The November 16 No Enbridge rally in Vancouver, BC, brought thousands out to oppose Enbridge's toxic tar sands pipeline. Photo credit: Flickr/Mark Klotz
Blog post by Nikki Skuce (@nikkiskuce), Senior Energy Campaigner, ForestEthics Advocacy
We’re in the middle of a seriously tense waiting game. Any day now, the Canadian federal government will announce its decision on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project. The federal government has made countless chess moves toward satisfying the concerns of British Columbians, so that we accept the risks and act as a throughput of tar sands oil to Asian and US markets. But we really aren’t easy to appease with so much at stake with this project, including our coast, wild salmon waterways, and climate.
More after the jump:
1. Concerns about oil spills:
The Harper government announced new federal oil tanker safety measures last month, to try to meet one of the BC Government’s five conditions for approving heavy oil pipelines, namely “world class” marine oil spill response.
A part of the federal plan is to allow previously banned chemical dispersants in BC waters in the event of a catastrophic oil spill (an inevitable event if Enbridge’s Northern Gateway tanker project proceeds). Chemical dispersants, like Corexit, are extremely toxic to fish and marine life.
The good news is that the BC Environment Minister Mary Polak recently made a public statement that they do not wholeheartedly endorse the new federal measures. In fact, Ms. Polak reiterated that if BC’s demands for world-leading oil-spill safety are not met: ”the province is prepared to deny pipeline permits.”
2. First Nations opposition:
A week or so ago the federal government announced that it’s setting up a major projects management office in Vancouver to try to engage First Nations in energy development projects.
Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford also announced a forum between the federal, provincial and First Nations governments toward greater aboriginal participation in energy projects.
While these might be positive long-term initiatives, the response was not overly enthusiastic. With Enbridge Northern Gateway still on the table, good faith is hard to come by (no surprise there given Enbridge’s shoddy track record). Carrier Sekani Tribal Chief Terry Teegee said that these initiatives are a bit late, coming a week or two before the federal government decision and after nine years of dealing with Enbridge’s proposal. Mayor Garry Reece of Lax Kw’alaams told Canadian Press: "My people have stood up against oil. They don't support that," he said. "They're not satisfied with the information that there's going to be protection and to this day they haven't changed from that.”
Grand Chief Stewart Phillips of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs was even clearer at a liquefied natural gas summit in Vancouver, where Minister Rickford was in attendance: “In the event that the Harper government is going to ram this through with decisions at the cabinet level…[it’s] going to completely undermine and damage what’s left of the relationship between First Nations and both the provincial and federal governments.”
3. Shipping raw resources overseas:
Another proposal was just announced to build a “green” refinery on British Columbia’s west coast. I’m not entirely sure how you can have an “environmentally friendly” tar sands refinery, but that’s another topic.
The first one we saw was from media-mogul David Black who proposes a $26 billion tar sands refinery just outside of Kitimat. This newer one from Pacific Future Energy comes with a $10 billion price tag and would be built in Prince Rupert. Interestingly, the ex-husband of Premier Clark is part of the management group of this proposal, although Clark quickly assured the public that she will not weigh in on refinery proposals given the potential perception of a conflict of interest.
While these are supposedly low-emitting refineries, the proposals are still a cog in the machine to expand tar sands and greenhouse gas emissions. They also still bring tar sands across hundreds of wild salmon rivers. While both proposals could create jobs, neither Asian markets nor tar sands producers in Alberta have shown any interest in refining in Canada. Canada has refineries that are currently dormant or running under capacity. Many tar sands producers have refineries onsite, including Syncrude, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Husky’s Prince George refinery is currently not set up to take heavy tar sands oil, and the only other refinery in BC is the Chevron one in Burnaby with a capacity to upgrade 55,000 barrels per day. While we should add value to our raw resources before exporting, these proposals are not grounded in sound economics and don’t address many of the other concerns British Columbians have about Enbridge Northern Gateway.
4. Threats to wild salmon watersheds:
Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings and the Vancouver-based Aquilini Group have proposed an “alternative to the Northern Gateway pipeline.” Their pipeline would carry crude oil refined in Alberta that would ship out of a port at Grassy Point near Prince Rupert instead of Kitimat.
Eagle Spirit President Calvin Helin justifies his proposal based on the inevitability argument – if they’re going to get tar sands to the coast regardless, might as well have more First Nations benefiting and address some of their concerns. But the project not only faces opposition, it’s also got the heftiest price tag, weighing in at an estimated $50 billion. To put that into perspective, from 2001 to 2012, approximately $160 billion total was invested in the oil sands industry. The economics of the project do not make any sense.
This proposal and the other refineries claim that crude oil is easier to clean-up than tar sands. While this appears to be true based on Enbridge’s Kalamazoo spill, the oil spurting out of BP’s Deepwater Horizon and the Exxon Valdez tanker spill have illustrated that no kind of oil can be easily cleaned up.
5. Concerns about climate change and tar sands expansion:
Sorry, this is Harper’s Canada not a Canada that truly reflects its people. In a recent visit by Australia’s President (who did away with that country’s carbon tax after being elected) Prime Minister Harper said: "It's not that we don't seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world, this is their position," Harper said.
For those opposed to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project because of climate change or tar sands concerns, it’s not surprising that no chess moves have been made from this particular government to appease you. But it’s worth paying attention to this government because they are keeping greater tabs on you. The Harper government has upped the ante on surveillance and is hoping to keep track of all demonstrations. As federal Liberal criticWayne Easter said, “This is the kind of [surveillance] tactics you would see in a dictatorship.”
British Columbians stand strong
Despite all of these chess moves and attempts at appeasing concerns of British Columbians over tar sands pipelines, a recent Nanos/Bloomberg poll showed once again that two-thirds of the province opposes Enbridge Northern Gateway.
If the federal government approves Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker project--which it probably will--that means that the company will have overcome another obstacle. But as it leaps over that hurdle, it will smack into a wall of opposition being held up by First Nations, municipalities, the BC Government, and the majority of British Columbian residents. We have endured Enbridge’s proposal for nine years already. It’s time for checkmate.
To get breaking news on the Enbridge decision, be sure to subscribe to our email list.