from crisis to crisis with deep social ills and deplorable conditions in our communities, very often when these communities are adjacent to major natural resources projects,” said Atleo.
He said he wanted to break away from what he called the “Ottawa knows best” mentality.
Atleo spoke a day after hundreds of first nations chiefs held a formal meeting in Ottawa with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and senior cabinet ministers to press for more powers to improve living conditions and for more rights over resources.
Tempers are rising, and one senior British Columbia chief said this week that “an aboriginal uprising is inevitable” unless Ottawa handed over more control.
Northern Gateway needs aboriginal consent: chief | Energy | News | Financial Post
Who is the idiot who said they are too small? A spawning fish is a full grown adult. Even the small land locked Kokanee are great eating.
'Radical' federal remarks boost fundraising, support for enviro groups
Tough talk from Ottawa about radical environmentalists and foreign-funded adversaries seems to be actually strengthening support for those groups under attack.
Environmental groups involved in the debate over Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline to the west coast report that donations have soared in recent weeks — especially after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said U.S.-funded environmentalists and jet-setting celebrities are trying to hijack the regulatory hearings.
"We've seen an unprecedented surge of support," said Emma Gilchrist of the Dogwood Initiative, a B.C.-based group which has received $12,000 in unsolicited donations since Oliver's letter.
"We've got checks that say, in the memo section, 'Thanks to Joe Oliver.'"
Dogwood also got nearly 25,000 new signatures on its anti-tanker petition — more than it received all of last year. Traffic to its Facebook site increased 10,000 per cent.
"We're quite disappointed to hear the things coming out of the federal government, but it has brought people together," Gilchrist said.
They're not alone.
The Sierra Club warned its supporters in December that it could be a target during the Conservative government's upcoming review of charitable status.
"We got 100 per cent more than we hoped for," said director John Bennett.
"We usually bring in about $40-50,000 toward the end of the year. It was around $100,000 this year."
Similarly at West Coast Environmental Law, said Jessica Clogg. "We've seen pretty consistently that not only have our existing supporters been galvanized by the statements of the federal government, but that new individuals are coming to our organization and indicating their support," she said.
"We have received close to $10,000 in donations that appear directly linked to the current controversy since Jan. 2."
ForestEthics, the subject of controversy earlier this week when a former employee quoted a second-hand report that a Harper official called the group an enemy of the government, put out an appeal Wednesday. Donations started coming in almost right away, said spokeswoman Valerie Langer.
"It's not just that people are really concerned about climate and toxics," she said. "They're also furious about the federal government trying to limit our freedom to participate in major policy discussions."
The David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice also report modest increases in donations since the new year.
And the environmental think-tank The Pembina Institute has seen the rate of new subscribers to its electronic newsletter triple since January.
"There's a real appetite among Canadians who listen to these allegations for reliable information," said director Ed Whittingham. "They're turning to us."
Controversy appears to be good for fundraising and it works both ways. When Chiquita Brands announced in December it would avoid the use of oilsands-derived fuel in its transportation fleet, Ethical Oil spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall said she was "flooded" with donations and messages of support.
U.S. data suggests that environmental organizations raise more money when Republicans are in the White House, said George Hoberg, a University of British Columbia political scientist who's studied such issues for years.
"I'm not surprised the Joe Oliver remarks have created a strong backlash," he said. "What it's done is it has politicized moderates on energy and environment issues.
"The Harper government strategy with regard to environmental groups has unfortunately dramatically increased the polarization of energy politics in Canada. The Canada characterized by compromise is not Harper's Canada."
'Radical' federal remarks boost fundraising, support for enviro groups - Winnipeg Free Press
Tough talk from Ottawa about radical environmentalists and foreign-funded adversaries seems to be actually strengthening support for those groups under attack.
Environmental groups involved in the debate over Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline to the west coast report that donations have soared in recent weeks — especially after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said U.S.-funded environmentalists and jet-setting celebrities are trying to hijack the regulatory hearings.
"We've seen an unprecedented surge of support," said Emma Gilchrist of the Dogwood Initiative, a B.C.-based group which has received $12,000 in unsolicited donations since Oliver's letter.
"We've got checks that say, in the memo section, 'Thanks to Joe Oliver.'"
Dogwood also got nearly 25,000 new signatures on its anti-tanker petition — more than it received all of last year. Traffic to its Facebook site increased 10,000 per cent.
"We're quite disappointed to hear the things coming out of the federal government, but it has brought people together," Gilchrist said.
They're not alone.
The Sierra Club warned its supporters in December that it could be a target during the Conservative government's upcoming review of charitable status.
"We got 100 per cent more than we hoped for," said director John Bennett.
"We usually bring in about $40-50,000 toward the end of the year. It was around $100,000 this year."
Similarly at West Coast Environmental Law, said Jessica Clogg. "We've seen pretty consistently that not only have our existing supporters been galvanized by the statements of the federal government, but that new individuals are coming to our organization and indicating their support," she said.
"We have received close to $10,000 in donations that appear directly linked to the current controversy since Jan. 2."
ForestEthics, the subject of controversy earlier this week when a former employee quoted a second-hand report that a Harper official called the group an enemy of the government, put out an appeal Wednesday. Donations started coming in almost right away, said spokeswoman Valerie Langer.
"It's not just that people are really concerned about climate and toxics," she said. "They're also furious about the federal government trying to limit our freedom to participate in major policy discussions."
The David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice also report modest increases in donations since the new year.
And the environmental think-tank The Pembina Institute has seen the rate of new subscribers to its electronic newsletter triple since January.
"There's a real appetite among Canadians who listen to these allegations for reliable information," said director Ed Whittingham. "They're turning to us."
Controversy appears to be good for fundraising and it works both ways. When Chiquita Brands announced in December it would avoid the use of oilsands-derived fuel in its transportation fleet, Ethical Oil spokeswoman Kathryn Marshall said she was "flooded" with donations and messages of support.
U.S. data suggests that environmental organizations raise more money when Republicans are in the White House, said George Hoberg, a University of British Columbia political scientist who's studied such issues for years.
"I'm not surprised the Joe Oliver remarks have created a strong backlash," he said. "What it's done is it has politicized moderates on energy and environment issues.
"The Harper government strategy with regard to environmental groups has unfortunately dramatically increased the polarization of energy politics in Canada. The Canada characterized by compromise is not Harper's Canada."
'Radical' federal remarks boost fundraising, support for enviro groups - Winnipeg Free Press
Looking at the news right now of a protest against the tar sands and the pipeline in downtown Toronto....
And there seems to me that there are more news people there than protesters....:lol:
To me that Northern Gateway inquiry is just being used like a fillibuster to slow things down by the greenies...:roll:
And there seems to me that there are more news people there than protesters....:lol:
To me that Northern Gateway inquiry is just being used like a fillibuster to slow things down by the greenies...:roll:
Funny. I thought most people would like to breath. But no, apparently there are those who are not satisfied with their 52" plasma TV and would rather have a bigger one instead of breathing. Who's priorities are screwed up?
Invest in LNG, not Alberta oil
The Haisla were honoured to have the Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline begin in our village on the northern British Columbia coast on Jan. 10.
The views from every Haisla speaker were consistent and clear: We absolutely do not want Gateway or its huge oil tankers in our territory. Different routes and options are available for the export of Alberta oil.
The pipeline industry has shown that it will often take the most direct and lowest-cost route available, even if it means greater environmental risks; just look at the Keystone XL pipeline.
When U.S. regulators and the public pushed back, both the proponent (TransCanada Corp.) and a rival company (Enbridge Inc.) have come up with alternative routes. I am confident they can do the same with Gateway and find a safer and more acceptable route.
We agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper that diversifying our energy exports is in Canada’s national interest. Our belief is that the export of liquefied natural gas can offer Gateway-like economic benefits that can be realized much more quickly and with considerably less risk than the Enbridge proposal.
Haisla Nation has been weighing the benefits and risks of LNG projects for more than 20 years. We have studied the safety history of LNG pipelines, terminals and carriers, and found a much more positive story than the safety record of oil pipelines and oil tankers.
Perhaps the most important factor when looking at LNG vs. oil is this: In the unlikely event of a leak in an LNG pipeline, or an incident loading LNG onto a carrier, or in a collision between an LNG carrier and another vessel, or one of these vessels running aground in the Douglas Channel, we would see the LNG disperse into the atmosphere.
There would be no cargo of heavy oil saturating the land, despoiling the beaches and seabed, killing thousands of fish and wildlife or staining our territory for generations to come.
Today Kitimat LNG, a $4-billion joint venture of Apache Canada Resources, EOG Resources Canada Inc. and Encana Corp., has an LNG export licence from the National Energy Board and is building its Douglas Channel plant and terminal.
Also awaiting a decision from the NEB on its export licence is Douglas Channel Gas Services, a partnership between LNG Partners LLC of Houston and the Haisla. The initial investment in this project, looking to start exports in 2014, is $600-million.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the world’s largest LNG handler, is also investigating a Douglas Channel facility that may be a $10-billion-plus investment.
Many other energy companies have met with us to express their interest in additional LNG projects.
The Douglas Channel only has a few sites where a major export terminal can be built. Furthermore, the area has limited infrastructure, power, pipeline routes and human resources to build these mega-projects.
Building an oil terminal in the channel would displace the opportunity to construct an additional LNG terminal. Given the risks and benefits surrounding oil vs. LNG projects, an oil-export terminal in our territory does not make sense for Canada, British Columbia, the region or the Haisla people.
As we review any economic-development proposal for our territory we must ensure that our Aboriginal rights and title are protected and taken into consideration by the proponent — as mandated by the Constitution and by case law.
Doing so not only protects our rights but it allows projects to move ahead quickly and smoothly if they respect and reflect our concerns and views.
With at least one year of hearings ahead, any decision on Gateway is years away. If the project is approved, determined opponents can be expected to do everything possible to stall the Gateway project and make it less attractive to investors.
Let’s take advantage of the LNG projects that are underway and those around the corner. There is a limited window of opportunity to access global markets.
We can have the jobs and investments Canadians want, but we don’t have to shoulder the risk of oil.
Invest in LNG, not Alberta oil | Energy | News | Financial Post
The Haisla were honoured to have the Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline begin in our village on the northern British Columbia coast on Jan. 10.
The views from every Haisla speaker were consistent and clear: We absolutely do not want Gateway or its huge oil tankers in our territory. Different routes and options are available for the export of Alberta oil.
The pipeline industry has shown that it will often take the most direct and lowest-cost route available, even if it means greater environmental risks; just look at the Keystone XL pipeline.
When U.S. regulators and the public pushed back, both the proponent (TransCanada Corp.) and a rival company (Enbridge Inc.) have come up with alternative routes. I am confident they can do the same with Gateway and find a safer and more acceptable route.
We agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper that diversifying our energy exports is in Canada’s national interest. Our belief is that the export of liquefied natural gas can offer Gateway-like economic benefits that can be realized much more quickly and with considerably less risk than the Enbridge proposal.
Haisla Nation has been weighing the benefits and risks of LNG projects for more than 20 years. We have studied the safety history of LNG pipelines, terminals and carriers, and found a much more positive story than the safety record of oil pipelines and oil tankers.
Perhaps the most important factor when looking at LNG vs. oil is this: In the unlikely event of a leak in an LNG pipeline, or an incident loading LNG onto a carrier, or in a collision between an LNG carrier and another vessel, or one of these vessels running aground in the Douglas Channel, we would see the LNG disperse into the atmosphere.
There would be no cargo of heavy oil saturating the land, despoiling the beaches and seabed, killing thousands of fish and wildlife or staining our territory for generations to come.
Today Kitimat LNG, a $4-billion joint venture of Apache Canada Resources, EOG Resources Canada Inc. and Encana Corp., has an LNG export licence from the National Energy Board and is building its Douglas Channel plant and terminal.
Also awaiting a decision from the NEB on its export licence is Douglas Channel Gas Services, a partnership between LNG Partners LLC of Houston and the Haisla. The initial investment in this project, looking to start exports in 2014, is $600-million.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the world’s largest LNG handler, is also investigating a Douglas Channel facility that may be a $10-billion-plus investment.
Many other energy companies have met with us to express their interest in additional LNG projects.
The Douglas Channel only has a few sites where a major export terminal can be built. Furthermore, the area has limited infrastructure, power, pipeline routes and human resources to build these mega-projects.
Building an oil terminal in the channel would displace the opportunity to construct an additional LNG terminal. Given the risks and benefits surrounding oil vs. LNG projects, an oil-export terminal in our territory does not make sense for Canada, British Columbia, the region or the Haisla people.
As we review any economic-development proposal for our territory we must ensure that our Aboriginal rights and title are protected and taken into consideration by the proponent — as mandated by the Constitution and by case law.
Doing so not only protects our rights but it allows projects to move ahead quickly and smoothly if they respect and reflect our concerns and views.
With at least one year of hearings ahead, any decision on Gateway is years away. If the project is approved, determined opponents can be expected to do everything possible to stall the Gateway project and make it less attractive to investors.
Let’s take advantage of the LNG projects that are underway and those around the corner. There is a limited window of opportunity to access global markets.
We can have the jobs and investments Canadians want, but we don’t have to shoulder the risk of oil.
Invest in LNG, not Alberta oil | Energy | News | Financial Post
Rae backs tanker ban along northern B.C. coast
OTTAWA - Interim federal Liberal leader Bob Rae has long been on the fence about the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, but his latest pronouncement could mean he's made up his mind.
Rae told a Vancouver audience Saturday he still sees a need for his party's informal ban on oil tankers along B.C.'s north coast, which is right where Enbridge wants tankers to load up with oil coming from Alberta's oilsands via a new pipeline.
"The reason for the tanker ban, which (Pierre) Trudeau put into effect in the 1970s, was very clear," Rae said. "We want to make sure that the most dangerous waterways, or the ones where there is the greatest potential risk, are in fact protected -- and that position hasn't changed."
A formal tanker ban along B.C.'s north coast would kill Enbridge's proposal.
Until now, Rae had been unwilling to go that far, but now he's adopted the same position on a tanker ban that ex-Grit chief Michael Ignatieff took in the 2011 federal election.
Rae's apparent change of heart comes as the National Energy Board continues slow-moving public hearings on the Northern Gateway proposal.
Prime Minister Harper is opposed to an outright tanker ban along the west coast.
Rae backs tanker ban along northern B.C. coast | Canada | News | Toronto Sun
Rae knows about all the tankers already sailing down coast from the North Slope? No? Okay. Why not?
Canada plays down embarrassing oil sands document
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada disassociated itself on Thursday from an embarrassing official policy paper that said the country's independent energy regulator, now studying a controversial oil pipeline, is in fact a government ally.
Critics have long charged the right-of-center Conservative government is trying to pressure the regulator - the National Energy Board (NEB) - to approve Enbridge Inc's plan to build a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the Pacific Coast.
The NEB this month started hearings into the C$5.5 billion ($5.5 billion) Northern Gateway pipeline, which the government says is needed to send more oil to Asian markets.
Opponents of the pipeline include green groups and some native Indian bands, who say they fear the consequences of a spill. Ottawa says some critics are foreign-funded radicals and complains the regulatory process will take too long.
Greenpeace on Thursday released a policy paper from April 2011, which listed the NEB as one of the government's allies. The paper was part of a campaign to counter widespread criticism of the oil sands in the European Union.
The paper - written by bureaucrats at the international trade ministry - also said that among the government's adversaries on the file were aboriginal groups, also known in Canada as First Nations.
Ottawa is in fact trying to woo the First Nations and this week hosted a summit between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and hundreds of native chiefs to discuss improving the often awful living conditions of Canada's aboriginals.
"We do not agree with the characterizations. We continue to work together with Canada's First Nations as we promote our energy interests. The NEB is an independent federal agency," said Adam Taylor, a spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast.
"The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada. We will continue to promote Canada's oil sands as they are key to Canada's economic prosperity and energy security."
At 170 billion barrels, Canada's oil sands represent the third-largest crude deposit in the world. Despite concerns about the environmental impact of development, Ottawa touts the resource as one of the country's great economic opportunities and job creators.
The policy document was obtained by the Climate Action Network group through access to information and then made public by Greenpeace.
"Canadians should be concerned when a supposedly arms-length agency that is supposed to regulate the oil industry, including conducting hearings on Enbridge's proposed new tar sands pipeline across British Columbia, is listed as an 'ally'," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace.
Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent told reporters in Calgary that while he had not seen the document, the notion Ottawa considered aboriginal groups as adversaries was a "gross misrepresentation of reality".
He added that he and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver would keep pushing back at environmental groups countering the government's message that the oil sands are being developed responsibly.
Among other allies listed by the policy document were European energy companies, some of which have invested heavily in the tar sands.
Canada plays down embarrassing oil sands document
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada disassociated itself on Thursday from an embarrassing official policy paper that said the country's independent energy regulator, now studying a controversial oil pipeline, is in fact a government ally.
Critics have long charged the right-of-center Conservative government is trying to pressure the regulator - the National Energy Board (NEB) - to approve Enbridge Inc's plan to build a pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the Pacific Coast.
The NEB this month started hearings into the C$5.5 billion ($5.5 billion) Northern Gateway pipeline, which the government says is needed to send more oil to Asian markets.
Opponents of the pipeline include green groups and some native Indian bands, who say they fear the consequences of a spill. Ottawa says some critics are foreign-funded radicals and complains the regulatory process will take too long.
Greenpeace on Thursday released a policy paper from April 2011, which listed the NEB as one of the government's allies. The paper was part of a campaign to counter widespread criticism of the oil sands in the European Union.
The paper - written by bureaucrats at the international trade ministry - also said that among the government's adversaries on the file were aboriginal groups, also known in Canada as First Nations.
Ottawa is in fact trying to woo the First Nations and this week hosted a summit between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and hundreds of native chiefs to discuss improving the often awful living conditions of Canada's aboriginals.
"We do not agree with the characterizations. We continue to work together with Canada's First Nations as we promote our energy interests. The NEB is an independent federal agency," said Adam Taylor, a spokesman for International Trade Minister Ed Fast.
"The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada. We will continue to promote Canada's oil sands as they are key to Canada's economic prosperity and energy security."
At 170 billion barrels, Canada's oil sands represent the third-largest crude deposit in the world. Despite concerns about the environmental impact of development, Ottawa touts the resource as one of the country's great economic opportunities and job creators.
The policy document was obtained by the Climate Action Network group through access to information and then made public by Greenpeace.
"Canadians should be concerned when a supposedly arms-length agency that is supposed to regulate the oil industry, including conducting hearings on Enbridge's proposed new tar sands pipeline across British Columbia, is listed as an 'ally'," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace.
Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent told reporters in Calgary that while he had not seen the document, the notion Ottawa considered aboriginal groups as adversaries was a "gross misrepresentation of reality".
He added that he and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver would keep pushing back at environmental groups countering the government's message that the oil sands are being developed responsibly.
Among other allies listed by the policy document were European energy companies, some of which have invested heavily in the tar sands.
Canada plays down embarrassing oil sands document
What is like to burn heavy crude from the rainforest flossy? Venezuela Heavy Oil Fields | Orinoco Oil Belt Map
Canadian Trade and Investment Activity: Canada?Venezuela (2010-49E)
Canadian Trade and Investment Activity: Canada?Venezuela (2010-49E)
Enviro Lobby Dealt Crushing Blow By Regulation Board
Time limits coming for regulatory review hearings, Oliver says
Read more: Time limits coming for regulatory review hearings, Oliver says
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver vowed Wednesday the federal government will mandate strict timelines on regulatory reviews of industrial projects in Canada as part of legislation that will be introduced this year
"The fundamental reorganization we need to make requires system-wide legislative changes and lots of it," Oliver said, noting the provinces and territories are broadly on board with the idea to co-operate on regulatory approvals since discussions at a meeting of mines and energy ministers in Kananaskis, Alta. last July.
Oliver repeated his criticism of "abuse" by some "radical" environmental groups opposed to development of oil projects on ideological grounds, accusing them of "gaming" the review process and referring to the ongoing hearings regarding Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
Time limits coming for regulatory review hearings, Oliver says
Read more: Time limits coming for regulatory review hearings, Oliver says
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver vowed Wednesday the federal government will mandate strict timelines on regulatory reviews of industrial projects in Canada as part of legislation that will be introduced this year
"The fundamental reorganization we need to make requires system-wide legislative changes and lots of it," Oliver said, noting the provinces and territories are broadly on board with the idea to co-operate on regulatory approvals since discussions at a meeting of mines and energy ministers in Kananaskis, Alta. last July.
Oliver repeated his criticism of "abuse" by some "radical" environmental groups opposed to development of oil projects on ideological grounds, accusing them of "gaming" the review process and referring to the ongoing hearings regarding Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
Re: Enviro Lobby Dealt Crushing Blow By Regulation Board
I don't know if I'm happy because it will shut-up the eco-tard lobby or because the line will probably go through.
Either way, it's a win-win.
I don't know if I'm happy because it will shut-up the eco-tard lobby or because the line will probably go through.
Either way, it's a win-win.
Re: Enviro Lobby Dealt Crushing Blow By Regulation Board
If the eco-tards woke up and smelled the fair trade, free range, rainforest friendly coffee ...
If the eco-tards woke up and smelled the fair trade, free range, rainforest friendly coffee ...
Re: Enviro Lobby Dealt Crushing Blow By Regulation Board
How did your work go out in Manitoba? Able to solve the logistical issue?
How did your work go out in Manitoba? Able to solve the logistical issue?