Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance

Declaration to protect the Fraser River watershed

2010-12-03T09:04:00.000-08:00

61 First Nations from the Fraser River watershed came together yesterday to declare they would protect the Fraser River watershed from Enbridge Northern Gateway proposed oil pipeline & other tar sands related projects.
See www.savethefraser.ca.

Ottawa ignoring safety

2010-07-09T14:29:00.000-07:00

Ottawa ignoring safety
By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press

Retrieved from: www.bclocalnew.com

Published: July 08, 2010 8:00 AM
Updated: July 08, 2010 2:29 PM

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project has drawn heavy criticism from politicians, environmentalists, First Nations and competitors.

On June 21 federal Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff weighed into the debate by calling for a moratorium on oil tankers along B.C.’s coast.

“The Harper Conservatives refuse to recognize the tanker moratorium off the B.C. coast, and have taken no steps to protect our marine ecosystems from harmful oil spills,” Ignatieff said in a written statement. “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant. While the Conservative government has left our coastal communities and oceans vulnerable, the Liberal Party is proposing innovative, decisive action that will make Canada a world leader in protecting our oceans and coastal communities.”

In his speech, delivered in Victoria, Ignatieff stated clearly that his party opposes the development of a tanker terminal in Kitimat.

Local environmental group Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance formed to oppose the development of the Northern Gateway Project. Spokesman Josh DeLeenheer said the pipeline project will have little long-term benefit for the region, while exposing it to the risk of an environmental disaster.

“We really feel this project doesn’t have social license. This project doesn’t really represent any kind of diversification,” he said. “We’re not against economic development, but we want to see it move in a different direction.”

Other opportunities like bioenergy and logistics will create new, sustainable jobs without the same degree of risk, he said.

The ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an example of what could happen if a tanker were to run aground in the Douglas Channel.

“You really get a sense of the tragedy of it. You really start to see the scope of what the damage can be to tourism, fisheries, the environment,” he said. “Obviously there are differences between deep-sea drilling and tankers. But once the oil hits the water, it’s the same. When you’re talking about the very large crude carriers that can carry two million barrels, it could be devastating.”

On June 2 Amnesty International called on B.C. and Canada to not allow the project to go ahead without, “the free, prior and informed consent of the affected First Nations.”

The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council and Wet’suwet’en First Nation are directly in the path of the pipeline and say they will not support it. In addition, 26 other First Nations groups downstream of the 773 water crossings have voiced their opposition to the project.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee said the council has been clear from the beginning they oppose the project.

First Nations have a clear human right to appropriate consultation on natural resources projects in their traditional territories, Teegee said.

“That’s what we’ve been advocating to the province and Canada,” he said. “They need to be looking at the cumulative impacts of development.”

Instead of looking at the pipeline in isolation, there needs to be an examination of the total human impact on the ecosystem and river systems, he said.

First Nations groups have been shut out during the development of major infrastructure projects in the past and unless there is a change it appears that is being repeated with the Enbridge project, he said.

Pipeline operator Kinder Morgan Canada has filed a letter with the National Energy Board saying the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is redundant.

“We didn’t see there was an adequate review of alternatives to the project, which is required under the process,” Kinder Morgan communications director Andrew Galarnyk said. “The application needs to have backing consumer support, and it doesn’t.”

Kinder Morgan Canada currently operates the Trans Mountain Pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby. In 2008 Kinder Morgan completed upgrades to the 50-year-old pipeline to increase capacity from 225,000 barrels per day to 300,000 barrels per day.

Using the existing right of way Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity by another 400,000 barrels per day.

“We see our project as being less environmentally impacting,” Galarnyk said. “We have an existing right of way with pipe in the ground now. We have existing dock facilities in Burnaby.”

Unlike the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, Kinder Morgan could increase its capacity incrementally as demand warrants, he said.

“We will not file our application until we have that support.”

Letter to Initiatives Prince George from s2s.ca

2010-07-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

Sea to Sands Challenges IPG's Stand on Enbridge
By 250 News

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 04:29 PM

retrieved from www.opinion250.com

Prince George, B.C. – The Board of Directors of Initiatives Prince George has been sent a letter by the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance.

The Alliance wants to know why IPG has repeatedly been on the record supporting the Enbridge pipeline project and if the Board will be directing IPG to make a submission to the Joint Review panel which has started its review of the pipeline application. If the Board is to make a decision on making such a submission, Sea to Sands wants to know if there will be an opportunity for public input before that decision is made.

The Alliance is also questioning IPG’s authority to take a positive stand on the project “We question the extent to which City Council members ( our voted representatives) have had input into this decision about whether or not Initiatives Prince George should be coming out in favour of the Enbridge Northern Gateway project.”

The project would see two lines built between Bruderheim Alberta and Kitimat. One line would carry oil to a terminal in Kitimat for shipment to markets in the U.S and Asia, the other would carry condensate back to Bruderheim.

With the B.P. disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, there is dwindling public confidence that such a pipeline and a marine operation would be safe from accidents and disastrous spills. Enbridge has promised multi hulled ships, special tug boats and new gps technology and radar off the coast to minimize the potential for marine spills.

Sea to Sands says it has presented a 600 signature petition to Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers calling on him to step down from the Enbridge Gateway Alliance. Mayor Rogers recently told his fellow Directors on the Regional District of Fraser Fort George that being a member of the Alliance’s community group doesn’t mean you support the project, only that you are in a position to better hear the project’s plans and offer ideas and concerns.

federal Liberals promise oil tanker ban off BC

2010-06-25T15:51:00.000-07:00

Ignatieff supports oil tanker ban off B.C. coast
Chris Wilson
Vancouver — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Retrieved from
Published on Monday, Jun. 21, 2010 8:52PM EDT

Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 6:04AM EDT

The federal Liberals want to ban oil supertankers from British Columbia’s northwestern coast, a promise that would halt the building of a proposed $5.5-billion oil sands pipeline from Alberta through northern B.C.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s announcement that a future Liberal government would legislate a ban on the tankers pits his party against one of Canada’s largest companies, Enbridge Inc.

Last month, the Calgary oil pipeline firm formally applied to the National Energy Board to build the pipeline. The Northern Gateway would move 525,000 barrels a day from the oil sands to Kitimat for export to Asia, but the plan to ban tanker traffic around Haida Gwaii would quash the plan.

“We know that those are dangerous waters. We all know what oil does when oil spills,” Vancouver Quadra Liberal MP Joyce Murray said in an interview. “We believe there’s no guarantee there won’t be a spill.”

Mr. Ignatieff wasn’t available for an interview, an aide said after the Liberal leader announced the new policy at an event on Monday in Victoria. In a statement, the Liberal leader declared: “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant.”

Enbridge said its Gateway pipeline would bring much-needed jobs and investment to northern British Columbia and be built and operated to stringent environmental and safety standards. But because the pipeline proposal is before a quasi-judicial hearing at the National Energy Board, Enbridge didn’t speak specifically about the Liberals’ talk of a tanker ban.

“It wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate on these types of political policy statements,” Enbridge spokesman Alan Roth said.

The oil pipeline is opposed by 28 first nations along the route, according to environmental group Dogwood Initiative, and a poll conducted for Dogwood in May found that 80 per cent of 500 people surveyed supported a ban on tanker traffic on the B.C. coast.

Enbridge is lobbying Canadians to support Northern Gateway, placing full-page ads in newspapers that promote a predicted $81-billion in direct and indirect government revenues over 30 years.

Ms. Murray indicated the Liberals are against large supertankers and not the many other ships that sail B.C. waters. The Liberals don’t oppose the smaller tankers carrying a light oil called condensate that already ply the choppy waters of Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound around Haida Gwaii.

The Liberals also did not take a stand on the oil tankers that sail past downtown Vancouver and Stanley Park taking crude from a facility in Burnaby, a terminus of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta.

Two New Democrat MPs in the Lower Mainland – Fin Donnelly of New Westminster-Coquitlam and Don Davies of Vancouver-Kingsway – already have private members bills before Parliament to legislate a tanker ban in the same area around Haida Gwaii.

Growing support in Parliament buoyed Dogwood Initiative, which has worked for years against Gateway. A spokesman for the group said that if the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois support the NDP bills, a ban could be legislated quickly.

“We’re on the road to victory,” said Eric Swanson of Dogwood. “We could have a legislated tanker ban before the next election.”

The Liberals said they would formalize a tanker moratorium enacted in 1972. Enbridge disputes this moratorium, citing a 2005 letter by then Liberal transport minister Jean Lapierre to Liberal David Anderson. The letter noted a ban on tanker traffic from Alaska to the southern United States, but added that tankers originating in ports such as Kitimat weren’t banned.

Separate from the tanker question, a moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on B.C.’s offshore remains. The provincial B.C. Liberal government tried early last decade to get Ottawa to lift the drilling ban, but gave up in 2005 and recently reaffirmed there are no plans to open up the coast to drilling.

Enbridge has filed

2010-05-30T22:20:00.000-07:00

The following from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2 days after Enbridge filed, the Haisla and Gitga'at Nations hosted their Feast of the Nations at Kitamaat Village, a fantastic & very well-attended feast. All First Nations of north western BC made statements of solidarity to stand together against this project, and they are supported by a growing number of well-organized ENGOs and concerned northern BC, BC & Canadian residents.

Enbridge, you are in for an epic fight, and Sea to Sands will be there as part of this growing network of opposition.

NO MEANS NO!

*************************************************

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Bulletin

This weekly bulletin includes links to all news releases issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, announcements issued by the Minister of the Environment with respect to federal environmental assessment, and opportunities for public comment and availability of participant funding. Please note that some announcements are issued by departments other than the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Refer to specific announcements for appropriate contact information.

Announcements during the past seven days:

May 27, 2010 - Northern Gateway Pipeline Project - Joint Review Panel Begins Assessment of Recently Filed Northern Gateway Pipeline Application
With today's filing of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project application, the Joint Review Panel (the Panel) will begin its assessment of the application.

The Panel will review the proposed project under both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It will assess the application according to the Joint Review Panel Agreement and Terms of Reference.

The Panel will first review the application to determine if it contains sufficient information to initiate the joint review process and issue a Hearing Order. The Hearing Order will outline the various ways people can participate in the review process, deadlines for key steps of the process and a draft List of Issues which will be considered for the project. Information sessions and panel sessions will be held in communities close to the proposed project. All of these sessions will be public and advertised in local media. A complete schedule will be posted on the National Energy Board's website and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website.

www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Feast hosted by Haisla & Gitga'at at Kitamaat Village this Saturday, May 29, 2010

2010-05-25T22:18:00.000-07:00

Haisla First Nation
Gitga'at First Nation

May 25, 2010 17:15 ET All-Nations Feast to Focus on Stopping Enbridge Pipeline, Tankers
KITAMAAT VILLAGE, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - May 25, 2010) - The Haisla and Gitga'at First Nations have invited members of the public and media to a traditional feast on May 29 to re-affirm community opposition to Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline and oil tanker traffic.

WHAT: Solidarity of Nations Feast

WHERE: Haisla Recreation Centre, Kitamaat Village (13km south of Kitimat, B.C.)

WHEN: Saturday, May 29, 2010. Presentations begin at 9:00 a.m. Dinner at 4:30 p.m.

The dinner will feature the traditional foods of the coastal First Nations and will be followed by First Nations dancing.

Presenters at the feast will include:

•Dr. David Suzuki, Scientist, broadcaster and renowned conservation leader
•Guujaaw, Council of the Haida Nation
•Art Sterritt, Coastal First Nations
•Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
•Dolores Pollard, Haisla Chief Councillor
•First Nations Summit (presenter TBA)
•Terry Teegee, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
•Dr. Riki Ott, Cordova, Alaska
•Norm Hann (recently completed a 385-kilometre paddling expedition of the proposed oil tanker route on his stand-up paddleboard)
This is a family friendly event and admission is free.

BC Environment Minister admits Gulf of Mexico oil spill raises additional questions about Enbridge Northern Gateway project

2010-05-03T10:01:00.000-07:00

Gulf oil spill fuels West Coast tanker fears
Gulf disaster 'raises a lot of additional questions,' minister says
Monday, May 3, 2010

Environmentalists in B.C. say the oil spill off the U.S. coast should serve as a warning about risks the oil and gas industry could pose to the West Coast of Canada.

There are concerns the environmental impact of the ongoing spill from the well of the wrecked Deepwater Horizon drill rig could be worse than the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster that devastated Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.

Jennifer Lash, director of the Living Oceans Society, says if a proposal to build a crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific is allowed to go ahead, B.C. will be at risk of a similar disaster.

Enbridge, one of North America's largest oil and gas distribution companies, wants to transport oil from the oilsands to the coast for export. Its proposed Northern Gateway project would run a twin pipeline from near Edmonton to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for exporting petroleum and importing condensate.

Lash says that once the oil reaches the coast, it will be moved by tankers which pose a bigger danger to the environment than the oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

'Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions.'
—B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner"Apparently oil rigs are safer than tankers. So if oil rigs are safer, and the oil rig down there was the safest, with all the latest bells and whistles, and this is the result of it, then we just need to look at it and say we cannot afford to go down that road," said Lash.

"Accidents happen. The Gulf of Mexico accident is reminding us of this," she said. "And what we need is a permanent ban on oil and gas development and tanker traffic off the coast of B.C."

Provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner said it's premature to compare the situation in the Gulf of Mexico with anything in B.C., and noted that Enbridge hasn't even begun the environmental assessment process yet.

"Our approach here in B.C. has been we would not support any oil and gas development unless it can be done in a safe way," Penner said, adding: "Clearly the situation in the Gulf of Mexico raises a lot of additional questions."

The province is carefully watching the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, Penner said, and an environmental emergency team is standing by to help if needed.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/03/bc-west-coast-oil-tanker-spill.html#ixzz0mt2UIyvM

Awakening the Skeena Movie in Prince George

2010-04-27T14:14:00.000-07:00

Monday, May 3, 2010, Canfor Theatre, UNBC, Prince George
Doors open 6:30 pm, movie starts at 7:00 pm.

Admission by Donation

Awakening the Skeena movie -- In the summer of 2009, Ali Howard became the first person to ever swim the 610km length of the Skeena river from its birthplace in the Sacred Headwaters to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean. See www.skeenawatershed.com for more information about the movie & Ali Howard's swim.

Ali Howard will be in attendance.

The movie is cohosted by Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance and Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition www.skeenawatershed.com.

Hope to see you there.

Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

For Earth Day gathering at confluence of Nechako & Fraser Rivers, Cottonwood Island Park (off River Road near log home building business) 5:30 pm today!

“Sometimes if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known.” (Winnie the Pooh)

The world, Canada, BC, northern BC are facing many environmental crises. Our natural world, the world we have all come to know and love, is constantly under threat. Dams, oil pipelines and spills, leaching mine tailings ponds, fish farms, pesticide residues, massive clear cuts, plastics, pollution and wastefulness are some among many risks resulting from the way we have come to live, that currently threaten the well being of our waterways and life on planet Earth.

Today we join in solidarity with Alexandra Morton, the fish biologist on the west coast who today started her walk from Sointula to Victoria in time for Mother’s Day. She walks with other concerned British Columbians in defense of the wild sockeye salmon who swim these very waters to reach their home creeks every year. As we are all aware, there numbers are in precipitous decline. We join with Alexandra and First Nations communities & other concerned British Columbians all along the salmon’s migratory route who are speaking out against fish farms and in defense of these wild fish who are so vital to so much of our environment – the bears, the wolves, the eagles, the forests, the people, the very web of life depend on the salmon.

Today we join in solidarity with the people from across the world gathered at the “World People’s Conference on Climate Change & the Rights of Mother Earth” in Cochabamba Bolivia to discuss and formulate a plan to protect the rights of Mother Earth.

And finally, we join with all people of the world who are celebrating Earth Day and the great gifts of life, joy and sustenance that this remarkable planet provides to us. We today recognize the sacred in all that the Earth provides to us and honour the necessity of respecting and supporting this sacred. We all in this together, all part of the Earth’s web of life at this very moment in time.

And to the rivers, the mighty Nechako and Fraser, we give thanks for all that you give to us, as you flow through, sustain and cleanse these lands.

In the words of Chuang Tzu, Chinese Taoist philosopher, “I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy as I go walking along the same river.”

Enbridge oil pipeline spill in Manitoba

2010-04-07T16:20:00.000-07:00

Oil spills into Manitoba creek
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 | 3:57 PM
retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/04/07/mb-oil-pipeline-leak-manitoba.html CBC News

A leak in an Enbridge Oil pipeline has spilled more than 1,500 litres of crude oil into a creek near the town of Virden.
The leak was discovered after local residents noticed pools of oil on the surface of Boghill Creek.

It's not the size of the spill that is most concerning, but the location, said Virden Mayor Bruce Dunning.

"By oil field standards, you know, it's a small to average spill site. But there is a big difference between [a spill] on a flowing water body and on solid land," he said.

Water from the creek eventually flows into the Assiniboine River, Dunning noted, adding he's heard reports that some fish and birds may have been contaminated.

Calgary-based Enbridge has deployed more than 50 workers to clean up the water and the creek banks, according to Dunning, who has been told the spill is contained.

"It's a very rough area — into the bush and steep banks, and lot of bullrushes and vegetation and they're still continuously removing and cleaning up and using absorbent material to sop up any oil and sheen," Dunning said.

No impact on drinking water: Enbridge
An Enbridge spokeswoman said on Wednesday that the company has been given the OK to divert the creek around the affected area to clean up the spill. Removal of affected materials will begin on Thursday, Jennifer Varey said.

"Enbridge is treating this situation as a high priority," Varey said in an emailed statement to CBC News.

The company has been visiting landowners in the area to advise them of the company's cleanup plans, Varey said.

Water sampling for contamination is being conducted in Boghill Creek, as well as Scallion Creek, Gopher Creek and the Assiniboine River.

Samples collected so far show the spill has had no impact on the quality of drinking water or aquatic life, Varey said.

"It is anticipated that the pipeline will be returned to service once the repairs are complete," Varey said.

Virden is located about 280 kilometres west of Winnipeg.

Response from Jim Prentice on the Joint Review Panel

2010-03-26T08:22:00.000-07:00

The following letter was received from Jim Prentice in response to a communication that we sent questioning the Joint Review Panel (JRP) that is to review the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. It is curious that both the office of the Federal Minister of the Environment and Enbridge Spokespeople use the same language to defend the JRP.

Response from Jim Prentice

Prince George Free Press coverage

2010-03-25T16:26:00.000-07:00

Prince George Free Press
retrieved from www.bclocalnews.com/news/89140352.html on March 25, 2010

First Nations groups vowing to stop Enbridge pipeline project

By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press

Published: March 25, 2010 12:00 PM
Updated: March 25, 2010 2:17 PM

B.C. First Nations members are prepared to use whatever measures necessary, including blockades, to prevent the development of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, according to Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.

On Tuesday, the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Coastal First Nations issued a statement declaring, “...oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta tar sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters.” The Coastal First Nations is an alliance of nine aboriginal groups on B.C.’s coast.

Phillip said the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs passed a motion opposing the project in solidarity with the Coast First Nations and Carrier Sekani Tribal Council which has also opposed the project. Blockades are a certainty if the project goes ahead, Phillip said.

“What options do we have? We have the courts and assertion measures on the land and water,” he said. “We’ll get arrested if it comes to that. We are gravely concerned about the implications and ramifications as it relates to the transport of petroleum projects on the north coast.”

Enbridge is expected to file its proposal to a federal joint review panel this spring.

“I don’t think you’ll find a First Nation in B.C. that does not oppose the (joint review) process. It does not recognize our aboriginal title interests,” Phillip said. “In our view, the (joint review) process is merely rubber stamping these grandiose resource projects.”

First Nations, environmental, fishing and recreational interests are coming together in opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, he said.

“It’s a huge issue and we are very much in opposition,” Phillip said.

The primary concern is about the risk of an oil tanker spill from one of the 225 tankers scheduled to arrive at the Kitimat oil terminal each year, he said. The 1,170 km dual pipeline will also cross over 1,000 streams and rivers, raising concerns about an inland oil spill.

A 36-inch pipeline would transport an average 525,000 barrels of oil to Kitimat per day to be loaded in oil tankers heading to California and Asia.

A 20-inch pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of condensate — a chemical treatment for crude oil — east from Kitimat to Edmonton.

The project involves creating three tunnels through the Telkwa Pass totalling 12km. The proposed route for the project would follow Highway 37 north from Kitimat before veering east passing just north of Burns Lake, south of Fort St. James, north of Bear Lake, south of Grand Prairie, south of Mayerthorpe and into Strathcona Country.

Opposition has been growing to the project in Prince George, according to Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance spokesman Josh DeLeenheer. On Wednesday the alliance presented a 600-name petition to Mayor Dan Rogers, requesting he withdraw his public support of the project.

Rogers, along with Initiatives Prince George president Tim McEwan and vice-president Kathie Scouten, are listed as community leaders in favour of the project by the Northern Gateway Alliance.

“As a representative of the community he’s representing broad-based community support,” DeLeenheer said. “We think there is a number of people who have serious concerns. We would like to meet with Mayor Dan Rogers and discuss his position.”

Instead of focusing on the traditional resource extraction industries, it’s time to focus on new, green industries, he said.

“We want leadership on this. We want economic development in the North, but we want a new direction,” DeLeenheer said. “When you weight them out, the risks are still far greater than the benefits to the region.”

The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance now has over 800 members.

Enbridge Northern Gateway senior communications manager Jennifer Varey issued a written statement to the media regarding the opposition.

The project will be subject to a Joint Review Panel, which will examine every aspect of the project in detail, Varey said.

“It’s important to note that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project will be required to undergo a comprehensive and rigourous regulatory review process to ensure the project is in the interest of the Canadian public,” Varey said in the statement. “This three-member panel is empowered by two federal statutes: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act. This is the highest level of regulatory scrutiny an economic development project can receive.”

Enbridge Northern Gateway has formed five community advisory boards made up of First Nations organizations, business leaders, local government and environmental organizations, she added. The boards discuss all components of the project.

“The results of our consultation efforts are considered and incorporated where possible into the project design and routing to ensure we meet best practices with regards to safety and environmental protection,” Varey said. “Our outreach efforts will continue throughout the extensive regulatory review process led by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and we invite all interested parties to participate.”

In a presentation to the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George board of directors on March 18, project spokesman Kevin Brown said the company anticipates the joint review panel process to take 30-36 months.

“A big portion of this project is the marine aspect,” Brown said. “What’s really critical is to see this project as a way to increase marine emergency response on the west coast.”

Currently oil tankers arrive nearly daily to serve oil refineries and terminals in the Lower Mainland, he added.

Bill being advanced in Canadian Parliament by NDP to outlaw tankers on the north coast of BC

2010-03-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 24, 2010
OTTAWA MUST ACT NOW TO PREVENT AN ANOTHER VALDEZ

21 years since Valdez spill Harper is moving to have Tankers off BC

OTTAWA – On March 24, 1989 at 12:04am the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef causing one of the most devastating environmental disasters in North American history. Now, 21 years later, the Conservative government is pushing to start having oil tankers off the sensitive coast of British Columbia. That is why today on the anniversary on the accident, Fin Donnelly, New Democrat Fisheries and Oceans Critic and MP for New Westminster-Coquitlamand Port Moody, commemorated this tragic event by announcing theintroduction of a bill seeking to outlaw all oil tankers in the DixonEntrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. “My bill would make the moratorium on oil tanker traffic in this region legally binding,” said Donnelly. “The moratorium on oil tanker traffic hasbeen in place for over 35 years – it was necessary to protect our coastlinethen – it’s still necessary now”. Yesterday, First Nations groups and community activists from all overBritish Columbia came together to denounce the proposed Enbridge Pipelinewhich would bring 225 oil tankers a year through the Hecate Strait and theQueen Charlotte Sound to move oil to markets in Asia and the US. “People from across northern British Columbia are becoming united againstthis pipeline and the oil tanker traffic it will create,” said NathanCullen, New Democrat Natural Resources Critic and MP for the northern BCriding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley. “The decisions are being made in Ottawa,but the First Nations and the local grassroots are saying that their futureisn’t in the temporary jobs this would create. They are looking for realinvestments in new green energy.” New Democrat Environmental Critic Linda Duncan (Edmonton-Strathcona) saysone need only consider the record of the federal government in preventingand responding to spills to understand the opposition to this project. “I experienced firsthand the devastation of the bunker C spill at Lake Wabamun and the failure by federal departments to respond including toaddress impacts to First Nation lands.,” said Duncan. “The concerns raised about risks posed by this project are well founded.”

For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact:Shelley Browne, Office of Nathan Cullen, 250-877-4142;cullen1@parl.gc.ca

Sea to Sands takes Petition to Mayor Dan Rogers on No Tankers Day/ anniversary of Exxon Valdez

2010-03-24T14:45:00.000-07:00

retrieved from Opinion 250 - www.opinion250.com

P.G. Mayor Wrong to Support Pipeline Says Group
By 250 News

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 04:00 AM

Prince George, B.C.- Members of the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance plant to visit the office of Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers’ today.

They will present a petition with nearly 600 names, calling on the Mayor to reconsider his support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

The group is making the presentation today, as this is the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez tanker spill.

The Alliance says the majority of B.C. residents support a moratorium on tanker traffic in the interior coastal waters of northern B.C. yet the Enbridge project would lead to hundreds of oil tankers travelling between Kitimat and markets in Asia and the U.S.

The group claims the Northern Gateway Alliance (www.northerngatewayalliance.ca) has strong overtones of being in support of the proposed pipeline project. “It is prejudicial and premature for the Mayor, an elected representative of the residents of Prince George, to be part of this group when the project has yet to go through any kind of review concerning the social, economic, cultural and environmental issues at stake” reads a release from the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance.

Transcript from BC Legislature about Enbridge March 23, 2010

2010-03-24T06:24:00.000-07:00

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON
ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

G. Coons: Today was a historic moment for First Nations in British Columbia and, indeed, across the nation as dozens of nations and tribal councils from across the province joined together to oppose the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. My question is to the Premier. Will he show respect for First Nations by standing up today and saying no to the Enbridge pipeline? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1405]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this important issue. There are extensive discussions underway already around the proposed Enbridge pipeline project. It is far [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this important issue. There are extensive discussions underway already around the proposed Enbridge pipeline project. It is far from even proceeding to the intensive environmental assessment stage. So we will certainly watch with interest the concerns of First Nations, but there is much to be played out in terms of process around this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: That's a concern, as this minister sits here watching with interest. There's a major concern with this pipeline, and he needs to act on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The message from First Nations is clear. They say: "In upholding our ancestral laws, rights, and responsibilities, we declare that oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta tar sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Premier talks endlessly of his commitment to a new relationship with First Nations, and to date, no First Nation in Canada and no municipality has publicly supported Enbridge's proposed pipeline. Statistics show that it's not a question of if an oil spill happens but when. It's time for this government to show they can walk the walk, not just talk the talk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again to the Premier: will he rise today and say no to the Enbridge tar sands pipeline? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always interesting to listen to the opposition and some of the positions that they take. We heard the other day in the Legislature that the outcome of every environmental assessment process should be consent by all parties before any economic activity could proceed on the land base in British Columbia. Now I am hearing this member say that Enbridge should not even talk to First Nations. They shouldn't have an opportunity to explain their project. They shouldn't have an opportunity to explore the possibilities of that project with First Nations in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I find this an extraordinary example of a kind of destructive paternalism on the part of the opposition — that they won't even have industry talk to First Nations. Apparently, these members are prepared to submit their judgment on this important project for important consideration by First Nations. That is an astonishing assertion and an unfortunate one, indeed, from a First Nations perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: The minister should know that Enbridge and First Nations in British Columbia have talked and talked for six years, and First Nations have said no to the project definitively today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Enbridge pipeline would make an oil spill on B.C.'s pristine north coast outside the Great Bear rain forest an accident waiting to happen. That's been predicted time and time again. That's the conclusion of a recent study by 12 scientists that took five years that studied 14,000 kilometres of our coast. When a significant oil spill occurs, it could eradicate killer whales. It could exterminate 150 species of marine mammals and birds in our coast. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Premier. It's the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill off the Alaskan coast today. Will he stand up and reject the oil sands pipeline today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. G. Campbell: Enbridge has a proposal… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. G. Campbell: …which is going through a process. That process will include consultation with First Nations. It will include consultation with all those First Nations individually. It will include the most rigorous environmental regime there is anywhere in North America, and it potentially could include billions of dollars of investment, thousands of jobs for people across the north, particularly for First Nations, build the capacity for First Nations that they've been asking us to build for a number of years now. All of that will be done within an environmental framework that is secure for the long-term future of British Columbia, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1410]

The way that you actually move to a successful conclusion of these is to include First Nations, talk to them directly, talk about the benefits that they may have, talk about their concerns and see if there is an answer. If there's an answer, it will proceed. If there is not an answer, it will not proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20100323 - PM 009/ebp/1410

talk about their concerns, and see if there is an answer. If there's an answer, it will proceed. If there is not an answer, it will not proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: Well, I think we've heard from the Premier of what comes ahead of First Nations and the environment, and it's Enbridge. In October a freighter ran aground in the same channel that is proposed for supertankers. The Queen of the North sank in these very waters four years ago, and Enbridge now proposes to move 525,000 barrels a day of tar sands oil — oil with three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional crude. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Maybe the Premier would like to hear the science on this. Environment Canada lists the Douglas Channel and the north coast interior passages as the fourth most dangerous in the world. The risk of human error, the harsh weather — those things can't ever be taken care of by the Premier's assurances that we've just heard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again to the Premier: will he reject this unacceptable risk to B.C.'s environment and say no to the Enbridge pipeline? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, let me tell you this, hon. Speaker: I accept jobs for First Nations people across this province that will build the capacity they've been calling for, for generation after generation. I accept a rigorous environmental assessment process, which every major project in British Columbia and Canada must go through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Evidently, that is unlike the opposition, who reject environmental assessment, who yesterday rejected wind power, who have rejected the benefits of reducing carbon across the province, across the environment. This is a time to reach out to First Nations to talk about opportunities and how we actually create economic opportunity within the framework of a sound environmental and scientific policy. That's what we intend to do, and that's how we'll build the future for First Nations in British Columbia and for all British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Well, the fact is there are absolutely no long-lasting jobs associated with the Enbridge pipeline, and that's why the First Nations of the north are unanimously opposed to this project. Experts in the shipping and pipeline sector say, "You move oil; you'll spill oil," and this Enbridge project will spill oil. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question to the Premier. Ecotourism, hunting and fishing are major economic drivers in my region. That is why 45 businesses, most of them located…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Donaldson: Ecotourism, hunting and fishing are major economic drivers in my region. That is why 45 businesses, most of them located in the northwest, have signed on to a declaration opposing the Enbridge pipeline. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to the Premier. Will he show his commitment to sustainable local development by standing in the House today and saying no to the Enbridge tar sands pipeline? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1415]

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no question. The opposition will say no to anything — any opportunity for investment, any [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

HSE - 20100323 - PM 010/gtw/1415

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no question the opposition will say no to anything — any opportunity for investment, any opportunity for jobs, any opportunity for economic development. That opposition has said no year in and year out for almost a decade and a half. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Here's what we have said quite clearly. We believe in economic and environmental assessments. We believe in wind power. We believe in new independent power projects. To that member opposite, his constituents call our offices and come to us every single day and say: "Please provide us with jobs, encourage investment and do it with first nations." We will work with first nations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Unlike the opposition, I can guarantee the member opposite this: we will work with first nations, we will work with community leaders, and we will generate investment in jobs that meet our environmental objectives in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

BC Premier Gordon Campbell viewing Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline project as "meshing with" climate change goals

2010-03-23T15:56:00.000-07:00

retrieved from the Tyee blog
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook March 23, 2010

'This is where Enbridge hits a wall': First Nations promise to stop pipeline

By Colleen Kimmett March 23, 2010 01:35 pm 2 comments

A full-page ad in today's Globe and Mail shows a bleak black and white photo of a tanker floating in the midst of a vast oil slick. Underneath, the words 'This was Exxon’s Gift to Alaska. B.C. can expect the same from Enbridge.'

Today is, not coincidentally, the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and on the heels of the ad came an announcement from the Coastal First Nations (an alliance of ten nations from the central coast to Haida Gwaii) declaring that "...in upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities. . . oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters."

The oil tankers are part and parcel with Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, which would deliver bitumen from Alberta to an expanded Kitimat port, and on to Asia, and would end a long-standing moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast.

Enbridge is facing serious opposition to another one of its Canadian pipeline projects, in Saskatchewan, where two summers ago bands there barricaded a road to a pipeline construction site.

Gerald Amos, director of the Coastal First Nations, stated in a press release that this, too, is "where Enbridge hits a wall."

"We will protect ourselves and the interests of future generations with everything we have because one major oil spill on the coast of British Columbia would wipe us out," said Amos. "This bountiful and globally significant coastline cannot bear an oil spill."

The Union of B.C. Indians Chiefs (UBCIC) also ratified a resolution opposing the pipeline.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the UBIC, stated in a press release, "The UBCIC is opposed to the Enbridge Pipeline Project and stands with the many First Nations who are standing as a unified block in their opposition to this proposed Tar Sands pipeline."

In Victoria this afternoon, Premier Gordon Campbell said the project would provide "hundreds and hundreds" of jobs to First Nations in the north, adding that government's job is to "try and find ways we can get the first nations people engaged with pay cheques building the kind of economic future they need..."

The premier said he was unconcerned about First Nation opposition. "I have concern that we allow the process to take place, allow first nations to be fully consulted as we will across the north of the province and we'll see what the results of that are."

Campbell also said the project "meshes" with British Columbia's climate change goals. "We can in fact help other parts of the world reduce their greenhouse gas emissions dramatically by providing them with lower-carbon fuels in other parts of the world where they are using very high-carbon fuels like coal."

News of this unified and unequivocal position is also making the rounds on stock analyst and business websites. Uncertainty around First Nations relationships is already cause for concern amongst Enbridge shareholders. Last year, the vice-president of Ethical Funds, one of Enbridge's shareholders, told the Globe and Mail that First Nations opposition to the Gateway project was a clear risk to investors.

Aside from being a public relations problem, this opposition has so far not affected Enbridge's bottom line. Last month the company reported a 14-per-cent increase in fourth-quarter earnings and an 18-per-cent increase in full-year profits -- it's best in history.

Colleen Kimmett reports for The Tyee

Pipe up against Enbridge

2010-03-23T15:33:00.000-07:00

to send a message to CEO of Enbridge Pat Daniels expressing your opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline project, please go to http://pipeupagainstenbridge.ca.

Coast First Nations stand unified in opposition on 21st anniversary of Exxon Valdez oil spill

2010-03-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

retrieved from www.newswire.ca March 23, 2010

First Nations Say They Will Not Allow Pipelines and Oil Tankers Carrying Alberta's Tar Sands Oil in British Columbia
"This is where Enbridge hits a wall"

VANCOUVER, March 23 /CNW/ - First Nations stood as a unified block today - on the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill - to announce their opposition to a proposed Tar Sands pipeline that would bring expanded amounts of Tar Sands oil from Alberta to British Columbia, where the oil would be shipped by oil tankers to overseas markets, notably China.

"We will protect ourselves and the interests of future generations with everything we have because one major oil spill on the coast of British Columbia would wipe us out," said Gerald Amos, Director, Coastal First Nations, an alliance of nine First Nations. "This bountiful and globally significant coastline cannot bear an oil spill. This is where Enbridge hits a wall."

Coastal First Nations from Vancouver Island to the BC/Alaska border are unanimous in their opposition and are joined by the vast majority of First Nations affected along the pipeline route from Kitimaat to Alberta. These First Nations - whose territories are all directly impacted by the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline - stood in unity today to voice their opposition. The Coastal First Nations issued a declaration from their First Nations governments:

...in upholding our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities, we
declare that oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands
will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters.

The Athabasca Chipewyan Cree First Nation located near Alberta's Tar Sands also offered their support with Chief Allan Adam saying, "From experience I know that any industrial development and potential pollution within traditional territories of the First Nations not only jeopardizes the land, the people and wildlife today, but for generations to come... I do not support doing business with Enbridge now and in the future."

To date no First Nation in Canada - and no municipality - has publicly supported Enbridge's proposed pipeline, which would increase Tar Sands oil production by 30 per cent. Tar Sands oil produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.

"Nothing threatens our way of life more than contaminated water and destruction of wildlife. Today, we invite First Nations around the world to join us in solidarity in our fight against this pipeline development and to a put a stop to oil tanker traffic," said Terry Tegee, Vice President, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.

Also today, an unprecedented grouping of 150 First Nations groups, businesses, environmental organizations, and prominent Canadians - including Dr. David Suzuki, Margaret Atwood and Neve Campbell - ran a full-page ad in today's Globe and Mail with the headline 'This was Exxon's gift to Alaska. B.C. Can Expect the same from Enbridge.'

For further information: Art Sterritt, Executive Director, Coastal First Nations: (604) 868-9110 or (604) 696-9889; Gerald Amos, Director, Coastal First Nations: (250) 632-1521 or (604) 696-9889; Terry Tegee, Vice President, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council: (250) 640-3256

5th of Prince George Citizen/ Gordon Hoekstra series on Enbridge Northern Gateway

2010-03-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

Info inflow
Enbridge, eco-groups clash over the $4.5 billion Northern Gateway pipeline

March 16, 2010

Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff
retrieved from www.princegeorgecitizen.com

There is a battle underway.

It's being waged at the ground level, in community meetings, but also in the corporate world, and using the Internet and social media.

The objective: To influence the public's opinion on Enbridge's proposed $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline.

On one side is Enbridge, and its business and municipal supporters, arguing the risks of the pipeline are manageable, and that the project will provide a tremendous economic boost to northern B.C.

On the other side is a coalition of environmental groups - some of them based in northern B.C. but others headquartered farther afield, in Victoria, Vancouver and even San Francisco - arguing the risks are too great, and pale in comparison to any long-term economic benefit.

Enbridge has considerable resources to promote its project - $100 million from the backing of unnamed prospective shippers and consumers of the oil and condensate.

It has hired former northern B.C. politicians - including former northwest B.C. Liberal MLA Roger Harris and former Prince George mayor Colin Kinsley - to assist in the promotion of the project. Enbridge has also created and backed the Northern Gateway Alliance, which includes a collection of northern B.C. mayors and business leaders. Alliance supporters include Prince George mayor Dan Rogers, Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan, Mackenzie mayor Stephanie Killam, and Prince George economic development advocate, Initiatives Prince George CEO Tim McEwan. The group also has support from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

The alliance's website boasts 450 members as of last week. Enbridge's officials have also delivered many presentations to business groups, including chambers of commerce and rotaries in northern B.C.Enbridge has also been active as a corporate sponsor, supporting baseball tournaments, native softball tournaments, an aboriginal dance troupe, a native band's proposed geothermal project, a First Nation cultural camp, a sockeye recovery program, a native community gathering and a First Nation golf tournament.

The Calgary-based company began this program of corporate support after the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal was announced. Although Enbridge is the largest pipeline company in North America, it has modest operations in B.C.'s North, the only notable infrastructure a natural gas line that runs from Fort St. John to the Alberta border.

Enbridge declined to comment in the past week on its promotional activities, saying they were too close to filing their final application to the National Energy Board. But in an earlier interview, Roger Harris, who was hired as Enbridge's vice-president of aboriginal and community partners, said the company was trying to engage people with concerns, to address them and find a way to build the pipeline.

"I think we've been very open about this project," he said.

Enbridge has also created community advisory boards for the Northern Gateway pipeline that solicits input behind closed doors. The people that agree to sit on the advisory boards are eligible to be paid $200 honorariums and travel expenses by the company.

B.C. Wildlife Federation representative Wayne Salewski, who is from Vanderhoof, has been attending the community advisory board meetings. While Salewski notes that the boards are not perfect, as Enbridge controls the agenda in some respects, he believes the federation has no choice but to participate.

"It's where the information is being discussed, where conversations are taking place," said Salewski, whose organization represents 37,000 hunters and fishers in the province.

As the advisory boards are still in the development stage, Salewski said he could not say whether they have had any value.

Enbridge has also been using new media to get its message out, creating an Enbridge Northern Gateway site on Facebook. The site has 60 fans. It includes links to job opportunities, skills development and videos promoting the project.

It also links viewers - through the "info" tab - to its "TheOtherSideOfTheCoin" website. On the site, Enbridge argues that it is "unfortunate" that some groups have chosen to use fear as their gimmick of choice in order to send a message. "We believe that the only way to alleviate fear is to know the facts," says Enbridge, arguing that oil tankers can travel the northern B.C. coast safely.

----

Even though some First Nations have taken money from Enbridge, they are careful to point out, in some cases, that accepting cash does not translate into support for the project.

The Nadleh Whut'en First Nation is a member of the group that received funding from Enbridge for a sockeye recovery program. The First Nation, in a letter to Enbridge, stressed that the funding did not constitute any form of consultation or accommodation.

Tara Marsden, who is with the Nadleh Whut'en, notes it is difficult to tell First Nations not to take the money when they are often cash-strapped. She says, however, that First Nations are aware Enbridge's corporate support is meant to promote the project.

At an all-native hockey tournament in Prince George, an Enbridge official was booed when presenting the trophy, observed Marsden.

"There were obviously people there who knew who they were, and were not in support of the pipeline," she said.

Environmental groups, sometimes in partnership with First Nations, are also working to profile their concerns with the project, which include the risk of pipeline and tanker spills, and increased production in the Alberta oil sands.

The recently-created, Prince George-based Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance held a pair of information meetings last week, which they dubbed the Crude Facts.

"People need to become educated about the potential negative impacts of this project and decide if this type of development will truly benefit northerners," said event organizer Sonja Ostertag.

The Seas to Sands group has a facebook site with 723 members last week, more than Enbridge's business alliance website.

The group is planning more events in Prince George including an airing of the movie H2Oil with the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council on March 22, International Water Day. H2Oil is a film on the Alberta tar sands.

Other environmental groups, including the Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative, have launched more widespread campaigns, including one aimed at halting oil tanker traffic on the coast. They have distributed more than 300,000 No Tanker loonie decals in Canada. The black decals make the loon on the $1 coin look like it's covered in oil.

The group also staged a protest at the Enbridge Northern Gateway World Baseball Challenge last summer in Prince George. The environmentalists tried to take their message into the baseball park, floating large balloons in the crowd that protested oil tanker traffic. However, after one of the balloons hit the field, the protesters were asked to leave by the police.

The Dogwood Initiative has also launched aggressive letter-writing campaigns to prospective purchasers of the oil from the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Recently, the Dogwood Initiative claimed that 12,000 letters sent to oil executives -- opposing oil tanker traffic on B.C.'s North Coast -- caused Korean National Oil to decide not to buy oil that's transported through Enbridge's gateway pipeline.

Dogwood Initiative campaigner Eric Swanson says he believes Enbridge has failed to capture either public support of the project or commercial backing. "Even with $100 million they can't get buy in," said Swanson.

The Dogwood Initiative has also organized protest rallies in Victoria, and distributed 1,700 No Tanker signs in Greater Victoria and Vancouver.

The group has also spearheaded boardroom challenges, partnering with shareholders to put forward a proposal at Enbridge's annual general meeting last year. The proposal called for Enbridge to disclose the frequency and volume of tanker spills, and received support from shareholders holding $800 million in stock.

The environmental group has also joined with the Rainforest Action Network to target the Royal Bank of Canada as a financier of the Alberta oil sands. While groups like the Prince George-based Seas to Sands organization have relied on volunteers and individual donations to support events like their Crude Facts session, the Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative has an annual operating budget of nearly $400,000.

The budget largely comes from grants from foundations (about $250,000) and individual donations (about $125,000).

Foundations that have granted money to Dogwood for their campaigns against tanker traffic include the Tides, Endswell and Glasswaters foundations. The Dogwood Initiative has a four-person board that includes three people from Vancouver and one from northwest B.C.

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING . . .

More than 2,000 letters have already been logged with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on the pipeline project. An examination by The Citizen of a random sampling of 100 of these letters, showed that all of them were opposed to the project. Many of them appear to be form letters offered up by environmental groups.

A 2008 Synovate poll -- commissioned by several environmental groups, including West Coast Environmental Law -- found that 70 per cent of those surveyed support a ban on tanker traffic in B.C.'s inland coastal waters.

The question was somewhat leading, however, calling attention to a 1972 federal tanker ban on B.C.'s inside coast. The tanker ban, or moratorium, is disputed by some, including the current federal Conservative government.

If tanker traffic was not allowed on B.C.'s inside coast, there would be no point to building the Enbridge pipeline. Two similar polls in 2006 had comparable results.

WHAT'S UNDER DEBATE

- Enbridge's $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which includes twin oil and condensate lines.

- The 1,170-kilometre pipeline is meant to carry oil from Alberta's tar sands to the coast at Kitimat. From there it will be loaded on super tankers for shipment to Asia or, perhaps, the U.S. West Coast.

- Condensate will be shipped by smaller tanker to Kitimat -- from places like Asia, the Middle East and Russia -- where it will be pumped into the pipeline for transfer back to the Alberta oil sands. The kerosene-like liquid is used to thin bitumen from the oil sands so it can be shipped in pipelines.

- The project is meant to open up new markets for bitumen from the Alberta oil sands.

Almost all of the oil is shipped to the U.S.

SATURDAY: A look at the coast -- and tanker concerns

First Nations & Enbridge - 3rd Gordon Hoekstra/ Prince George Citizen article

2010-03-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

Special Reports
Rights of way
First Nations and Enbridge find themselves in an increasingly complex relationship

Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff
March 13, 2010
retrieved from www.princegeorgecitizen.com

Three aboriginal girls, smiling and exuberant, look out at the camera from their perches amongst monkey bars and slides on a playground.

The photo can be found on Enbridge's website, in the aboriginal partnership section of the company's proposed $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The picture could be from one of the villages along the pipeline route in northern B.C. or Alberta. Perhaps it's a stock image. There's no way to tell for sure because the picture doesn't have a caption.

The inference is obvious though.

These smiling children represent an image of the company's positive relationship with First Nations on a pipeline project that would take oil from the Alberta tar sands to new markets in Asia.

The reality is not that simple.

While there are First Nations along the pipeline's route who have signed protocol agreements with Enbridge -- establishing a formal relationship with the company -- other First Nations are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to the project.

Last month, members of the Wet'suwet'en and Saik'uz First Nations were at Enbridge's Calgary headquarters to press home a message the pipeline is not welcome in their traditional territories in northern B.C.

The First Nations handed out pamphlets and DVDs they hoped the employees of Enbridge would read and view to understand their resistance.

The DVD featured statements against the pipeline, as well as a ceremony where First Nations brought water from their territories that was mixed at a pipeline protest event in the summer of 2009 in north-central B.C. "We're making sure that what is left of our resources is going to be protected, including the salmon," said Warner Naziel, a member of the Wet'suwet'en Nation who was at Enbridge's headquarters that morning in front of more than a dozen Calgary police officers who kept an eye on the demonstration.

The Wet'suwet'en and Saik'uz, whose communities are west of Prince George, are part of a group of First Nations refusing to sign the protocol agreements with Enbridge, some of which bring cash, as much as $100,000, to undertake studies of the impacts of the pipeline.

The First Nations, which oppose the pipeline, also include the Nak'azdli, Nadleh Whut'en and Takla Lake First Nations in north-central B.C.; and the Haisla, Gitga'at, Gitxaala and Haida Nations on the northwest coast. "We will not allow any project to proceed that infringes the constitutionally protected rights of our people," said Dolores Pollard, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, whose territory includes the pipeline project's proposed supertanker port in Kitimat.

"Sooner or later, that's a lesson Enbridge and the federal government are going to learn, either in the court of public opinion or a court of law," she says.

The First Nations are not only concerned by the construction impacts and the threat of spills along the pipeline route and on the coast, but also oppose expanded oil production in the tar sands.

First Nations took their concerns to the world stage recently at the Copenhagen climate change talks.

"We don't want to be a party to the pipeline, especially if it involves allowing the expansion of the tar sands," said Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee, who was in Copenhagen.

Enbridge has promised benefits to First Nations: jobs, contract opportunities, and the possibility of an ownership stake in the pipeline.

The company has pointed to 200 permanent jobs it says will be created when the pipeline is constructed and many more temporary jobs during construction.

But those First Nations who are saying no to the pipeline don't believe that aboriginal communities will benefit from this economic activity.

"If we are only looking at the jobs, there's no question this project doesn't make sense for local communities," says Tara Marsden, who is examining the Enbridge pipeline project for the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation. Marsden said the community, 160 kilometres west of Prince George, is considering its legal options.

In 2006, the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, which represents eight bands west of Prince George, including the Nadleh Whut'en, filed a federal court challenge over the federal government's decision to send Enbridge's proposed pipeline to a review panel.

The tribal council wanted the court to overturn the creation of the panel because they said they were not consulted.

The challenge never reached court as Enbridge shelved the project soon after. The pipeline proposal was only resurrected in 2008 after Enbridge secured $100 million from unknown oil producers and refiners to get the project through the regulatory process under the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Some First Nations, including the Nadleh Whut'en, have been trying to pitch a different type of review process to the federal government, one that involves aboriginal peoples more directly.

The idea is to create an aboriginal review process framework that includes either a parallel process or an integrated rights and title process.

However, the First Nations have gained no traction with the federal government on this proposal.

Some northern B.C. First Nations had pitched a similar review process in 2006 with a price tag of $2.4 million, which also failed to interest Ottawa.

The federal government -- which only responded to Citizen questions on the review process via e-mail -- says they are counting on the review panel process to produce information that will be used by Canada to fulfill its legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate First Nations' interests.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is meant to co-ordinate the integration of consultation with aboriginal groups into the environmental assessment process. The federal government says its departments have also committed to work together toward a co-ordinated approach for aboriginal consultation.

The distaste for the federal review process and opposition to Enbridge's proposed pipeline project is not universal among First Nations.

Communities like the Lheidli T'enneh just east of Prince George, and the Ts'il Kaz Koh and Nee Tahi Buhn near Burns Lake, west of the city, have signed protocol agreements with the company.

More than 30 protocol agreements have now been signed with First Nations and Metis groups in northern B.C. and Alberta, says Enbridge. While some First Nations have been demonstrating outside Enbridge's Calgary headquarters, representatives of the Nee Tahi Buhn have been meeting with Enbridge officials face-to-face.

The Nee Tahi Buhn is looking for an equity stake in natural resource projects, including the pipeline.

"That's going to be the question for each and every project," says chief Ray Morris.

While no numbers have been discussed with Enbridge on an equity agreement, Morris is confident the details will be successfully hammered out.

He doesn't disagree there are environmental issues with the project, particularly for salmon inland and on the coast, but any concerns are not enough for the Nee Tahi Buhn to oppose the project.

"Oil is not better or worse than what's already on the highways or on the sea or on the rails. Why raise one flag?" questioned Morris.

Ts'il Kaz Koh First Nation chief Robert Charlie says he has respect for other First Nations' concerns over the pipeline project, but he stressed his community can't let business opportunities slip by.

Observed Charlie: "You know, we have deep concerns environmentally about it just like everybody else -- what if this does have a crack in it right in the middle of our yard? But at the same time, you know, when you look at the economic opportunities allocated to us, especially in the North here, they are far and few between. What are you going to do?"

Enbridge remains confident it has good relationships with the vast majority of First Nations, and it will be able to convince First Nations the pipeline project is safe and will bring benefits. However, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, stresses aboriginal communities will need to come to those conclusions themselves.

"I think the right conversations are going on -- the right dialogue is going on -- but the process does take a bit of time for people to get the information needed to get comfortable," he said.

There's no question, from a legal perspective, that First Nations will have a say in the project.

Mounting court cases -- some of them decisions in Canada's highest court -- increasingly indicate that First Nations need to be consulted and accommodated where natural resource projects impact their traditional lands.

While First Nations do not have a veto over projects -- a point laid out in the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision in Haida vs. the B.C. government -- court rulings do show the consultation bar for First Nations is different than for other groups.

"The courts have been pretty clear there needs to be a dedicated process for consultation with First Nations. That could be part of a larger environmental review; nonetheless, the obligations for consultation are different for First Nations than the general public and need to be addressed specifically," said Doug Harris, a professor of law at the University of B.C.

In the key 2004 Haida decision, the Supreme Court said the government had not properly consulted the First Nation over the transfer of a forest licence from MacMillan-Bloedel to Weyerhaeuser and had a duty to do so.

The top court's decision established that the provincial and federal governments had a duty to consult with First Nations on decisions that can impact their lands before aboriginal title has been established.

But the court did not say the consultation will automatically lead to a need for accommodation, only that the consultation may raise issues that require accommodation to preserve First Nations' interests, pending the resolution of their claims.

The court also said that governments retain the right to make decisions where there is no agreement.

Good faith is required at all stages, on both sides, said the court.

Each case will also have to be judged on its own merits, and depend on the weight of the First Nations' claims and impacts.

There may be less need to consult on a temporary road than a mine, for example, said the court.

University of Alberta economist Andre Plourde says the First Nations' question is one of the biggest issues to confront the project.

"How do we manage crossing all of the First Nations territories with a pipeline? Somebody is going to have to decide whether this is doable," says Plourde, an expert in energy and the environment.

While Enbridge has a role to play, Plourde stresses, ultimately, it's the federal government which has the responsibility to consult First Nations.

"You really need governments on your side to be doing this because you can't do it by yourself," he said.

Another important court decision ...

A 2009 federal court ruling found the government had fulfilled its duty to consult a number of Ojibway First Nations in Manitoba over the construction of three pipelines under a review by the National Energy Board.

That was in part because the court found that the impact of the pipeline on the First Nations' claims was negligible.

The court also noted that the fact the First Nations may not have taken part in the National Energy Board review did not justify the demand for a separate consultation with the Crown.

However, the court said that had any of the pipeline projects crossed or significantly impacted areas of unallocated Crown land which was part of an outstanding land claim, a much deeper duty to consult would have been triggered.

"Because this is also the type of issue that the (National Energy Board) process is not designed to address, the Crown would almost certainly have had an independent obligation to consult in such a context," wrote Justice R.L. Barnes.

WILL IT SPILL? --2nd of Gordon Hoekstra/ Prince George Citizen series on Enbridge Northern Gateway

2010-03-19T07:07:00.000-07:00

Special Reports
Will it spill?
Do the economic benefits of the Nothern Gateway pipeline outweigh the chance of a major rupture?

Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff

Friday, March 12, 2010
Retrieved from www.princegeorgecitizen.com

On a warm summer night on Aug. 1, 2000, just after midnight, an oil pipeline ruptured 25 metres from the Pine River in northern B.C.

An estimated 6,200 barrels of oil leaked from the 38-year-old pipeline, about half of it into the Pine River. The resulting damage killed fish, perhaps in the tens of thousands, and created a drinking-water problem for the community of Chetwynd, 80 kilometres downstream.

The clean-up and environmental assessment -- which involved hundreds of workers -- eventually cost Federated Pipelines (Pembina Corp. legally concluded a deal to buy the pipeline just hours before the spill) more than $32 million. It is believed to be the most expensive inland oil pipeline spill in Canadian history.

It was not the first incident of this type on the line.

There were 20 incidents on the 811-kilometre pipeline -- which runs from Taylor to Prince George, and then to Kamloops -- between its construction in 1962 and 2007, according to B.C. Utilities Commission documents.

An even bigger spill than the one at Pine River occurred just north of Prince George, when 8,800 barrels of oil were released into the Salmon and Fraser Rivers on May 14, 1974.

At the time, provincial and federal officials were worried about the threat to millions of southerly migrating salmon fingerlings.

It's this risk of an oil spill -- inland along its length or via tanker traffic on the North Coast -- that has largely mobilized opposition to Enbridge's proposed twin oil and condensate pipeline.

Against this it is argued that the pipeline will bring much-needed economic benefits: thousands of temporary construction jobs, up to 200 permanent jobs, an enhanced tax base, and perhaps a legacy fund and ownership stake for First Nations.

The mega-project -- claimed to be the largest crude oil pipeline expansion in Canadian history by the Calgary-based company -- is meant to carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat for export to Asia or the western U.S. seaboard. Its price tag of $4.5 billion is expected to increase.

Some northern B.C. business and municipal leaders -- their communities buffeted by a harsh downturn in the forest sector, and preparing for the coming fallout of the pine beetle epidemic -- are already voicing support for the project.

Brian Fehr, the CEO of the Prince George-based BID Group of Companies, has signed on as a supporter of the project through the Northern Gateway Alliance, a group that is the brainchild of Enbridge.

"As a business owner on the pipeline corridor I am looking forward to the opportunities that the project will bring for my business, and especially for my employees," says Fehr.

Tim Hoy, with Andritz Automation Ltd., says the project will bring economic diversification.

Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan notes the economic benefits are not only good for Kitimat but for the entire region.

Adds Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers: "Certainly from what I've seen, there are potential economic development opportunities for those businesses in Prince George and for workers across the North." But getting a clear picture of the local economic benefits -- in jobs and business opportunities -- is difficult.

In the Gateway project's initial preliminary application to the National Energy Board in 2005, Enbridge estimated that local and regional business opportunities on the pipeline, pump stations and terminal at $165 million.

That was about four per cent of the then estimated $4 billion investment in the pipeline.

At the same time, Enbridge pegged local hiring at up to 15 per cent.

Information the company filed with the National Energy Board in 2005 also showed that, at the pipeline's construction peak, more than 5,000 workers would be required.

More recently, Enbridge has said the project will create 4,000 construction jobs.

The firm is also touting the benefits of annual property taxes, which were estimated at $25 million in Alberta and B.C. in its 2005 filing.

Enbridge is not providing updated economic impact numbers until it files its full application to the National Energy Board, which is expected early this year.

It has already said, however, its initial estimate of 75 permanent jobs spread between Alberta and B.C. has increased to 200.

A 2005 Simon Fraser University Master thesis project by Tim van Hinte obtained more detailed data from Enbridge's preliminary filing, showing that average annual direct employment would be: 959 in the first year of construction; 1,559 in the second year; and 613 in the third year.

However, van Hinte's 177-page report, Managing Impacts of Major Projects: An Analysis of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project, showed hundreds of these jobs would be located in Alberta.

Using the data from van Hinte's report, a tabulation by The Citizen showed that at the 15 per cent level for local hires cited in Enbridge's preliminary filing, and filtering out the jobs in Alberta, the employment flowing to local workers in northern B.C. would average about 100 in the first year, under 200 in the second year and about 50 in the third year.

Van Hinte's analysis also showed the project would generate an additional 354 person years of employment in indirect jobs.

More of those jobs would be expected to go to local economies in B.C. and Alberta.

"What I've learned is that, most of the time, the actual number of jobs you are creating is grossly overestimated," said Van Hinte, who noted he's had renewed interest in his 2005 analysis of the pipeline project.

College of New Caledonia economist Al Idiens, who examined Van Hinte's numbers at the request of The Citizen, said, because any local jobs would likely be spread along the pipeline route, the Prince George area would be doing well if 100 local construction-type jobs were generated.

However, Idiens said the jobs -- even if some of the work was seasonal over the three-year construction period -- could help offset an expected slow recovery in the forest sector if pipeline construction was to start in a year.

"We have loads of surplus labour and equipment that would be ideal for operations such as logging and clearing, stockpiling, and camps. Because of this, we will not likely experience the negative side of a boom-bust cycle that mega-projects can create," observed Idiens.

The permanent work that follows construction can also provide additional benefits, improving Prince George's position as a service centre, said Idiens.

While not willing to release the updated estimated job numbers and economic impact of their project until they file their application with the National Energy Board, Enbridge spokesman Steve Greenaway said he believes people will be surprised at the scope of the project in terms of the economic and local tax benefits.

He said the company is hoping to demonstrate to people they want to be real partners in communities for the long term.

"I think you'll find that we've looked at the project probably in a new light, from how best to actually drive economic benefits to communities -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- along the pipeline corridor," said Greenaway. "We are certainly understanding that we need to deliver a significant range of benefits to communities. We've heard that loud and clear, and we will address that."

---

The risk of an oil spill along Enbridge's proposed 1,170-kilometre pipeline is, obviously, not zero.

Pipeline leaks and ruptures happen on pipelines.

There is some evidence that the record on pipeline spills appears to be improving, but the data is by no means conclusive. The data does, however, indicate that the chances of a major pipeline rupture are remote.

National Energy Board data -- from a 2004 analysis of ruptures and 2007 safety information -- shows that the spill rate on liquid pipelines the federal agency regulates (pipelines that cross provincial boundaries) dropped slightly to 0.05 ruptures per 1,000 km between 2000-2007, from 0.063 ruptures between 1984-2003. At the more recent lower rate, 1,000 kilometres of pipeline could be expected to experience a rupture once every 20 years.

The 2004 NEB rupture analysis showed that no ruptures were recorded on pipelines that had been in operation for less than 12 years, viewed as a positive sign by Enbridge officials who argue that technology and construction methods have advanced to make pipelines safer than ever. "There's a lot of tools we have available we didn't have back then," says Ray Doering, Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline project engineer.

In 2007, the last year for which complete numbers are available, Alberta's Energy Resources and Conservation Board recorded the lowest-ever pipeline failure rate of 2.1 failures per 1,000 kilometres of pipeline. Since 2000, the pipeline failure rate has dropped 30 per cent, says the ERCB.

B.C. Utilities Commission documents also noted that there had been no incidents on the 811-km oil pipeline between Taylor and Kamloops, via Prince George, between 2003 and 2007.

A more detailed analysis of pipeline spills is available for the 1,288-km Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

A 146-page spill risk analysis, prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior for the renewal of a federal grant for the 1,288-km Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way, calculated the expected frequency of a small leak of up to 50 barrels of oil was once every two years.

A moderate leak of 50 barrels to 1,800 barrels was calculated to take place once between two years and 33 years.

A larger spill of 700 to 10,000 barrels of oil, from a stream or river washout, was calculated as once every 1,851 years.

Although Enbridge officials say that a spill risk assessment is part of their design criteria for the pipeline, they would not reveal any details of their risk assessment before they file their project application with the National Energy Board.

The Northern Gateway pipeline will be utilizing safety measures that include isolation valves that allow personnel to shut a section of pipe down if a drop in pressure is noticed.

The valves would be controlled remotely by workers monitoring the pipeline around the clock from a base in Edmonton.

Enbridge would not reveal the planned locations of the safety valves, saying those details would also be included in its filing to the National Energy Board.

The distance between isolation valves would give some idea of the amount of oil that could potentially flow into the environment if there is a rupture.

Valve spacing on Enbridge's Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights projects range from as small as one kilometre to as high as 75 kilometres, but average about 32 kilometres, according to documents filed with the National Energy Board.

There is a significant amount of oil in a 32-kilometre section of 36-inch diameter (90.4 cm) pipe: about 132,000 barrels. The amount of oil in a one-kilometre section is about 4,100 barrels, less than the amount leaked in 2000 in the Pine River spill.

Isolation valves are often spaced at either side of a river or at sensitive wetlands.

Enbridge says it is taking other safety measures, noting that safety begins with route selection.

For example, the company will not be following an existing natural gas pipeline route that passes near Smithers because of the danger of mountain slides. Instead, the pipeline is taking a more southerly route to Kitimat.

Enbridge also plans to construct two 6.5-km tunnels through the coastal mountains to protect the pipeline from snow slides.

Extensive planning also goes into water-course crossings with experts engaged to analyze water flows and examine how river channels change over time to determine how far back from the banks the pipe should be drilled, says Doering. The 1974 Salmon River pipeline rupture was a result of bank erosion.

Pipelines, once constructed, are also monitored with aerial and ground patrols of the right-of-way.

Special tools -- called "pigs" -- are also used periodically to examine the inside of the pipe for corrosion or other irregularities. Enbridge has a team that monitors their pipelines with these tools.

"It's very proactive, so if there are any changes, this team is able to identify whether further investigation, excavation or repairs are necessary long before it ever gets to the point resulting in a failure -- long before it results in a leak," said Doering.

Enbridge has had spills on its pipeline system.

Its most recent worst year was in 2007 when 65 spills leaked 13,777 barrels of oil -- a tiny fraction of the volume of oil it transported. That amount of oil, about 2.19 million litres, would fill the Prince George Aquatic Centre's main Olympic-size tank to the three-quarter level.

The Enbridge spills in 2007 included two incidents on its Lakehead system in Wisconsin and another in Saskatchewan.

Wisconsin has been a hot spot of criticism for Enbridge.

The company agreed to pay $1. 1 million to settle claims it broke numerous state environmental laws during construction of its Southern Access pipeline in 2007 and 2008. The more than 500 violations included clearing wetland areas, placing soil in wetlands and leaving construction debris in wetlands.

The Calgary-based Pembina Institute cited concerns over construction impacts in its recently-released report: Pipelines and Salmon in Northern British Columbia.

Smithers environmentalist Greg Brown said the Wisconsin incidents should be a warning.

"Our concerns are being validated by the experience of another group in another part of the world, a recent experience," says Brown, who contributed to the Pembina salmon report.

The Pembina institute -- which is pushing for a shift to sustainable energy and generates the bulk of its revenue from fees and grants -- looked at more than one pipeline proposal in northern B.C. in its salmon report.

Kinder Morgan also has a northern B.C. pipeline route on its books, although the project is nowhere near as advanced as Enbridge's.

The Pembina report noted that northern B.C. has mountainous and remote terrain.

Whether failure is the result of normal pipeline decay over time or more sudden events like landslides or sabotage, the risk cannot be fully eliminated. Any decision to approve such a pipeline should be made in recognition of these risks, the report said.

There has been extensive research on the impact from oil spills on coastal waters, including on the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaskan waters in 1989. Some work has also focused on the impacts in fresh water, but little research has been conducted explicitly in northern B.C.

Research carried out after the Pine River oil spill in 2000 included a preliminary B.C. Environment report that found fish populations in the first 20 kilometres downstream of the spill were heavily impacted. Environment ministry fishery biologists estimated that tens of thousands of fish were killed, with mountain whitefish and sculpins being the hardest hit. Bull and rainbow trout were also killed.

The pipeline company felt the estimate was too high, the environment ministry noted in a 2001 review of the spill.

A later assessment, conducted in 2005 for the District of Chetwynd and two First Nations, using a snorkel survey, suggested the types of fish and their abundance had recovered to pre-spill levels. The presence of oil was not confirmed through laboratory analysis from 25 test holes. But the report concluded it didn't mean that oil couldn't be present in other areas. The $32-million cleanup effort is estimated to have recovered 90 per cent of the spilled oil.

Tim Baccante, a fisheries biologist with B.C. Environment who worked on the spill, cautioned against translating the impact and recovery on the Pine River to another watercourse.

"It really depends on the sensitivity of the community. The Pine River is a pretty big watershed and it has some significant other streams coming into it, so it has at least some ability to re-colonize, where others may not," observed Baccante.

The Fraser and Skeena watersheds the proposed Enbridge pipeline will cross include important salmon habitat. The 785 watercourses the pipeline would cross in B.C. include salmon rivers like the Stuart and Morice.

Queen's University professor Peter Hodson, a specialist in fish toxicology, notes that oil is highly toxic to fish.

Should oil make its way into a stream or river, there is a chance it can infiltrate into gravel beds used by spawning salmon, potentially exposing eggs to toxicity as much as 10 to 15 years later, said Hodson.

Research showed that's what happened in Prince William Sound from the Exxon Valdez spill after oil washed up into long gravel bars at the mouths of streams used by salmon.

Said Hodson: "If you contaminate an important spawning shoal, then of course you are going to wipe out a year class of that spawning shoal, and you'll have no recruitment for that year. So, there's a long-lasting effect." The risk, and potential impacts, of an oil pipeline spill were one of the concerns that led to the recent formation of the Prince George-based Sea-to-Sands Conservation Alliance.

"I think the concerns outweigh the benefits that I can see to the area," says Mary MacDonald, a former lawyer turned social worker in Prince George who helped form the conservation alliance.

"I just think if we continue down this path of economic development at the potential expense of the environment, especially when watersheds are becoming that much more compromised at a global level, it's ultimately not going to serve us very well."

- - -

ENBRIDGE SPILL HISTORY

2010 - On Jan. 8 a leak caused Enbridge to shut down a segment of its Lakehead oil pipeline in North Dakota. The spill was estimated at 3,000 barrels (479,000 litres). Enbridge said water and wildlife were unaffected.

2009 - On Jan. 3, a valve blew on a pipe at the Cheecham terminal tank farm near Fort McMurrary, Alta. releasing about 5,749 barrels of oil (918,000 litres). Most of the oil was contained on site, but some was also blown off site, covering an area about 450 meters by 1,500 meters downwind of the facility.

2008 - Recorded 80 reportable liquid spills, leaks or releases totaling approximately 2,682 barrels (428,000 litres). The largest spill was near Cromer, Manitoba in January when about 629 barrels of crude oil were released when a flange gasket on a pump unit at Cromer Terminal failed.

2007 - Reported 65 spills of 13,777 barrels (2.2 million litres) of oil from its pipeline system. The incidents included two spills from its Lakehead system in Wisconsin. In January, a pipeline ruptured and leaked 1,250 barrels of oil in a farm field. In February, a section of pipe was struck and damaged during excavation, resulting in the release of 3,000 barrels of oil. In Saskatchewan, in April, about 6,227 barrels of oil spilled in a field downstream of a pumping station at Glenavon.

2006 - Reported 61 spills of 5,363 barrels (853,000 litres) of oil on its pipelines. In December, about 2,000 barrels of oil were released when a two-inch nipple failed downstream of a pump at a site on the North Dakota system in Montana. The oil gathered in a low spot in a pasture. In Saskatchewan, about 613 barrels of oil were released in March when a pump failed at the company's Willmar terminal.

2005 - Reported 70 spills of 9,825 barrels (1.56 million litres) of oil from its Canadian and U.S. pipeline systems. Enbridge noted that the majority of these spills occurred and were contained within its fenced stations and terminals, not on its cross-country pipelines.

Sources: Enbridge annual social responsibility reports, news archives, Enbridge interview.

NORTHERN B.C. ECONOMIC PICTURE

- The region has lost thousands of jobs from a more-than-three-year forestry downturn caused by a collapse in U.S. housing. Not all of the jobs are expected to return.

- The area is also facing economic fallout from the coming decrease in timber supply from the pine beetle epidemic, which is expected to reduce forestry jobs.

- There are other sectors, like mining, that hold hope for job creation. Although there are several major mine projects, including gold, copper and molybdenum on the books, only coal mines in northeastern B.C. have materialized.

- Is also looking to a new transportation corridor that includes a $170-million container port at Prince Rupert and a $36-million upgraded runway at Prince George Airport that can handle cargo. However, the global economic slowdown has hurt those plans.

- Enbridge is touting the economic benefits of its proposed $4.5-billion pipeline. There's an estimated 4,000 temporary construction jobs up for grabs in northern B.C. and Alberta. It is uncertain how many jobs could be nabbed by local northern B.C. workers, who are more familiar with forestry than pipeline construction.

- Enbridge says there are 200 jobs that will be created in northern B.C. and Alberta, although no details have been provided. If created, the jobs will be spread through the two provinces, with many of them located in Kitimat.

- Enbridge also points to tax-base benefits, the potential for legacy funding and an ownership stake for First Nations in the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Source: Citizen archives, Enbridge.

Victoria Times Colonist article on Gitga'at First Nation opposition to Enbridge Northern Gateway project

2010-03-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

For band, sunken ferry a reminder of oil-tanker risks

By Jack Knox, Times Colonist March 18, 2010

(retrieved from www.vancouversun.com on March18)

Marven Robinson: "We're trying to be the greenest community in Canada."

Every day, a fellow boats out from Hartley Bay to Gil Island to look for signs of fuel leaking up from the sunken Queen of the North. It's not uncommon to find a sheen on the water, maybe a litre or two.

Nothing like the great, stinking lake of diesel that fouled the surface after the ferry sank on March 22, 2006. That spill made such a mess that it was two years before Marven Robinson felt it safe to harvest cockles and clams from nearby beds.

Yet the damage done by the ferry sinking pales in comparison to what would happen if a giant oil tanker spilled its load, which is why Robinson is fearful of a proposal to build a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat.

"The whole Gitga'at First Nation is opposed to the pipeline and the tanker traffic it will bring," he says, on the phone from Hartley Bay, where he is a band councillor.

Robinson was surprised by this week's out-of-the-blue news that a B.C. Ferries crew member had been charged criminally in the Queen of the North sinking, in which two passengers died. Robinson remembers that night well, being one of the 22 Hartley Bay men who jumped in their boats and sped 16 kilometres through the dark to help the 99 surviving passengers and crew.

No one knows how much, if any, fuel remains entombed on the ferry, 430 metres down. The Queen of the North had a capacity of 220,000 litres of diesel and 20,000 of light oil.

That's a drop in the ocean compared to the 525,000 barrels of petroleum that would be pumped onto tankers if Enbridge's $4.5-billion Northern Gateway project is approved. The proposal would see twin pipelines carry Alberta petroleum 1,170 kilometres to a new marine terminal at Kitimat, and condensate -- a kerosene-like thinning agent -- sent from the coast to the oil patch.

The National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have agreed to a joint review process, though an official project application from Enbridge has yet to be received. The company says that if approved, Northern Gateway would create 4,000 construction jobs. Business groups support the proposal. Environmental groups do not. Nor do the Gitga'at -- "People of the Cane" -- through whose front parlour the tankers would pass.

The Gitga'at band has about 700 members, 180 of whom live in Hartley Bay. The community sits near the confluence of Grenville Channel -- which leads to Prince Rupert, 140 kilometres to the north -- and Douglas Channel, which ends at Kitimat, 80 kilometres to the northeast.

The village is accessible only by floatplane or boat. No roads, no cars and trucks, just ATVs rattling along raised wooden boardwalks. The band has an ambitious plan to reduce its energy consumption, doing everything from insulating home hot-water tanks to being smarter about the way it lights its marina to replacing the village's diesel generators with a small-scale hydro project. "We're trying to be the greenest community in Canada," Robinson says. "Shoving tanker traffic in there would just ruin it."

The band's greatest fear is an Exxon Valdez-style spill. Enbridge argues that risk can be managed, that 1,500 tankers carrying petrochemicals have safely entered Kitimat Harbour in the past quarter century. Tankers pass the Victoria waterfront all the time. Robinson is still worried. With more than 300 tankers a year expected to pass Hartley Bay post-pipeline, an accident seems inevitable, he says. "It's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when."

He heard of an incident this winter in which a large ship had to return to Kitimat after hitting rocks and punching in its bow.

Besides, an oil spill isn't the only threat, he says. The band worries about the wash thrown up by giant tankers, concerned the constant traffic will disrupt the delicate interconnectivity of nature -- and the food supply.

With no store in Hartley Bay, the Gitga'at hunt deer, moose and seal, fish for salmon, halibut, crab and herring, and gather mussels, seaweed and cucumbers. "The food and resources that we depend on are at our doorstep," Robinson says. "We can't just go to the supermarket."

To the Gitga'at, the risk is too great. And all they need to confirm their fears is the Queen of the North, 430 metres below the surface.

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

1st of a series of recent articles by Gordon Hoekstra, Prince George Citizen, on Enbridge Northern Gateway

2010-03-18T06:53:00.000-07:00

Line from the sands

With a price tag of $4.5 billion, the Enbridge Northern Gateway project brings huge oil forces to the region's doorstep for the first time

March 11,2010

Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff

Retrieved from www.princegeorgecitizen.com

It's claimed it will be the largest privately-financed infrastructure project in B.C. history, and the largest project of its kind in Canada.

It will take an estimated 650,000 tonnes or more of steel to construct -- more than 249 times the steel in the Simon Fraser Bridge.

Thousands of workers will be needed to build it.

It will cross more than 1,000 streams, creeks and rivers in two provinces, and require a pair of 6.5-kilometre tunnels through the B.C. coastal mountains.

If completed, it will be 1,170 kilometres long, just 50 kilometres shorter than the proposed Mackenzie Pipeline, a project that has been on the drawing board for more than three decades.

If you have not been paying attention, you may not know the project.

The colossus is Enbridge's proposed $4.5-billion twin pipeline, the Northern Gateway.

It is meant to carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat for export by ocean-going tanker to Asia and perhaps the western U.S. seaboard.

Condensate, a kerosene-like liquid used to thin heavy oil for transport in pipelines, will be shipped back to Alberta in the second, smaller pipeline.

The condensate -- a leftover byproduct of liquefying natural gas -- could be sourced from a number of locations, including Russia, Australia and the Middle East.

By its very nature -- its size, and the fact it will bring the risk of an inland oil spill for the first time ever to a rugged wilderness area that stretches more than 400 kilometres west of Prince George -- the project is controversial.

And, while some business and municipal leaders have aligned themselves in favour of the project, an increasingly vocal group of First Nations are eyeing the oil and condensate pipelines with apprehension. They are fearful of the impacts an oil spill could have on their traditional territories, particularly on salmon.

On the regulatory side, the project faces a lengthy two- to three-year process and is already the object of criticism from environmentalists.

Even before a review gets underway, it is unclear if the project is necessary.

Pipeline capacity for the Alberta oil sands is expected to outstrip production until the end of the decade. Enbridge has not revealed whether any companies have provided the necessary commercial backing.

Indeed, in a seemingly contradictory stance, Enbridge argued last year in National Energy Board hearings that one of its competitor's projects, TransCanada's Keystone XL project, meant to take Alberta oil to the Gulf Coast region of the United States, shouldn't go ahead because there is already too much pipeline capacity.

And in a recent development, a legal dispute has heated up between major oilsands players like Suncor Energy over the start up of the southern American leg of Enbridge's Alberta Clipper pipeline. Essentially, the oil producers say the new capacity is not needed at this time.

But, viable or not, it is clear that consideration of the project puts northern British Columbia, and particularly the region west of Prince George to the North Coast, at the nexus of powerful energy forces for the first time.

Thanks to the oil sands, Canada is now considered to possess the second largest oil reserve in the world behind Saudi Arabia. As a result, the oil sands are considered a key Canadian strategic economic asset.

World oil resources are expected to eventually peak and decline while demand continues to grow, which is expected to increase the value of unconventional energy sources like the Alberta oil sands. At the moment, virtually all of the exported oil from the oil sands goes to the United States. Enbridge, and perhaps the federal Conservative government, wants to give the Alberta oil sands a new outlet: the Northern Gateway. The thinking is that if there is more than one market for the oil, there are more profits in it for oil companies and more incentives to develop the oil sands.

That expansion is forecast to create more economic activity and jobs to the benefit of all of Canada. A recent report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute -- a government and industry think tank based in Calgary -- estimated the oil and gas sector would add an additional one million jobs to the country over the next 25 years.

But oil from the tar sands leaves a significant environmental impact and produces more greenhouse gases per barrel than other conventional oils, which is why an array of environmental voices continue to cry foul over the development of this "dirty oil."

There's even a suggestion that the ultimate destination of bitumen from the Alberta oil sands is an issue of energy security for the United States, some arguing that America doesn't want to see the oil go to China.

Enbridge first began examining the idea of accessing markets like Asia more than a decade ago. It started promoting the Northern Gateway project publicly in 2003 before it was shelved in late 2006 because, said the company, it had decided to focus on pipeline projects to the U.S.

The project was resurrected in 2008 when Enbridge secured $100 million from unnamed potential suppliers and consumers of the oil. The money is being used to steer the project through the regulatory process that involves Canada's National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Enbridge will take the first big step in seeking regulatory approval when it files its application to the National Energy Board, possibly before the end of March.

"You can see strong support from a conceptual level from the industry and the government of Alberta," said John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc.

However, the global economic slowdown has led to reduced oil production forecasts from the oil sands.

A recent Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers report noted that lower estimates in western Canadian crude-oil supply growth means the main driver behind the proposals for new pipeline projects has "diminished substantially." Pipeline projects that have already been approved or under construction will add more than one million barrels per day in pipeline capacity by the end of 2010. That pipeline capacity will meet and exceed the forecast oil supply through 2019, said the CAPP report.

Enbridge's timeline -- which would bring an additional 500,000-plus barrels a day of oil capacity on stream -- has the pipeline in service by the end of 2015 or early 2016. The timing and capacity issues put a question mark on the project. But Carruthers argues the benefit of the project should not be judged strictly on the basis of a capacity increase.

It goes beyond that, he says, because it offers entry into new markets throughout Asia and along the Western U.S. seaboard, particularly California. "There will be just a fundamental ability to access large and growing markets. That gives us market diversification," says Carruthers.

Canadian oil industry analyst Steven Paget says there's no question that a pipeline from the oil sands to the northwest coast of British Columbia would have strategic implications for all of Canada.

"This pipeline is very real," said Paget, who is an analyst with FirstEnergy Capital Corp. in Calgary. "It will give shippers an additional option on where to send their crude. It gives them many options. It gives them California, Korea, Japan, China, countries all along the Pacific Rim."

Without passing judgment on the project, Greg Stringham, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, had a similar observation: "I don't think it's ever too early to have companies evaluating those options."

---

You only have to look to China, a country of 1.3 billion, to see the kind of pull there is on the Alberta oil sands.

China's appetite for oil has been growing, a product of its rapidly expanding economy.

It is the second largest consumer of oil behind the United States.

China's oil consumption has grown much more rapidly than that of the United States, more than tripling since the early 90s when it became a net importer. Chinese consumption is forecast to grow in 2010, even though global consumption, including in the U.S., is expected to drop slightly, according to data from the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

Last September, PetroChina announced it was spending $1.9 billion on two undeveloped oilsands projects owned by Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

It's the first large Chinese investment in the oilsands. University of Alberta economist Andre Plourde said PetroChina's investment gives new life to Enbridge's Northern Gateway project. "Chinese corporations -- especially those that are owned by the government -- essentially don't walk around the world buying financial plays in things. They really do want access to the resource when they buy it," said Plourde.

PetroChina had shown an interest in the Northern Gateway project as early as 2005, signing a memorandum of understanding with Enbridge that was believed at the time to be an agreement to take half of the crude from the pipeline.

In 2007, PetroChina's parent, China National Petroleum Corp., said the company was tired of waiting for support from Canada and walked away. But in 2009, the China National Petroleum Corp. signalled its renewed interest, stating during a forum in Geneva, Switzerland attended by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach that it was seeking the support of Canadian political leaders to help create a major energy corridor linking Western Canadian oil supplies to the Chinese market.

Canada's Conservative minority government has said developing the oil sands is important for Canada, and even hinted at support for providing access to markets other than the U.S. "Doesn't it help Canada's exporters to have alternative market choices?" Canada's Environment Minister, Calgarian Jim Prentice, said last fall.

Prince George-Peace River Conservative MP Jay Hill said the federal government encourages the private sector to look at these types of projects, also noting the pipeline would develop alternate markets for the Alberta oil sands. "The Enbridge pipeline, if done right, can be both environmentally-friendly and certainly a huge economic benefit to northern British Columbia," said Hill, who is a member of the Conservative cabinet.

The B.C. Liberal government has also shown an interest in pipeline development.

In a 2008 throne speech, the Liberal government stated that a new northern energy corridor from Prince Rupert to Prince George would be pursued. The ruling Liberals said the corridor held the potential for billions of dollars in new investment that would create new high-paying jobs for the North.

And at least one B.C. Liberal from northern B.C. has made no secret of his support for the $4.5-billion Enbridge project. Nechako Lakes MLA John Rustad, the minister of state for forestry, issued a news release last fall lauding the economic benefits of the project.

Provincial and federal NDP politicians from northern B.C. have already voiced concern over the project. Skeena-Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen, the party's environment and energy critic, said the risks of the project are unacceptable. Concerned over the impacts of an oil spill, Cullen, whose riding stretches from the coast to just west of Prince George, also does not like the link to the Alberta oil sands.

"The tar sands are an environmental disgrace. You can see the toxic tailings ponds from outer space they are so large," he said.

But before any political push or a federal review decision is reached, observers say a critical issue that must be resolved is the support -- or lack thereof -- by First Nations.

The route in northern B.C. crosses the traditional territories of First Nations that have largely not resolved treaties. The McLeod Lake Indian Band north of Prince George and the Nisga'a in northwest B.C. are the only exceptions. It means the remaining First Nations have claims to land and resources along the pipeline route.

First Nations like the Haida, the Wetsuwe'ten and the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council have already voiced their concerns -- the Haida over the prospect of a tanker spill, the Wetsuwe'ten and the Carrier over the potential of pipeline ruptures.

A chief area of concern, said Carrier Sekani Tribal Council chief David Luggi is the threat to salmon from a spill, particularly given the low returns last year. "I think it actually seals the argument that we can't have this pipeline because whatever dwindling salmon we have left is at risk," said Luggi.

The pipeline would cross the Stuart River, an important sockeye tributary in the Fraser River watershed. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently announced a public inquiry into the decline of the Fraser River sockeye.

While there are environmental groups in northern B.C. opposed to the project, or at the least in favour of a public inquiry, the pipeline also has the attention of the wider environmental community. Among them are: ForestEthics with offices in Toronto and San Francisco; the Calgary-based Pembina Institute; and Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law. Also on the list are RainCoast Conservation and the Dogwood Initiative, both based in Victoria.

Greenpeace, which has offices throughout the world, has an oil sands campaign underway. Last September, a group of their activists chained themselves to a three-storey dump truck at Shell's Albian Sands mine about 80 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alta.

The oil sands have also attracted farther-reaching global attention, including notice at the recent climate talks in Copenhagen.

There have also been exaggerated claims at the political level.

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore -- best known for his climate-change movie and book, an Inconvenient Truth -- has declared that the development of the Alberta oil sands will bring the demise of mankind.

Dogwood Initiative representative Eric Swanson -- whose group outright opposes the pipeline -- contends the Enbridge project is being used as political leverage against proposed climate change legislation in the U.S.

The idea is that the threat of losing Alberta oil sands production to Asia will push the U.S. to reconsider efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions that would put restrictions on oil sands bitumen.

Emission caps considered under a bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives are expected to drive up the cost of refining Canadian oil sands crude. The Senate, which must also approve the bill to enact it into law, is not expected to make a decision until later this year. Oil from the tar sands is expected to be penalized by such regulations because the effort required to extract and refine oil sands produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, according to various studies, including by the Canadian government. More critically, says Swanson, the 200 permanent jobs promised by Enbridge are not worth the risk of a spill inland or on the coast, particularly for a project that is not necessary from a capacity point of view.

"It's certainly not about what's best for British Columbians or Canadians," he argues.

That view is not shared by some municipal and business leaders in northern B.C.

Initiatives Prince George CEO Tim McEwan believes projects like pipelines can have a "big" public benefit. "Environmental issues are legitimately put on the table, but they have to be weighed against economic interest and public interest," said McEwan, who heads the city's economic development agency.

"There's the jobs, but also the underpinning for health and social programs," observes McEwan.

The oil sector remains largely unfamiliar territory for the 175,000 or so people in northern B.C. that live along the pipeline corridor route. Names like Enbridge and TransCanada do not resonate with northern British Columbians in the same manner as Canfor or West Fraser, two major forest products companies with extensive operations in the region. Even with a severe downturn in the forest sector, the two companies employ more than 3,000 people in northern B.C.

Josh DeLeenheer, a Prince George resident who recently has become involved in examining Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, says his sense is that the average person has not paid much attention to the project and simply is not aware of its implications.

"We can really get walked over," says DeLeenheer, who recently helped create the Prince George-based Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance.

Enbridge is hoping there is not a rush to judgment on the pipeline project.

Enbridge spokesman Steve Greenaway stresses there are many months of hearings and testimony ahead, as well as reports that will detail environmental, social and economic issues.

"All of those things have yet to come, and so I think people should stay tuned and watch the process as it unfolds," he said.

TOMORROW: What is the pipeline spill risk versus the economic benefit to northern B.C.?

WHO IS ENBRIDGE?

Enbridge is a big company.

In Canada and the U.S, it operates the world's largest crude oil and liquids pipeline system.

The company also operates natural gas pipelines.

Its system includes Canada's largest natural gas distribution company, which provides gas to customers in Ontario, Quebec and New York State.

Enbridge, which started operating in 1949 as Interprovincial Pipe Line Co., has 13,500 kilometres of pipeline. The pipelines deliver more than two million barrels a day of crude oil and liquids.

Based in Calgary, the company employs about 6,000 people in Canada and the United States.

The head of Enbridge is president and CEO Pat Daniels, who has been a senior executive of the company for 14 years. He was named CEO in 2001.

Enbridge is also a profitable company.

In 2007, it had a profit of $700 million on revenues of $11.9 billion, while in 2008, the company posted a profit of $1.32 billion on revenues of $16.1 billion. The positive financial results have continued in 2009 when Enbridge posted a profit of $1.55 billion.

Said Daniels: "From the strong base we've achieved in 2009, we are confident in delivering continued growth of 10 per cent per year on average into the second half of the decade."

Enbridge has $14 billion in projects under development through to 2012, has secured another $5 billion after 2012, and has a "pipeline" of opportunities of more than $30 billion.

Among those opportunities is the proposed $4.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project through northern B.C.

The Northern Gateway project is headed up by John Carruthers, president and CEO of Northern Gateway Pipelines, who has more than 20 years experience in the energy and resource sectors.

Last year, Enbridge said it will move towards a neutral environmental footprint by 2015 for new projects.

For every tree the company removes in a right-of-way, it will plant another. For every acre used in creating a right-of-way, it will put an acre in a nature conservancy. For every kilowatt of energy it consumes in its operations, it will generate a kilowatt of renewable energy.

-- Source: Enbridge website, financial reports and 2009 Toronto investor day conference

WHAT ARE THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS?

- The oil Enbridge will carry on its 1,170-km pipeline will come from the Alberta tar sands.

- Oil from the tar sands does not start out life as a liquid. The tar sands are a mixture of sand, sandstone and bitumen.

- Bitumen is a black, sticky form of crude oil so heavy that it will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature it is much like cold molasses.

- Unlike conventional crude oil, which flows naturally or is pumped from the ground, oil from the tar sands must be mined or recovered from deeper beneath the ground by injecting steam to make the oil flow, a process known as "in situ." When mined, about two tonnes of oil sands must be dug up, moved and processed to produce one barrel of oil.

- The Alberta tar sands, with proven reserves of 173 billion barrels (about 13 per cent of total global oil reserves), are now considered the second largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia, which has conventional reserves of 264 billion barrels of oil.

- Alberta tar sands take more energy and water to convert into useable synthetic oil than conventional oil. The milling process also creates more greenhouse gases than the conventional oil.

- The production of bitumen from the oil sands -- mining and processing -- can produce 3.2 to 4.5 times as much greenhouse gases as conventional crude oils. However, a full life-cycle greenhouse gases analysis, which includes burning the fuel in a vehicle (which accounts for 80 per cent of GHG emissions), showed that oil from the Alberta tar sands have emissions 10 per cent higher than competing U.S. crude imports. A similar comparison showed oilsands' GHG emissions were 16.5 per cent higher than conventional oil produced in the U.S.

- Environmentalists say greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands are worse because oil companies and governments don't account for GHG emissions from forests destroyed to get at the tar sands.

- The oil sands make up about five per cent of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions, and about 0.1 per cent of the world's emissions.

If oil sands production increases as expected, and the emissions per barrel are not reduced, the contribution will roughly triple by 2030.

- GHG emissions per barrel of oil from the oil sands have been reduced an average of 38 per cent since 1990.

- In 2008, Alberta exported 1.51 million barrels of oil per day of crude oil to the U.S., supplying 15 per cent of U.S. crude oil imports, or 8 per cent of U.S. oil demand.

-- Sources: Alberta government, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Enbridge, Alberta Energy Institute, U.S. Department of Energy, Global Forest Watch, Britannica online encyclopedia, Council on Foreign Relations.

Press Release from Carrier Sekani Tribal Council re: World Water Day

2010-03-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release
March 15, 2010

Carrier Sekani opposes Investment into Enbridge Pipeline and celebrate World Water Day with Tar Sands Documentary H2Oil

Dakelh Territory/Prince George BC –This year the United Nations is dedicating World Water Day 2010: “to the theme of water quality, reflecting its importance alongside quantity of the resource in water management.” To celebrate this theme, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) is inviting members of the public and media to learn more about the Alberta oil sands and the link to Northern BC through the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. CSTC community members and leaders have learned first‐hand from First Nations who live with the devastating impacts of development, and are equally concerned about the potential impacts to the water resource, the environment, and to their culture from the proposed pipelines.
The CSTC is co‐hosting a screening of the world renowned tar sands documentary film H2Oil at the University of Northern BC (UNBC) on March 22nd in honour of the United Nations annual World Water Day celebrations that are held around the world.
“I have personally met with First Nations affected by the oil sands and we stand in solidarity with them as they work to defend their water, land, and the health of their people from alarming rates of rare forms of cancer,” says CSTC Vice Tribal Chief Terry Teegee. “Our nations are now linked to the oil sands through the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipelines which would cross our territories and carry oil and condensate between Kitimat and Edmonton.”
The CSTC have also been active in spreading awareness to the investment communities in Canada, in particular Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). RBC is the leading lender to tar sands development as well as investments into Enbridge pipelines. “On March 3 Chief Alphonse Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation and I attended the RBC annual general meeting in Toronto to keep investors aware of our concerns and we told CEO Gord Nixon that RBC has to implement a free, prior and informed consent policy for it’s investment loans” said Teegee.
The film will be followed by a panel discussion of First Nations and community leaders with direct knowledge of both the oil sands and the Enbridge pipelines. The event is being held at the UNBC Canfor Theatre and will start at 6pm on March 22, 2010. The event is being co‐hosted by: Headwaters Initiative, Sea‐to‐Sands Conservation Alliance, the UNBC First Nations Centre, and the Travelling World Film Festival. Admission is by donation.

http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc
http://www.unwater.org/worldwaterday/events_namerica.html

sea to sands to participate in upcoming Traveling World Community Film Fest March18-28, 2010 in Prince George

2010-03-09T13:27:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release
March 2, 2010

Environmental films at the upcoming Traveling World Community Film Festival in Prince George

Prince George – On March 18th, the fourth annual Traveling World Community Film Festival will launch with a variety of documentaries covering a wide range of topics from disability rights to food security. Most films have one or more sponsors from the Prince George community, wishing to highlight a story where positive change is needed or already taking place.

The eleven-day festival features numerous films with environmental themes: for a glimpse into the challenges of maintaining safe water, don’t miss Tapped shown March 21st and Land of Oil and Water and H2Oil on World Water Day, March 22nd. These latter films link water with the impact of oil and gas on our lives; another that examines some issues of the petroleum debate is Justicia Now, on March 23rd. The last Saturday of the month – March 27th – is a special opportunity to celebrate Earth Hour, from 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm, so come out to sit in the dark at Artspace with others from the community to watch Sweet Crude and March Point, both offering challenges for us to address in the oil and gas industry.

Yet more films tell us stories about reducing the devastation wrought on the earth: The Green Film, Addicted to Plastic and Garbage Dreams are being shown on March 23rd. Finally, inspiration comes to us from projects big and small around the world: Bogotá: Building a Sustainable City shows how a community can be revived and thrive through a clear vision for a better place to live, while Rebecca’s Wild Farm, Under Rich Earth and Good Food are all signs of hope that not following the mainstream trends can lead to a better way of life for all.

The Traveling World Community Film Festival is only in town until March 28th. Films will be shown at various venues throughout Prince George, including UNBC, local coffee shops, Artspace, the Two Rivers Gallery and the Public Library. Full details and schedule are available at www.booksandcompany.ca

from Vancouver Media Co-op: the Current Economic Development Vision & Policy Direction of the BC government & how Enbridge pipeline ties in

2010-03-08T15:31:00.000-08:00

Vancouver Media Co-op
Local Independent
March 7, 2010
retrieved March 8, 2010 from vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/2981.

A Public Relations War on all Fronts
BC government aims to win hearts and minds in battle to open the province up to more mining, oil and gas
by Dawn Paley

Beyond rhetoric about improving competitiveness and establishing the province as a centre for innovation, among the most concrete strategies suggested in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 2010/11-2012/13 Service Plan are government sponsored marketing campaigns to promote the benefits of the extractive industries.

The Service Plan, released last week, is where the B.C. government outlines their primary strategies with regards to the energy, mining and oil and gas industries to 2013. The public relations efforts articulated throughout the Plan fly in the face of the demands of Indigenous nations, in whose territories these projects would be built.

One of the objectives of the Service Plan is to increase the involvement of First Nations in the oil and gas industry. This includes "advising" First Nations on how resources can be developed in an "environmentally responsible manner," by strengthening links to industry and government, and negotiating revenue sharing agreements.

The government also aims to "Facilitate involvement by local First Nations in oil and gas pipelines through the proposed Northern Energy Corridor between Kitimat and Prince George." Given the level of resistance to pipelines in Northern B.C., and the fact that much of land mass to be traversed by the pipelines was never ceded by Indigenous people, it appears that the B.C. government is on a collision course.

Toghestiy (Warner Naziel), a member of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, did extensive research on the Northern Gateway energy pipeline, proposed as part of an energy corridor which includes two Enbridge pipelines and a Kinder Morgan pipeline. The B.C. government has been promoting this energy project for over a decade.

"One hundred per cent of people [in my community] were completely against any type of development, especially anything in relation to this energy corridor," Toghestiy told the Vancouver Media Co-op in February.

Another objective of the Ministry's Service Plan is to create the social license for increased development of the extractive industries in BC. This can be achieved, according to the Plan, by financing public relations and educational campaigns.

"Develop and implement focused promotional programs to inform British Columbians about opportunities in the energy, mining and natural gas industries," reads one strategy. "...Engage school students in a discussion of responsible energy, mineral and natural gas resource development," reads another.

"They're trying to promote a pipeline that is completely unwanted," said Macdonald Stainsby, an anti-tar sands activist with oilsandstruth.org.

"People who promote these kinds of developments in areas where the benefits will be little to none tend to use a war on all fronts, from friends and neighbours to glossy pamphlets to promises of money that will never arrive," he said.

Stainsby calls the proposed PR strategy proof that despite his green image, Premier Gordon Campbell still takes his marching orders from Ottawa and Washington. "These efforts are linked to increasing energy supply from the tarsands, rather than reducing energy supply," he said.

Enbridge, Kinder Morgan, Shell, Teck, and Imperial Metals Corporation have all faced fierce resistance, led by Indigenous land defenders and supported by allies locally and around the world.

Cutbanks coverage of "Crude Facts" event at UNBC March 2, 2010

2010-03-03T06:49:00.000-08:00

Cutbanks- the Prince George Cultural website
retrieved March 3, 2010 from www.cutbanks.com

Anti-Enbridge group gets to work
By Tyler Clarke, editor

Anti-Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline group the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance held their first of what they say will be many public events March 2 at UNBC to a capacity crowd of like-minded local students and members of the public with a hint of environmentalism running through their veins. This first public event came in the form of an information session, complete with PowerPoint presentations detailing the possible (and arguably imminent) problems associated with the proposed pipeline, and a call to action by one of the university’s best-known environmental activists, Nadia Nowak.

“It’s not too late to stop the pipeline,” Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance member and event organizer Sonja Ostertag said during her introduction. “Our objective as a group is to educate and to lobby politicians.”

Dan Rogers, she said, is a good local example of a local politician to lobby, as he’s on the Gateway Alliance, meaning he supports the proposed pipeline.

But what is this pipeline, and why not support it?

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is a series of two pipes Enbridge hopes to run across British Columbia, just North of Prince George, to the coast in order to be shipped overseas in large tankers.

As presenter Greg Brown, a Smithers-based policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, clarified in his presentation, there are a multitude of things that can go wrong with this proposed pipeline, and have gone wrong with similar such pipelines.

“Like all things, they get old and rust out,” Brown stated. “They usually fail up around 28 years,” although can quite easily fail a lot sooner. With mudslides a commonly-occurring thing closer to the coast and a multitude of other naturally-occurring phenomena, pipelines failing is a lot more common than Enbridge would like you to know. 28 times since the 70’s.

Tankers are another issue, although Enbridge has been deflecting all concerns with regards to shipment onto the companies that own and manage the tankers, promising that it is a safe means of transportation.

“Are they safe enough?” Brown asked. “They’re making promises that they can’t keep.”

Tankers were the main concern for presenter Kyle Clifton, who is native to Hartley Bay BC, a community overlooking the ocean a few hundred yards from where the proposed tankers will pass by. With rocky terrain that in certain weather can be quite treacherous to captains, Clifton said that a tanker crashing and spilling oil wouldn’t be that unlikely, and that if this does happen it will wipe out his people’s way of life.

“Our dependence on natural resources gives us a unique perspective,” he clarified, adding that their way of life depends entirely on obtaining foods from the land and ocean, which a spill would force them to discontinue sending them to depend more on grocery stores where, due to costs associated to flying of shipping products in, is too expensive for them. “If Enbridge has a spill, no one is going to help us replace these foods.”

The presenters’ many examples of tankers crashing, including 2006’s Queen of The North, and of pipelines failing (there are at least four ongoing spills in British Columbia – broken pipelines that are continuously leaking, repaired by putting a fence around the leak, which wildlife easily finds a way around) the idea of another pipeline in BC came across as an irresponsible action.

There are two types of power, presenter Nadia Nowak said. Money and people.

“Enbridge has a lot of money, but what we have is the people.”

The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance is holding a similar such presentation tonight (March 3) at Art Space, the venue above Books and Company on Third Avenue downtown, beginning at 7 p.m. Admission is free.

For more information on the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance such as when the next public event is, join the group’s Facebook page by searching s2s.ca on Facebook, or e-mail sea2sands@gmail.com.

crude facts information sessions set for next week in Prince George BC

2010-02-25T13:43:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release: February 24, 2010

SEA TO SANDS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE PRESENTS THE CRUDE FACTS
Information session on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

On March 2nd and 3rd, the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance will be hosting The Crude Facts, two information sessions on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Tanker Project. Speakers from Friends of Wild Salmon, regional First Nations organizations, UNBC and the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance will speak about the environmental and social risks of this proposed project. “Given the likelihood of oil spills associated with the transportation of bitumen from the tar sands to Asian and American markets, people need to become educated about the potential negative impacts of this project and decide if this type of development will truly benefit northerners” said the event organizer, Sonja Ostertag. The events will take place on March 2nd from 2:30 to 4:30 in Room 6-305 at UNBC and March 3rd from 7:00 to 9:00 at ArtSpace (1685 3rd Ave), Prince George.

Enbridge proposes to construct two parallel pipelines from northern Alberta's tar sands to the port of Kitimat; one pipe will carry crude bitumen, a heavy oil product, to the coast of BC for oil tankers destined to Asian and American oil markets. “I’m concerned about this project because it will accelerate the expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands; the proposed pipelines will cut through traditional territories and could lead to cultural destruction in the case of an oil spill” said local UNBC student and member of the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance, Adam Thomas. The second pipe will carry condensate inland; condensate is an acutely toxic light hydrocarbon used to transform the thick tar-like substance extracted from the oil sands into a product suitable for pipeline transport. Both products present a distinct threat to fish, wildlife and humans in proximity to any spills.

‘The Crude Facts’ will highlight the potential negative impacts of this project for northerners and their environment. The alliance will continue to organize events in Prince George in the coming months to help inform the public about the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. S2S formed a Facebook group (s2s.ca) in the fall of 2009 and the group has attracted more than 600 members to date. Citizens interested in learning more or who would like to join the group can email sea2sands.ca@gmail.com.

BC Government will not Conduct Environmental Assessment

2010-02-23T07:18:00.000-08:00

The provincial government (British Columbia) has determined that the Enbridge pipeline is not subject to any provincial government environmental review. The only review to be undertaken of Enbridge Northern Gateway project is by the 3-person federally appointed JRP (Joint Review Panel). . . far from adequate given the scope & complexity of the issues at stake.

Read the BC Government's stance of the environmental review here.

another article on growing opposition to Enbridge

2010-02-02T11:06:00.001-08:00

Ready to block Gateway
By Gary Park
Petroleum News
January 31, 2010
retrieved from www.dogwoodinitiative.org on February 2, 2010

As fast as the regulatory process for 'Northern Gateway' takes shape, the project faces mounting opposition from environmental groups and First Nations, whose leaders said in a press release that the pipeline is “seen by critics as bad press for Enbridge and a potential legal quagmire for the company and the Canadian government”

Wet'suwet'en deliver a letter to Imperial Oil, saying Gateway is an infringement of aboriginal rights
Opposition mobilizes against oil sands export line, bolstered by court decision

The regulatory pieces are falling into place as fast as clouds are gathering over Enbridge’s plans for a Northern Gateway pipeline to carry oil sands production to a tanker port at Kitimat on the British Columbia coast.

Canada’s National Energy Board and Environment Minister Jim Prentice named the three members of a Joint Review Panel to conduct the environmental and regulatory review of the project, which could deliver 525,000 barrels per day of production to Asian markets and import 193,000 bpd of condensate to the Edmonton area on a parallel system.

The plan includes construction and operation of a marine terminal.

Terms of reference for the JRP process were released in December by the NEB and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The current proposal calls for Northern Gateway startup in 2015-16, following a three-year construction period.

Mounting opposition

However, as fast as the regulatory process takes shape, the project faces mounting opposition from environmental groups and First Nations, whose leaders said in a press release that the pipeline is “seen by critics as bad press for Enbridge and a potential legal quagmire for the company and the Canadian government.”

Enbridge’s Chief Financial Officer Richard Bird told an investors’ conference in Whistler, British Columbia, on Jan. 21 that a formal application is still expected to be filed later this year.

He said Northern Gateway will “provide an outlet for bitumen and synthetic crude to access both Asian and California markets and opens up a completely new market to Alberta producers and ensures they receive world pricing for their commodity.”

“The need for an alternative to Canada’s sole dependence on the U.S. market for crude oil is now greater than ever,” he said.

At the same time, environmental and aboriginal opposition is building and a Supreme Court of Canada decision on Jan. 21 is seen as raising the bar for federal agencies which determine the scope of environmental review for large industrial projects.

The court ruling was based on the Red Chris mining project in northern British Columbia, which is not expected to be suspended or halted by the court.

But Alan Harvie, an environmental lawyer with the Calgary firm of Macleod Dixon, said he expects the decision will cause delays for other projects, especially involving the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

That could lend support to various environmental groups and activists who are building their case against Northern Gateway.

Pembina Institute opposed

A new report by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute took a formal stand against the project Jan. 18, arguing that the pipeline hides environmental impacts associated with increasing oil sands production.

Simon Dyer, the oil sands program director for the think tank, said it’s the first time Pembina has estimated the “upstream impacts of filling the pipeline.”

The report calculated that production associated with Northern Gateway would produce 25 million barrels of toxic tailings, disturb about three square miles of forest, consume the same volume of natural gas as 1.3 million households do in a year and consume the same amount of water annually as a city of 250,000.

Pembina said there should be a moratorium on the transportation of oil sands production across British Columbia until a public inquiry can examine the impacts.

Dyer said it is “amazing that very significant projects like (Northern Gateway) are proceeding in a piecemeal fashion. Despite the negative attention the oil sands are receiving in the media there is still virtually no substantive policy debate on development.”

The Pembina report said the terms of reference for the JRP ignore the impacts and the increased greenhouse gas emissions, but an Enbridge spokesman said the Pembina report fails to direct any specific information at the pipeline.

He said Enbridge hopes to ease public concerns through an intensive dialogue and “meet a high test as to whether this project will be in the Canadian public interest.”

Other challenges

There has also been a flurry of other actions challenging the project, backed by public opinion polls that show considerable resistance to the use of coastal waters by tankers as well as resistance by aboriginal communities to allow access to lands that are subject to claims.

Aboriginal resistance to Northern Gateway is reflected in a new online presentation that shows the impact of the pipeline on more than 50 First nations and 1,000 streams and rivers.

“Our territory represents a large portion of the proposed pipeline route and there’s no way we are going to allow it,” said David Luggi, chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. “The only thing Enbridge investors can bank on with this project is strong opposition.”

Dolores Pollard, chief councilor of the Haisla Nation, whose territory embraces the Kitimat super tanker port, said her community will “not allow any project to proceed that infringes the constitutionally protected rights of our people. Sooner or later, that’s a lesson Enbridge and the federal government are going to learn, either in the court of public opinion or a court of law.”

David de Wit, natural resources manager for the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, has sent letters to potential Northern Gateway shippers warning them that the pipeline would be a direct infringement of First Nation rights, given that about 10 percent of the line would cross Wet’suwet’en land.

He said the Canadian government has failed to properly address aboriginal title and rights issues and, thus, commitments by oil sands producers would be a “direct infringement of our constitutionally protected rights.”

Eric Swanson, speaking for the British Columbia-based Dogwood Initiative, told the Calgary Herald that Gateway “looks like 525,000 barrels a day of trouble,” telling Enbridge it faces a tougher battle in British Columbia than it does in Alberta.

Two activist journalists, Andrew Nikiforuk and Ian MacAllister, told public meetings late last year in British Columbia that opponents are mobilizing against Gateway, taking issue with Enbridge claims that Gateway would create 4,000 construction jobs and “hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues over the life of the project.”

City of Prince George water declared 'a vulnerable source'

2010-01-31T10:35:00.000-08:00

. . . Prince George Nechako River fed aquifer water system a vulnerable source. . . let's not jeopardize it by potential oil spills upriver. . .

‘A vulnerable source’
Written by Ted Clarke
Citizen staff
Friday, 29 January 2010
retrieved from www.princegeorgecitizen.com

City tap water passes most taste tests, and according to Northern Health and its drinking water testing division, it's about as good as you can get.
But don't take it for granted. We could be just one industrial accident away from losing that life-giving commodity.
"The water quality is really optimal, as good as you're likely to find in most places," said Bruce Gont, the drinking water leader for Northern Health.
"The advantage we have is, it's groundwater for the most part, and its fairly young water associated with the Nechako River. This water system we have is a huge asset for the city and it saves us having to go into the treatment like Dawson Creek would have to go through.
"But it's also a vulnerable source. The aquifers it's drawn from could be knocked out of action on a moment's notice, and maybe permanently, by an environmental or man-made event."
Spills like the one near the Cameron Street bridge in 1997 when a tanker overturned and dumped diesel fuel onto the bank of the Nechako River, are of major concern to Northern Health. Although that spill was largely contained by environmental cleanup crews, it was close enough to the drinking water aquifers to sound the alarm bells.
"If you have a hydrocarbon like that in the water it can either make it unsafe or unpalatable to be used and it could be a permanent problem," said Gont. "Then you can kiss goodbye to that resource."
With several industrial businesses in the city that handle hazardous material located near the rivers, that increases the risk of an accident. One other incident in March 2000 at the Canadian Helicopters base west of the city on Otway Road resulted in a 17,000-litre leak of aviation fuel from a storage tank. Although most of the fuel was dug out of the ground and hauled away, some of it did get into the water table.
"That was far enough away and they don't feel it impacted the present city wells, but these kind of events and the transportation system, either by truck or by rail, put the water system at jeopardy," Gont said.
"The city knows about this and has been working on a process to help protect those sources through monitoring and well-head protection, so these valuable sources hopefully will not be wrecked for future use. The alternative is to pull the water directly out of the Nechako, and that would call for a full treatment works.
"We have a fine water system, and it's reliable, but we need to respect and safeguard our supply, because it could be made vulnerable through carelessness."
The city is required to collect water samples daily and submit those samples to Northern Health for testing and our water does meet or exceed Canadian drinking water quality guidelines.
In 1997, the city's water was used as the negative control in a UBC/Ministry of Health comparative study on giardia and cryptosporidia, two types of cyst-like parasites that survive in cold water and cause gastrointestinal diseases. Because so few of those organisms commonly exist in our water, our H2O was the measuring stick against other cities which have that problem.
"The cool thing about that was, we had a sample shipped out almost every week during '97, at least 50 samples, and in all those samples, after running 4,000 litres though a filter every day, not one cyst was determined in Prince George's water," said Gont.
"It doesn't mean that there were no cysts, but the filtration of the aquifer is sufficient that we are really protected against giardia and cryptosporidia. They are building a big plant in Vancouver to achieve the same water quality we already enjoy here. It's a huge advantage for us."

Friends of Wild Salmon Press Release on Failure of Proposed Joint Review Panel (Enbridge) to Account for Salmon

2010-01-30T09:32:00.000-08:00

NEWS RELEASE – January 29, 2010

Salmon advocates question choice of pipeline panel

(Smithers, BC) The recently announced Joint Review Panel for the proposed Enbridge
pipeline lacks the local knowledge needed to fairly assess the impacts of the project,
according to representatives from Friends of Wild Salmon.

The National Energy Board (NEB) recently appointed Sheila Leggett, Kenneth Bateman, and
Hans Matthews to form the panel that will look into the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline
between the Alberta tar sands and Kitimat.

Friends of Wild Salmon representatives said the NEB should have picked panel members
who have experience in the region, and who understand local First Nations, the North Coast,
and the area’s unique salmon habitat issues.

“The NEB has made a flawed process even worse by appointing a panel with no experience
in this part of the world,” said Friends of Wild Salmon Coordinator Pat Moss. “It is important
to have members with industry experience; however, this should be balanced by having
members who are strong in other areas.”

Friends of Wild Salmon chair Jen Rice noted noted that the scope of the panel’s review is to
include the potential environmental effects associated with marine traffic in coastal waters,
yet the panelists lack marine experience.

“The lack of marine and coastal experience is particularly troubling given that tanker spills
pose some of the greatest risks associated with this project,” said Rice.

Friends of Wild Salmon is proposing that the NEB add members to the panel to achieve a
broader range of qualifications.

“The review panel for the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline had seven members and we feel that
given the significance of this proposal, it deserves at least a similar level of wide-ranging
expertise. The Enbridge pipeline has the potential to change the face of the North and B.C.
coast forever,” said Rice.

Of the three panel members, both Sheila Leggett and Kenneth Bateman live in Calgary. The
third, Hans Matthews, lives in Ontario.

“This pipeline has international, national and regional implications,” said Moss. “We believe
the panel should include people who are familiar with the region and its unique landscape
and cultures.”

Count the Tar Sands In!

2010-01-28T17:09:00.000-08:00

We have added our voices to a call to the Canadian Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, to officially include the cumulative impacts of the additional tar sands development that would result from the Northern Gateway project in the scope of the Joint Review Panel. The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance joins 18 other ENGOs in making the request. Follow this link to view the letter.

Letter to Jim Prentice re. the Joint Review Panel Process

2010-01-28T16:57:00.000-08:00

The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance recently sent a letter to Jim Prentice expressing our concerns about the Joint Review Panel process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. Open this link to view the letter.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Expresses Opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

2010-01-23T08:48:00.000-08:00

The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has sent communications to several governmental representatives expressing their concerns about and opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines project. The following are their recent communications:

Opinion 250 coverage of growing opposition to Enbridge

2010-01-22T09:17:00.001-08:00

retrieved from www.opinion250.com on January 22, 2010

Opposition to Enbridge Pipeline Grows
By 250 News

Friday, January 22, 2010 03:59 AM

Prince George, B.C. - Enbridge has offered the Carrier-Sekani $830 thousand dollars to sign on with the proposal for the twin pipeline between Bruderheim and Kitimat but they are not budging. “We have about 25 First Nations who have dug in their heels” says David Luggi, Tribal Chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.

The dual pipeline would see oil shipped west to Kitimat where it would be loaded on to oil tankers, and an east bound pipeline that would carry condensate to Bruderheim. Condensate is used in the production of oil sands oil.

It is concern over the potential of an oil spill which has the First Nations balking at the proposal but they may have support from another angle.
A report issued this week by the Pembina Institute, a Calgary based environmental group, says the Northern Gateway pipeline will see an increase in oil sands production. The report says the boost in production will produce 6.5 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, the equivalent of putting 1.6 million cars on the road.
The Pembina Institute says the pipeline project should not be approved until the Federal Government has a plan in place to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
Last week, another group, the Friends of Wild Salmon, spoke out against the dual pipeline as well. They are concerned an oil spill in the watersheds of many salmon bearing streams and rivers could be a disaster for the Skeena salmon fishery. They are calling for a full public enquiry into the project.

members of Enbridge Joint Review Panel appointed by federal government

2010-01-20T15:04:00.000-08:00

retrieved from www.newswire.ca, January 20, 2010

Joint Review Panel Established for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
OTTAWA, Jan. 20 /CNW Telbec/ - Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Mr. Gaétan Caron, Chair and CEO of the National Energy Board, announced today the establishment of a three-member joint review panel for the environmental and regulatory review of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Minister Prentice and the National Energy Board appointed Ms. Sheila A. Leggett as the Panel chair, and Mr. Hans Matthews and Mr. Kenneth M. Bateman as Panel members. Biographical information on the Panel chair and members is available in the accompanying backgrounder.

The joint review panel process will provide an opportunity for all hearing participants to make their views known on the project in an open and transparent forum. The public and Aboriginal groups are encouraged to bring their views on the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project forward to the Joint Review Panel (the Panel).

A Joint Review Panel Agreement (the Agreement) for the environmental and regulatory review was signed by Minister Prentice and Mr. Caron and was released on December 4, 2009. The Agreement, which was issued for a 64-day public comment period before being finalized, describes the Panel's Terms of Reference as well as the process to be followed for conducting the joint panel review.

The Agreement, including the Terms of Reference, as well as additional information on the project are available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, under reference number 06-05-21799, and on the National Energy Board's website at www.neb-one.gc.ca.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the Participant Funding Program which supports individuals, non-profit organizations and Aboriginal groups interested in participating in the review panel process. Next steps in the review process will include the announcement of the participant funding recipients and the filing of the project application by Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines with the National Energy Board. The Panel will provide additional opportunities for public input and input by Aboriginal groups on the List of Issues to be considered by the Panel. Additional information will be available when the Panel issues its Hearing Order.

About the Project

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines proposes to construct and operate two pipelines, 1170 km in length, between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. About 500 km of pipeline will be in Alberta and 670 km in British Columbia. One of the pipelines will carry crude oil west to Kitimat and the other line will carry condensate east to Bruderheim. The project also includes the construction and operation of an integrated marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading of oil and condensate tankers and marine transportation of oil and condensate.

About the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects of proposed projects and measures to address those effects, in support of sustainable development.

About the National Energy Board

The National Energy Board is an independent federal agency that regulates several parts of Canada's energy industry. Its purpose is to promote safety and security, environmental protection, and efficient energy infrastructure and markets in the Canadian public interest, within the mandate set by Parliament in the regulation of pipelines, energy development and trade.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backgrounder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
Joint Review Panel - Biographical Notes

Ms. Sheila A. Leggett

Ms. Leggett has extensive regulatory experience, as well as a background in environmental issues and research. She has been a member of the National Energy Board (NEB) since 2006 and is currently the Vice-Chair of the National Energy Board.

Before joining the NEB, Ms. Leggett was a board member with the Natural Resources Conservation Board, which conducts hearings into natural resource development projects in Alberta. Prior to this, Ms. Leggett was a vice-president and senior consultant with an environmental consulting firm and a founding board member for Alberta Ecotrust.

She has served on numerous NEB regulatory panels, nine of which she has chaired. One of those included serving as the Chair for the Emera Brunswick Pipeline Project, the first National Energy Board hearing substitution for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency joint review panel process. Ms. Leggett is also the Chair of the NEB's Governance Committee.

Ms. Leggett has a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from McGill University and a Master of Science degree in Biology from the University of Calgary. Ms. Leggett has published numerous papers and made presentations at conferences across North America. She resides in Calgary.

Mr. Hans Matthews

Mr. Matthews is a professional geologist with more than 25 years experience in the mining, minerals and resource management industries. He graduated from the University of Western Ontario with a Masters of Science degree and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Brock University. Mr. Matthews has held executive positions focused on natural resource and environmental management, economic development and strategic policy and planning.

Mr. Matthews has extensive experience in Aboriginal community development and consultation within the mineral exploration industry in Canada and abroad. He has worked since 1991 with Aboriginal communities in supporting economic development initiatives as a leader, advisor and negotiator. Part of this has been to aid Aboriginal communities to use and understand aspects of the natural resources sector to promote community development through his role as President of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association for more than 18 years. Moreover, he was an advisor of Natural Resources with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada where he developed employment strategies through the Aboriginal Workforce Participation Initiative. Mr. Matthews also worked as an Aboriginal advisor implementing Aboriginal community relations policies, facilitating negotiations and workshops, and liaising between industry, Aboriginal groups, and government with both Rio Tinto and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

As a professional geologist, Mr. Matthews has extensive knowledge of the Canadian natural resources industry. Since 2007, he has been the manager of mineral exploration with Mohawk Garnet Inc., was a mine/project geologist for the Xstrata Nickel Mine in Falconbridge, Ontario, and was the Vice-President of Exploration with Arizona Explorations.

Mr. Matthews is a member of the Wahnapitae First Nation, Ontario, where he resides.

Mr. Kenneth M. Bateman

Mr. Bateman is a Canadian energy lawyer and former senior executive in the Canadian energy sector. He has been a member of the National Energy Board (NEB) since 2006. In addition to expertise in the energy sector, Mr. Bateman has extensive experience with major sustainable energy projects, including wind farms and biowaste facilities.

As a member of the National Energy Board, Mr. Bateman has been involved in numerous land and off-shore pipeline hearings, such as the Brunswick Pipeline Project, Deep Panuke and Keystone XL. He is Chair of the NEB's Regulatory Policy Committee.

Prior to appointment as a National Energy Board member, Mr. Bateman was the Vice-President of Legal Affairs for Enmax, a large energy distribution, supply and service company. At Enmax, Mr. Bateman served as head of the legal department and oversaw corporate governance, the regulatory affairs, environment and compliance departments. Mr. Bateman also has extensive training and knowledge in arbitration, mediation and multiparty dispute resolution.

Mr. Bateman holds a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Alberta and a Master of International Business Management degree from the American Graduate School of International Management. Mr. Bateman resides in Calgary, Alberta.

Globe and Mail: Pembina Institute critiques Enbridge Joint Review Panel

2010-01-19T06:53:00.000-08:00

Watchdog disputes pipeline

SHAWN MCCARTHY

OTTAWA — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 12:00AM EST

Last updated on Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 3:21AM EST

retrieved from www.globeandmail.com Jan19, 2010

Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway pipeline will result in a nearly 30-per-cent increase in oil sands production, and should not be approved until Ottawa has a plan to control greenhouse gas emissions, a prominent Calgary-based environmental group says.

In a report issued yesterday, the Pembina Institute complained that the joint review panel - which will study social and environmental impacts of the project - does not intend to assess the emissions that would result from the proposed 367,500-barrel-per-day pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast.

It estimated the resulting production would produce 6.5 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, the equivalent to putting 1.6 million cars on the road.

"The panel has deliberately turned a blind eye toward the bigger picture environmental impacts of new oil sands production that would be required to fill this pipeline," said Simon Dyer, Pembina's oil sands program director.

The pipeline would be able to transport roughly 30 per cent of the oil sands production, based on 2008 figures. However, production has been expanding over the past two years, despite the recession, as Enbridge and TransCanada Corp. boost export capacity to the United States.

The Northern Gateway line would traverse British Columbia to Kitimat, where crude supertankers would load for shipment to Asia and the West Coast of the United States.

Mr. Dyer said Ottawa needs an overall approach to oil sands development.

Pembina - which typically intervenes in oil-industry environmental reviews - said it would not participate in the Gateway review because the panel is "ducking their responsibility."

The review panel is a joint National Energy Board (NEB) and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency effort. In its initial terms of reference released late last year, it did not include a review of environmental effects of increased production needed to fill the Gateway pipeline.

But the panel may opt to broaden its scope if it encounters significant concerns about the upstream impacts, said NEB spokeswoman Kristen Higgins.

"Just because it wasn't listed in the terms of reference doesn't mean it's not an issue that the hearing can consider," Ms. Higgins said.

Enbridge spokesman Steve Greenaway said the company is prepared to have the full scope of the project review, including potential impacts from production projects.

"We fully expect the project to come under significant scrutiny and to have to pass a high test as it relates to the public interest," Mr. Greenaway said.

Globe & Mail article on Wet'suwet'en plea to potential backers of Enbridge oil pipeline

2010-01-16T16:22:00.000-08:00

retrieved from www.globeandmail.com

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE

CALGARY — From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2010 12:00AM EST

Last updated on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2010 3:55AM EST

A small B.C. first nation is making a personal plea to a series of Alberta energy companies as well as China and other governments in hopes of derailing an Enbridge Inc. pipeline that would export oil-sands crude to Asia.

The campaign is a preview of a storm brewing between first nations and the backers of the Northern Gateway pipeline project. The 1,170-kilometre project would bring crude from Alberta to the northern B.C. coast, where it would be loaded onto very large crude carriers for transport to Asian refiners.

The project offers oil-sands producers an appealing alternative market to the United States, where climate change legislation has brought some uncertainty. It has, as a result, gained support from a broad swath of industry and government leaders.

But on some of the pristine, salmon-rich lands Gateway would cross - safely, Enbridge says - first nations are voicing growing concerns that the line will damage the environment and leave little in return.

One of those nations, the Wet'suwet'en, took to Calgary yesterday in hopes of persuading energy companies to boycott the project. About 140 km of Gateway would be built on Wet'suwet'en traditional territory, and the group believes the environmental approval process for the pipeline will infringe on their constitutional rights, since it does not include a mandate to look into aboriginal rights and title.

To make their case yesterday, they hand-delivered letters to Shell Canada Ltd., Royal Dutch Shell, Husky Energy, Suncor Energy Inc., Chevron, Imperial Oil Ltd., Ivanhoe Energy, Korea National Oil Corporation and China National Petroleum Corporation. The group has met with the U.S. and Chinese consulates in Calgary, and also plans to outline its concerns to South Korean representatives.

"We want to let these shippers know their support for the Enbridge project will also be supporting infringement on the Wet'suwet'en Nation," said David deWit, the group's natural resources manager.

A spokeswoman with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency said the review process "has proven over time to be an effective means" to consider environmental and social impacts. The panel's findings will be used by the government "to fulfill its legal duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate."

The Wet'suwet'en opposition comes as support rallies around Gateway which, along with a separate West Coast oil pipeline being pushed by Kinder Morgan Canada, is seen as a potentially critical link to foreign crude buyers.

A group of Alberta oil producers and Asian refiners has already handed Enbridge $100-million to develop the project, and on Thursday, newly-installed Energy Minister Ron Liepert said he intends to more aggressively look "at international markets for our oil and gas products."

"We have been too reliant on the U.S.," Mr. Liepert said in an interview.

Gateway will cross the land of 50 first nations. Thirty have signed "protocol agreements" that allow discussions with Enbridge and provide funding for local traditional knowledge studies. Enbridge has not yet, however, signed a single access and benefit agreement with native groups.

Mr. deWit estimates that salmon in northwestern B.C. are worth $100-million a year.

Friends of Wild Salmon news release in response to recent Enbridge oil pipeline spill

2010-01-15T09:03:00.000-08:00

News Release - For Immediate Release - January 14, 2010

Enbridge oil spill confirms concerns about proposed BC pipeline

(Terrace, BC) Enbridge’s recent 126,000-gallon oil spill from a pipeline in North Dakota, discovered last Friday, has confirmed northern BC residents’ concerns about the company’s proposed oil pipeline through their region.

“Enbridge simply cannot prevent oil spills from its pipelines,” said Jennifer Rice, Chair of Friends of Wild Salmon. “And in our watersheds, even one oil spill of this magnitude is unacceptable.”

Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline would carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to a supertanker port at Kitimat, crossing several wild salmon watersheds.

“Had the spill occurred here in Northern B.C along Enbridge’s proposed pipeline, the effects could have been catastrophic to the Skeena’s wild salmon economy, estimated to be worth over $100 million per year,” added Rice.

“What would happen if this spill had occurred along the Morice River?” asked Rice. “Enbridge has no way to effectively deal with an oil or condensate spill into a fast flowing river.”

“The rivers along the proposed Gateway pipeline contain important salmon redds [spawning gravel] and an oil spill would inflict havoc on the incubating eggs and small fish rearing in these rivers,” explained Todd Stockner, a longtime Steelhead angling guide from the Kispiox Valley. “Salmon eggs can be found in these rivers for as much as seven months of the year and even a small amount of oil would kill them.”

In 2000, a pipeline spill in northeastern BC spilled one million liters of oil into the Pine River, spreading 20 kilometers downstream from the spill site and causing significant fish mortality. The spill contaminated the Chetwynd’s water supply, and water has been trucked in or drawn from other sources to meet the community’s drinking water needs.

“If an accident like the North Dakota spill or the Pine River spill were to occur near the Kitimat River, Kitimat residents’ drinking water source would likely be polluted,” said Margaret Ouwehand, a member of the organization Douglas Channel Watch.

According to the Enbridge website, the company had 80 pipeline spills in 2008, up from 59 pipeline spills in 2007.

Fort McMurray Today coverage of Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance

2009-12-30T19:49:00.000-08:00

retrieved from www.fortmcmurraytoday.com

B.C group protests against new oilsands pipeline
Posted December 24 2009

Carol Christian

Today staff

A citizen's group in B.C. is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

It is calling on political leaders for meaningful change when it comes to not only stable economic sustainability but also environmental protection.

In a recent letter to Enbridge and a variety of federal and provincial government officials, the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance describes itself as a newly formed citizens' group, based in Prince George, opposed to the Northern Gateway project. To date, it said it has over 600 people opposed to it, with support growing daily.

"It's not an environmental group per se," said Josh DeLeenheer, group spokesman.

"If you look at the Facebook membership, you really get a sense of the diversity of this group. It's a mixture of young and old, First Nations, non-First Nations, and we all share this very strong concern and this connection to the area. We have a desire to see this area prosper like everyone else."

This group of concerned citizens is also talking about solutions, he added.

"We want to see alternatives. We want to see those on the table. We want to see an investment and commitment especially at this time when the government is making investments in the economy to try and get it going again. Put it in the right direction. Don't keep perpetuating these industries and help us to become more sustainable."

The Northern Gateway project calls for a 1,170-kilometre twin pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to a new marine tanker port in Kitimat, B.C. The project is to export petroleum and import condensate (relatively light hydrocarbons).

DeLeenheer openly admits his group wants this pipeline off the table: "Absolutely. We're very clear about that."

However, that's not an option, according to Northern Gateway president John Carruthers.

"I believe it's very important for the project to advance (for) a number of important issues in terms of getting energy to those who need it."

He added the National Energy Board will address concern during its regulatory approval process which he described as a very thorough public process which includes public consultation hearings prior to final approval.

He expects Enbridge will file its application with the energy board early next year with the final decision possibly taking another two years

"We've done over two years of environmental and engineering studies and we're just going through that to make sure our application meets the requirements of the joint review panel agreement."

Saying Northern Gateway is a "very important project," he recognized it still has to pass the test as determined by the energy board.

"Ultimately we believe the project can be built safely, and it will be a model of world-class environmental standards," he said this morning.

"We believe that can happen, but we also believe strongly we need to demonstrate that and have a discussion on how we intend to accomplish that. It's an important issue that needs to be addressed and we'll talk about the plans we have in place, the money we plan to spend, the processes we'll develop and implement to ensure that it is safe."

DeLeenheer, added the group's concerns predominantly focus on the environmental impacts including the "destructiveness of the tarsands" and the potential for oil spills that could jeopardize water quality as well as the wild salmon industry valued at $110 million.

The group is also highly critical of the public consultation process, saying community advisory board meetings are not widely advertised, applicants are screened, media are excluded and that Enbridge facilitators have guided and controlled the discussions.

Carruthers defended meetings saying they are only one forum in the lengthy consultation process, though he acknowledged these board meetings are geared more specifically to groups.

He pointed out the board's inclusive representation includes such stakeholders as First Nations, environmental groups and government, and the meetings were envisioned as a manageable forum to share information.

They are not restricted to those solely in favour of the project, he added.

"They were created by Northern Gateway in a responsive desire to have a place where interested parties could share information on the project, on an ongoing basis,"

Initially, the company canvassed an estimated 1,000 organizations including environmental and recreation organizations plus trapping and fishing groups about their interest in the proposed pipeline ad the concept of a community advisory board, he recalled.

"It's a process more conducive to representation of organizations ... but I want to emphasize that the community advisory board process was a compliment to other existing public consultation activities," said Carruthers. Those activities include pubic open houses, and local presentations and meetings. "They are just one form of community engagement."

As for media exclusion, he said the board set its own terms of reference to determine how best to proceed.

"We weren't necessarily precluding the media."

Sea to Sands' concerns stretch beyond broad environmental implications to include the "perpetuation of the boom-bust cycle economics in this region," added DeLeenheer. "We really want to see the North — for those of us who have grown up in the area — we want to see it move beyond that into more sustainable practices, both economically and environmentally."

Seeing communities that are really struggling now such as Mackenzie that have fairly limited economic bases and are so susceptible to downturns in the economy, he said they regard a pipeline project like Northern Gateway as a short-term economic quick fix.

"These communities have done studies and looked at different opportunities, but it never seems to happen. It never seems to branch off in directions, so when another one of these opportunities comes along, suddenly the Northern Gateway project seems like a good opportunity for folks to get short-term jobs because everything is done so short-term. There's a lack of foresight."

cchristian@fortmcmurraytoday.com

Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance letter to Enbridge for Inclusion in their Community Advisory Board (CAB) Record

2009-12-14T15:59:00.000-08:00

Enbridge Inc.
3000 ‐ 425 1st Street S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3L8

BY REGISTERED MAIL

December 14, 2009

To Whom it May Concern:

RE: NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE PROJECT
COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION IN ENBRIDGE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD RECORD ‐ PRINCE GEORGE, BC

We are a newly formed citizens' group, based in Prince George, BC, opposed to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project. To date, we have over 600 people opposed to the oil pipeline project and our support is growing daily.

In part we are responding to articles in the Prince George Citizen, November 27, 2009and Prince George Free Press, December 3, 2009 wherein Enbridge spokespeople are quoted as saying they hope this group (Sea 2 Sands Conservation Alliance) brings its concerns to Enbridge's Community Advisory Board.

We would like to be on record as saying that we do not view the Enbridge‐run Community Advisory Boards as an open public consultation.
The Enbridge website www.northerngateway.ca gives no details about the Community Advisory Board meetings. People must apply to attend and Enbridge screens the applicants. The meetings are not widely advertised. The media is excluded. In past sessions, Enbridge facilitators guide and control the discussions. The possibility of NO PIPELINE is not on the table at these meetings.

Reasons for our concerns and our opposition are as follows:

1. Broader Environmental Implications

a) Climate change ‐ governments are currently meeting in Copenhagen attempting to reach agreements to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the
potentially devastating impacts predicted by the scientific community. A majority of Canadians are in support of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building an oil pipeline to sell Canada's water and energy‐intensive bitumen to countries such as China and India is incongruous with the goals of the Copenhagen meetings. It is also incongruous with all international climate talks being held around the world. In addition, the Canadian tar sands are known to be the highest growing source of carbon emissions in Canada and the primary impediment for Canada to bring about substantial reductions to carbon emissions. There is a complete disconnect between a reduction of carbon emissions and construction of a pipeline to export Canada's crude oil. Our generation has a significant moral responsibility to work toward reducing carbon emissions if there is even a remote chance that human‐generated emissions are causing the planet's weather systems to become destabilized.

b) Destructiveness of the tar sands ‐ The Canadian tar sands are receiving international criticism for the intense damage they impose on the local environment and those living in close proximity to them. In fact, Canada is losing its internationally respected reputation as a peaceful, responsible country because of this dirty source of oil; a reputation that took nearly 150 years to build. Critics of the tar sands include those from local indigenous people to heads of state around the world to global religious leaders. Some concerns related to the tar sands are:

i) detrimental impact on local First Nations traditional uses of the land
ii) elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, haemolytic anaemia and liver damage in people living in close proximity to (especially downstream) the tar sands
iii) immense amounts of water and natural gas utilized to extract bitumen
iv) destruction of boreal birds' breeding grounds
v) deaths and injury to local wildlife
vi) ineffective restoration of affected lands

The Enbridge Northern Gateway project is inextricably linked to the continued expansion of the tar sands. To support this pipeline is unacceptable.

Canada's economy needs to evolve to the use of cleaner sources of energy. Sea 2 Sands feels that the sooner we move in that direction, the better.

2. Risk of oil spills along the Route ‐ both in terms of the pipelines and the oil tanker traffic that would result from construction of the port at Kitimat Enbridge states that there is a risk of oil spills. "Pipeline leaks are an inherent risk of operations" (Enbridge Annual Report 2008). This project would cross approximately
1000 streams and numerous major rivers including the Stuart River, a tributary of the Nechako River, which flows through the City of Prince George. Spills entering Prince George's watershed would have serious consequences for domestic and industrial water supplies. The citizens of British Columbia have already been subject to a substantial spill from a pipeline on the Pine River in August 2000. That spill impacted fish and wildlife habitat, and had significant negative effects on the drinking water in Chetwynd. The rivers crossed by this proposed pipeline are tributaries of the two major river systems of British Columbia, the Fraser and the Skeena. These watersheds represent some of the most valuable salmon habitat in the world. In recent years it has become apparent that salmon stocks on both rivers (Skeena and Fraser) are already compromised. The risk of even one oil spill could cause such damage as to destroy the few salmon we have left. A report has been produced outlining the potential negative effects of oil on salmon (http://bc.pembina.org/pub/1894). Enbridge cannot guarantee there would be no spills along this pipeline nor could they guarantee a timely response in the event of a spill in the remote and rugged territory the pipeline will cross, particularly during extreme weather conditions. Even the risk of one spill is too much in the context of these fragile inland ecosystems. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has conducted further research addressing some of these issues on the local level more specifically, and have been documented in their Aboriginal Interest and Use Study, which can be found at (http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge).

The risk of oil tanker spills in the Douglas Channel and the northwest coast is also considerable and of serious concern. Wildlife values in this area are significant on a global scale. For example, 28 of British Columbia's 84 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) lie within 250 kilometres of the mouth of Douglas Channel (http://www.bsc‐eoc.org/iba/regional.jsp?region=BC). Many of these IBAs support significant breeding populations of colonial seabirds. In addition to seabirds, the entire North Pacific population of grey whales passes through these waters during their annual migration from their breeding grounds in Mexico to their summer feeding grounds near Alaska. These waters are also migratory pathways for west coast salmon populations. British Columbia's recent experience with the spill of diesel fuel when the ferry, Queen of the North, sank in 2006 saw a number of issues indicating what would happen should a spill of crude oil occur. First and foremost was how difficult it was to physically contain even a small spill of a light and relatively benign substance in and around the rugged coastline for northern BC. Any spill from tankers moving oil from Kitimat would have unfathomable impacts to this extensive coastal area.

3. Socio‐Economic Costs Associated with Constructing the Pipeline:

To First Nations people: Resource extraction has created divisiveness between various First Nations communities and between First Nations and non First Nations communities. It is time for this divisiveness to end. Many of the First Nations communities along the route of this pipeline have strongly stated their opposition. The traditional uses of the land would be severely compromised. As various First Nations groups, including the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, have pointed out, the social costs/risks are simply too high in the face of long‐standing cultural traditions. As we strive to move toward more sustainable, low‐carbon, local‐based economies, the wisdom of Aboriginal elders and traditional uses of the land become increasingly vital. We cannot afford to further place at risk these valuable cultural resources. Please watch the following series of videos for more information about the profound insights of local First Nations people into the broader issues at stake: http://www.youtube.com/user/CIERworld#p/u/0/s7Uk2NjuLCA.

To all communities along the route: Northern communities need long‐lasting, resilient economic bases. What we do not need is short‐term employment projects that come with significant long‐term environmental and social costs. For years northern British Columbians have endured a boom and bust, raw resource extraction economy, which has led families into cycles of despair during the hard times. Many social science studies point to the abject social consequences of relying heavily on raw resource extraction and short‐term industrial economic foundations. Recently there are various projects around the area focused on evolving beyond the boom and bust raw resource extraction mentality that has not served people well during times of recession in the past. We must build locally based sustainable economic opportunities; to do this requires healthy land and water resources. Any project — such as the oil pipeline and its associated spill risks — does not fit with this kind of vision for future northern economic development. Northerners must develop these visions. There are other economic activities in the north that depend on healthy, uncontaminated watersheds and even one oil spill risk would jeopardize the viability of these pursuits. One example is tourism: northern British Columbia's tourism base is founded on offering wilderness experiences, and a pristine environment is a cornerstone of these economic endeavours. Hunting and fishing are other examples.

One study conducted in the Skeena watershed reported that wild salmon fisheries generate close to $110 million in direct economic activity (http://northwestinstitute.ca/downloads/IBM_skeena_report_06.pdf). Many of our members have deep and longstanding roots in the northern interior of British Columbia. Most have lived in these communities for many years, have strong community ties and care deeply about this area. These are serious issues for us and many other residents along the proposed route. The opposition of Sea 2 Sands members was not formed without thought and we will continue to strongly oppose this project. The vision for Northern British Columbia that Enbridge is proposing by way of the Northern Gateway project is contradictory to the values of our members and the stewardship role that we share as residents of this region.

We ask that you consider abandoning the Northern Gateway project and continue to pursue more viable and sustainable methods of energy production and distribution. Now, more than ever, we need leaders in the development of sustainable energy alternatives. You have an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the health and prosperity of your company, your shareholders, and our nation. Please do not waste it.

Sincerely,
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance
per:

Josh DeLeenheer
Mary MacDonald

Spokespeople

cc:
Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Jim Prentice, Canada Environment Minister
Hon. Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia
Hereditary and Elected B.C. First Nations Chiefs
Dick Harris, MP, Cariboo‐Prince George
Jay Hill, MP, Prince George‐Peace River
Nathan Cullen, MP, Skeena‐Bulkley Valley
Hon. Shirley Bond, MLA, Prince George‐Valemount & British Columbia Minister of Transportation & Infrastructure
Hon. Pat Bell, MLA, Prince George North & British Columbia Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Integrated Land Management Bureau
Hon. Blair Lekstrom, MLA, Peace River South & British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
John Rustad, MLA, Nechako Lakes
Hon. Dan Rogers, Mayor of City of Prince George
Prince George City Council
Tim McEwan, President & CEO, Initiatives Prince George
Prince George Media

Andrew Nikiforuk on the Northern Gateway project - from CorpWatch

2009-12-14T12:50:00.000-08:00

The Enbridge Oil Sands Gamble

by Andrew Nikiforuk, Special to CorpWatch
December 14th, 2009
Retrieved from: www.corpwatch.org.

Patrick Daniel, the CEO of Enbridge Inc, is bullish about the future of unconventional oil from Canada’s massive tar sand deposits. And understandably so. His successful company not only operates North America’s longest crude oil and liquid pipelines, but transports 12 percent of the oil that the United States imports daily from Canada.

“Energy is necessary for us to live long healthy lives,” he told a business audience this past September during remarks to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce. “The oil sands is the second largest reserve in the world, and we can’t deny access to the rest of the world to that huge resource.” [1]

Canada's highly unconventional resource (heavy oil from sand or rock) lies under a forest area the size of England (140,000 square kilometers) and is arguably the world’s last remaining giant oil field. Almost every major private and state-owned oil company has a presence in the tar sands. The project could make Canada the world’s fifth largest oil exporter by 2020.

But Daniel’s boosterism for unconventional oil is not shared by the band council of Hartley Bay, near the northern deep-water port of Kitimat, British Columbia (BC). When he showed up in September, community members of the Gitga'at people sat across from the proposed marine terminal for Enbridge’s $5 billion Northern Gateway pipeline.

The 1,170 kilometer-long dual pipeline would daily transport 525,000 barrels of bitumen, from Edmonton, Alberta, across two provinces and over mountains in some of the world’s most rugged terrain to Kitimat. From there, ocean tankers would take the inferior asphalt-like hydrocarbon to Asian refineries for processing into transportation fuels.

A parallel and smaller pipeline would move highly toxic condensate (a petroleum by-product used to thin heavy oil) imported from Russian and Indonesian markets to Alberta’s tar sands. Bitumen, a thick gooey resource with low gravity, simply can’t move through a pipeline unless diluted with up to 50 percent condensate. (For company information on the project, consult: http://www.northerngateway.ca/)

The project will traverse lands claimed or occupied by 40 aboriginal groups. The Gitga’at people, who have lived long and healthy lives by the Pacific Ocean for thousands of years without consuming much condensate or oil, told Daniel that his grand scheme threatened their traditional way of life as well as their food supply, including salmon, mussels and sea kelp.

“You are welcome in our territory as individuals, but your project is not,” declared Hereditary Chief Ernie Hill Jr. Other salmon-dependent people along the pipeline or tanker route – including the Haida and the Haisla – gave Enbridge similar blunt messages. The tar sands, said Haida Nation leader Guujaaw, "is one of the biggest unnatural disasters going on in the world right now.”

The stage is set for an epic battle between Asian and Canadian backers of North America’s most powerful oil carrier and an assortment of aboriginal and environmental groups in Canada’s greenest province, British Columbia. The unfolding petroleum drama, which will expose Asian refiners to extreme capital and carbon risks, could ultimately determine the pace and scale of the world’s largest energy development. The Northern Gateway pipeline also raises a moral question: Is it in Canada’s best interest to put more cars on the road in Shanghai at the expense of the world’s most valuable salmon-spawning watersheds and the security of the globe’s climate?

Global Reach

By any measure the tar sands project is a formidable energy power play. The world’s major petroleum companies including the U.S.’s Exxon, Norway’s Statoil and France’s Total have poured more than $100 billion into developing the project over the last decade, and it now produces 1.3 million barrels a day.

But bitumen, which is more than 50 per cent pitch, is not a secure replacement for sweet crude. For starters, the asphalt-like sludge remains the world’s most expensive hydrocarbon ($60 to $85 per barrel) because of the enormous amount of energy and water needed to extract it from the ground. Upgrading bitumen into synthetic crude, a process that removes carbon and adds hydrogen molecules, also requires more energy in the form of natural gas. But even the upgraded product remains so highly contaminated with sulfur, salt, acids and heavy metals that it needs additional, complex refining.

Not surprisingly, then, low quality bitumen from the tar sands has increased the energy and greenhouse gas output of U.S. refineries by 47 percent. [2] According to Canada’s National Center for Upgrading Technology, bitumen simply proves the industry maxim that “as crude prices increase, crude quality decreases.” [3] Although many Chinese refineries can process heavy crude such as bitumen, only five of Japan’s 50 refineries can currently handle the dirty hydrocarbon without fouling their facilities.

But Asia’s interest in Canadian bitumen is long standing owing to the region’s near total dependence on Middle Eastern crude. Japan now imports 90 percent of its oil, while China has increasingly exhausted its domestic oil resources to fuel its industrial revolution. Its oil imports rose from 1 percent in 1993 to nearly 50 percent today. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2025, some 70 percent of China's expected 14.2 million barrels daily consumption will come from oil fields in Africa, South America or Canada.

Not surprisingly, state-owned PetroChina heavily supported Enbridge’s first attempt to steer the Gateway project through Canada’s regulatory regime. But Asia’s largest oil company withdrew in 2007 after confronting Canadian political indifference and open U.S. hostility to the pipeline. (Some of that hostility directly relates to PetroChina’s unsuccessful 2005 attempt to buy out Unocal, a U.S. oil company with critical reserves in Asia.)

Last year Enbridge revived the Gateway scheme by securing $100 million in funding from 10 anonymous tar sand producers and Asian shippers (PetroChina is probably among them). A year later PetroChina paid $1.9 billion for a majority share of two tar sand properties. The state owned Korean National Oil Co. also gobbled up $1.8 billion in assets.

But bitumen investment comes with high carbon risks. The Chinese company purchased deep deposits of bitumen that can only be extracted in situ by steam plants (oil sands must be either mined or recovered in situ), perhaps the most greenhouse gas intensive industry in global oil production. (See Sidebar.)

China and the New Oil Order

A leading champion of Chinese investment in the tar sands is Paul Michael Wihbey, director of the Washington, D.C.-based energy consulting group (GWEST, or Global Water & Energy Strategy Team http://www.gwest.net/), and a former vice president of Canada's Liberal Party. Given that China and Canada rank as the largest trading partners with the United States (and that the three countries consume 35 percent of the world’s oil), Wihbey argues that “the nexus of China’s energy relationship with North America is the development of unconventional heavy oils.” Wihbey calls it “the new oil order” and believes that only the globalization of bitumen can keep the Chinese and U.S. economies afloat. [4]

A Primitive and Flawed Technology

Critics charge that steam plant technology is primitive and riddled with problems. It burns natural gas to heat water to create steam to melt deep bitumen deposits. Greenhouse gas emissions can range between 71 to 276 kilograms per barrel of bitumen. [13] In contrast CO2 emissions from North Sea light oil range from 8 to 10 kilograms. [14]

The U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory calculated in 2009 that the Canadian bitumen used to make diesel fuel had a carbon footprint 244 percent greater than that of U.S. domestic crude. [15]

The energy intensity of steam-based bitumen production has been the subject of much criticism. According to Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC), an industry non-profit group, it takes one barrel of oil to produce four with the steam plants. But according to Charles Hall, a researcher at the State University of New York and one of the world’s leading experts on the energy created by energy investments, Middle East oil burns one barrel to produce 20 more. Hall calculates that modern oil-based civilization basically needs a return of one to three to function. But developers with a stake in extending the financial life of fossil fuels ignore the reality that steam plant production of bitumen offers barely enough surplus energy to “support continued economic activity and social function.”

Wihbey even helped organize a 2009 gathering in Geneva, where Beijing expressed keen interest in establishing an energy corridor with Canada that would create a new Asian market for bitumen. “A larger commitment must be made to fully utilize our mutual strength,” said a government spokesman. [5]

Canadians such as Enbridge’s Daniel are only too anxious to make that corridor happen. The United States currently remains the only and largest market for Canada’s dirty oil. Enbridge, the number-one shipper of bitumen and synthetic crude from the tar sands, has already overbuilt capacity to U.S. markets in the Midwest. [6]

Moreover, the U.S. government has started to review its growing dependence on Canada’s dirty oil. Growing interest in low-carbon fuel standards, a new climate change program, and a push by some members of the U.S. military to reduce domestic oil consumption have made Canadian tar sand producers uneasy. A Chinese market would provide “an additional export outlet,” noted Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shing in Oilweek Magazine. “Then you won’t be subject to the U.S. as the one buyer.” [7]

But market diversification for bitumen would impose a high ecological price, and impact the northern British Columbia salmon-dependent communities particularly hard. The Northern Gateway pipeline will cross the 785 rivers and streams [8] that form the world’s most productive salmon habitat. Pipeline construction and operation will increase risks from pollution, oil spills and avalanches. And Enbridge’s record safety record is by no means stellar. When its 6,000 barrel spill threatened the Mississippi River in 2002, the company lit the oil ablaze, creating a smoke plume one mile high and five miles long. [9] In 2006 the company reported 67 spills totaling nearly 6,000 barrels, and the next year more than doubled the amount of oil released into the environment.

Respect for laws and landscapes is another issue. After building a bitumen pipeline across Wisconsin in 2008, the company paid the state $1 million in fines for 545 violations of its water and wetland laws. [10]

The Trans Alaska Example

The fate of BC’s wild and majestic coastline is what most worries northerners and aboriginals. The pipeline would not only accelerate bitumen production in Alberta, but bring as many as 300 supertankers a year to the port of Kitimat. Navigating the Douglas Channel, a narrow fjord, is no easy task. In the last two years, residents have witnessed two major boating incidents including the sinking of a ferry. According to Environment Canada, increased tanker traffic would also expose BC coastal waters to average spills of 1,000 barrels every four years and 10,000 barrels every nine years.

“It’s not a matter of if, but of when an oil spill happens,” says Cam Hill, a teacher and council member in Hartley Bay. “It would be catastrophic to our people and our way of life.” It would also disrupt marine life, including many whale species and dolphins, seals, and porpoises.

Opponents argue that the Gateway Project poses many of the same risks to northern British Columbia that the Trans Alaska Project (TAP) brought to rural Alaska: ecological and cultural disruption, persistent leaks, and massive spills – the worst of which was the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster that released 240,000 barrels of pipeline oil when the tanker foundered. That spill dramatically altered the lives of 39,000 people living in coastal communities, and left residue that "is nearly as toxic [today] as it was the first few weeks after the spill,” [11] according to a 2009 report.

But although the risks from TAP and the Northen Gateway pipeline are similar, the benefits are not: Because bitumen carried by Enbridge's pipeline is neither refined nor produced in British Columbia, it will produce little or no royalty income for the region. It is simply a hydrocarbon freeway, and the money, like the oil, will flow elsewhere.

Enbridge advocates counter that rather than replicating TAP's failures, their project will resemble Norway’s Mongstand facility in Fensfjord where 250 oil tankers do business every year. “One only has to look at Norway’s national trust fund, their standard of living, health care, the simple transformation from basically a subsistence economy to one of the richest in the world to realize the potential derived from the fossil fuel industry,” noted one Gateway supporter in a September letter to the Kitimat Northern Sentinel. The writer omitted that Canada, unlike Norway, has no sovereign oil fund. In contrast to Norway, which charges some of the world's highest royalties and taxes on oil, Canada and Alberta charge among the lowest. In other words, few benefits would accrue to the rural residents other than a boom and bust economy created by 4,000 temporary construction jobs.

The capital risks are also significant. A 2009 Deutsche Bank study on peak oil concluded that carbon pricing and disruptive technologies such as the electric car could ease demand for petroleum products by 2015, the same year Enbridge hopes to bring its bitumen pipeline on stream. The bank study adds that, “We believe refining is a twilight business that will struggle in a world of ever declining gasoline demand.” Moreover strategic Chinese investments in natural gas and renewables could dramatically reduce that country’s “oil intensity of GDP growth.” [12]

“Canadian heavy oil sands” and other carbon intensive resources are unsafe investments, the report concludes, since the world, "will not grow the oil market.”

When the Northern Gateway project begins public regulatory hearings with Canada’s National Energy Board next year, the debate will include global carbon policies, sustained oil price volatility, electric cars, and the impact of building two pipelines across a fragile landscape claimed by aboriginal communities only to put more cars on roads in Asia.

(Andrew Nikiforuk is an energy and environmental writer based in Calgary, Alberta. His book, Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, won the 2009 Rachel Carson Environmental Book Award.)

ENDNOTES:

[1] Patrick Daniels, Energy, Environment and the Economy, Remarks to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, September 23, 2009.

[2] Greg Karras, Refinery GHG Emissions From Dirty Crude, Communities for a Better Environment, April 20, 2009. Available at: http://www.cbecal.org.

[3] National Centre for Upgrading Technology, Oilsands Bitumen Processability Project, March 2006.

[4] Paul Michael Wihbey, Towards a New Oil Market Order: Heavy and Unconventional, World Heavy Oil Conference, Beijing, China, November 13, 2006.

[5] Claudia Cattaneo, “China’s Oil Giant Seeks Alliance with Canada, Financial Post, June 1, 2009.

[6] Sonja Franklin, Enbridge CEO Sees Pipeline Overcapacity to US, Bloomberg, October 7, 2009.

[7] Andrea W Lorenz, Opening the Door: Pipelines are Lining up Again to Satisfy Asian Thirst for Canadian Crude Oil, Oilweek Magazine, October 1, 2008.

[8] David A Levy, Pipelines and Salmon in Northern British Columbia, Pembina Institute, October 2009.

[9] US National Transportation Safety Board, Rupture of Enbridge Pipeline and Release of Crude Oil near Cohasset, Minnesota, July 4, 2002, Pipeline Accident Report, NTSB/PAR, 2004.

[10] Wisconsin Department of Justice, Enbridge Energy Settles State Lawsuit Over Environmental Violations for $1,100,000, January 2, 2009.

[11] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Legacy of An Oil Spill: 20 Years After the Exxon Valdez, 2009.

[12] Deutsche Bank, The Peak Oil Market: Price Dynamics At the End of the Oil Age, October 4, 2009.

[13] John Nenniger, N-Solve: The Profits of Energy Efficiency vs. the High Costs of Carbon Capture, presentation to PTAC Towards Clean Energy Production Forum, Calgary, Alberta, October 2008.

[14] Statoilhydro, 2008 Offshore Environmental Statement, March 23, 2009, p. 6.

[15] National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), An Evaluation of the Extraction, Transport and Refining of Imported Crude Oils and the Impact of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions, DOE/NETL-2009/1362, March 27, 2009.

[16] Charles A.S. Hall et al, What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have? Energies, January, 2009.

Free Press coverage of Enbridge JRP & First Nations Opposition

2009-12-10T12:27:00.000-08:00

Prince George Free Press
Enbridge on to next step
Text By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press
pgfreepress.com
Published: December 08, 2009 4:00 PM

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project and the federal government signed an agreement Friday to conduct the environmental assessment of the proposed pipeline.

Enbridge Northern Gateway vice-president Steve Greenaway said the company has been working toward the joint review process for two years.

“The release of the joint review agreement is a very significant and positive step forward,” Greenaway said. “It provides a very thorough and comprehensive review of the project.”

The company is expecting to file it’s review documentation in the first quarter of 2010, he said.

“I expect there will be extensive regulatory hearings along the pipeline corridor in late 2010 and early 2011,” he said. “If approved, and if we were to achieve the strong commercial interest in the project which we believe we will, the earliest we could begin construction would be 2013.”

The proposed 1,170 km twin pipeline would run from Kitimat to Strathcona County, Alta. just outside Edmonton.

A 36-inch pipeline would transport an average 525,000 barrels of oil to Kitmat per day to be loaded in oil tankers heading to California and Asia.

A 20-inch pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of condensate — a chemical treatment for crude oil — east from Kitimat to Edmonton.

An estimated 225 tankers per year would navigate the Douglas Channel to reach the marine terminal in Kitimat

The project involves creating three tunnels through the Telkwa Pass totaling 12 km. The proposed route for the project would follow Highway 37 north from Kitimat before veering east passing just north of Burns Lake, south of Fort St. James, north of Bear Lake, south of Grand Prairie, south of Mayerthorpe and into Strathcona Country.

Enbridge estimates the multi-billion project would generate 4,000 jobs during the construct phase.

Greenaway said the joint review process will examine First Nations rights, economic impact, environmental concerns and marine concerns, he said.

“We believe our project will stand up to that high level of scrutiny.”

However, some First Nations groups say their concerns aren’t being adequately addressed in the process.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council vice-chief Terry Teegee said First Nations weren’t included in the creation of the joint review agreement.

“We wanted to review the terms of reference and have input into it,” Teegee said. “They’ve stated that First Nations are considered a government. But since environmental assessments changed in 2002-03... they have really gutted it.”

The health and security of streams and waterways is a major concern to First Nations groups, he said, who have traditionally relied on salmon fishing for sustenance.

“It’s the third year of a downturn in salmon stocks,” he said. “A spill could devastate an already devastated fish stock.”

In addition to local concerns, there is a global concern about the impact of global warming, he said.

Teegee will be taking part in the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark taking place this week and next week.

“I’ll be siting on a side panel and talking about depending on carbon resources,” Teegee said. “We don’t want to be a party that is contributing to climate change. We don’t support the pipeline, nor will we be involved with the joint review panel.”

Nadleh Whut’en Chief Larry Nooski said his people’s rights are being ignored by the process.

“People need to know that any project that enters this federal process has a more than 99 per cent chance of getting approved,” Nooski said in a press release. “To Nadleh Whut’en this is not an open and transparent process. It is not real governance or decision making, but it is a direction infringement of our constitutional right to aboriginal governance.”

First Nations opposition to Enbridge Northern Gateway

2009-12-08T18:32:00.000-08:00

First Nations unified in opposition to oilsands pipeline through BC

The route of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline runs through the Rocky Mountains and across northern BC. First Nation communities along the route, from Fort Chipewyan to Kitimat, have expressed opposition to the pipeline.

By SHAWN BELL, SRJ Reporter 08.DEC.09
Slave River Journal
www.srj.ca

In the face of increased efforts to ship bitumen from Alberta to Asian markets, western Canadian First Nations are banding together to block pipelines across British Columbia.
But whether their efforts will be enough to influence Canadian politicians, or if they will have to head to court to stop pipelines from being built across traditional territories are questions soon to be answered.

Between now and mid-2010, Canadian political leaders are going to have to decide whether a push for oil exports to China and other growing Asian markets in is the country's interest.
Applications for two major pipelines from Alberta to the BC coast are expected to come before Canada's National Energy Board by mid-2010.
Combined, Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline through northern BC to Kitimat and Kinder Morgan's proposed Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver will carry over 800,000 barrels of bitumen per day to the coast.
From Canada's west coast, the bitumen will be loaded onto supertankers for the trip across the Pacific Ocean to Asia, raising serious concerns about the potential for oil spills along traditional coastal territories.
"Even with sophisticated safety precautions, shipping accidents still occur. Mechanical failure or human error, the outcomes are the same for our culture and our territory. The oil spills over our elders, our children, our spirit bears and killer whales," said Gitga'at hereditary Chief Ernie Hill.
Hill's comments came after a September 30 collision between an oil tanker and an island south of Kitimat BC that nearly resulted in an oil spill in the Pacific Ocean.
Two weeks ago, another tanker crash off the Pacific coast left authorities alarmed and First Nations up and down the coast on alert.
On a stormy night off the coast of Washington State, massive oil tanker the Hebei Lion broke off its anchor and smashed onto a rocky reef.
Luckily the hull was not breached and the 1.2 million gallons of fuel oil did not spill into the ocean.
"The tycoons expect to further spread the tar sands poison, putting their lavish desires before our lifestyles and our culture," said Guujaaw, President of the Council of the Haida Nation. "We depend on these lands and waters and we will not put the safety and well being of our territories in their hands."
Concerns about the pipelines are not limited to coastal First Nations.
The Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation of Fort Chipewyan both signed a declaration in June 2009 to stop the flow of oil from the oilsands to the Pacific coast. The Fort Chip First Nations were joined by the Wet'suwet'en, Nadleh Whut'en, Haisla, Gitga'at, Gitxaala and Haida of BC in signing the declaration.
Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said the intent of joining forces with the BC First Nations is to show a unified push for a stop to oilsands expansion.
The pipelines would increase oilsands production, Adam said, increasing the risk of health and environmental degradation his community faces.
"It is very important we all work together on all of these issues," he said. "As long as we continue to show unity we'll raise the eyebrows of the government to show them there is something here they should be concerned about."
However, despite First Nation concerns, industry representatives are clear on their stance. Canada must export oil to China in the face of concerns that the USA may tighten restrictions on oilsands imports.
In September, BMO's chief economist stated that oil imports to China are a necessity for Canada.
"We must export oil to China," Sherry Cooper said. "It's very important. And the sooner the better, because it gives us more leverage with the US. For example, it makes it more difficult for the US to threaten us with comments about dirty oil."
Cooper's words came after Enbridge said it would release confirmation of 'solid' commercial backing for its pipeline early in 2010.
All of which means the idea of shipping Alberta bitumen across the mountains en route to China is shaping up to be one of the big battles of 2010.
"Gateway faces growing and stiff and fairly unequivocal opposition," Eric Swanson, a corporate campaigner with environmental group Dogwood Initiative, told the Globe and Mail two weeks ago. "I think it is setting itself up to be one of the biggest fights in BC's history."

Takla Lake First Nation Weighs in on Inadequacies of Enbridge review process

2009-12-07T09:16:00.000-08:00

here is the Takla Lake First Nation response to finalized agreement for Enbridge Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline Joint Review Panel -- see Carrier Sekani Tribal Council & Nadleh Whut'en responses posted further below
************

For Immediate Release
December 4, 2009
Takla Lake First Nation Opposes flawed Review of Enbridge Pipeline, Releases Public Report on
Flawed EA Process
TAKLA LAKE FIRST NATION TRADITIONAL TERRITORY/TAKLA LANDING, BC – The Takla Lake First Nation is
pleased to announce the release of its Report examining their long battle with the Joint Panel Review for
the Kemess North Mine. Titled, Kemess North: Insights and Lessons, it examines the process that Takla
Lake, Kwadacha and Tsay Keh Dene First Nations (collectively known as the Tse Keh Nay) had to endure to
make sure that a fresh water lake in their territory (Amazay) was not destroyed by the waste rock of a
proposed gold mine. It also examines how Tsay Key Nay participated, in protest, of the Joint Review Panel
for the proposed Kemess North Copper-Gold Mine Project, which concluded that the project not be
approved.
“It was a historic moment when the Joint Panel recommended to the government that the Kemess North
mine not be allowed to kill a fresh water lake in our territory”, said Chief Dolly Abraham. “Even though our
voices were heard by the Panel, it was not the appropriate place for dealing with our Aboriginal rights to
decision-making about such projects. We want government-to-government processes, including those for
high level strategic land planning.”
“First Nations in BC and across Canada can learn a lot from what we went through to protect our sacred
waters and lands,” said Chief Dolly Abraham. “There is still uncertainty in our territories because the
government does not want follow direction from the courts that meaningful consultation is required.”
Takla Lake First Nations has been working with Nadleh Whut’en and Nak’azdli First Nations in proposing a
separate First Nations review process for large projects, which has been rejected by both BC and Canada.
“Until the government comes to the table with the willingness to change how it meaningfully consults and
includes us in joint decision-making, including the establishment of environmental review processes, we
will continue to have uncertainty in Takla’s territory.”
This report comes at an opportune time, since the National Energy Board’s recent announcement to issue a
Joint Panel Review of the proposed Enbridge Pipeline. “I encourage all First Nations affected by the
Enbridge Pipeline Joint Panel Review process to read our report and work together,” said Chief Abraham.
“Investors should be very nervous. First Nations are not adequately consulted through these flawed
processes.”
In addition to the report, the Tse Keh Nay developed a documentary about their struggle call “Amazay: A Film About Water”.

Contact:
Chief Dolly Abraham: 250-564-9321
Resources:
Takla Lake First Nation - http://www.taklafn.ca/nation/31/home
Documentary available at Tse Keh Nay website - http://www.tsekehnay.net/
Report available - http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/81/envtal+assmts

Victoria Times Colonist on lacking review process for Enbridge

2009-12-05T22:22:00.000-08:00

Pipeline review draws criticism
Environmentalists say scope of hearings is too narrow
By Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist December 5, 2009
www.timescolonist.com

Federal terms of reference for assessing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline brought instant condemnation from environmental groups yesterday.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board announced they will hold open forums on the pipeline, which would run from the Alberta oilsands to a port at Kitimat.

"The public and aboriginal groups are encouraged to bring their views on the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project forward to the Joint Review

Panel once the panel is established," said a news release.

The panel will consider whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if it is in the public interest.

Once hearings are finished, the panel will submit recommendations to the federal government.

But environmental and aboriginal groups say the scope is too narrow and the panel will not have enough clout.

"The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project would result in a 30 per cent increase in average daily oilsands output, with major environmental consequences, but the environmental assessment of the project will ignore these impacts," said Karen Campbell, staff lawyer with the Pembina Institute.

Eric Swanson of the Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative said the process will not ask British Columbians if they want to accept the risk of an Exxon Valdez-type spill on the province's north coast.

"If it did, Canadian taxpayers could save a lot of money because 72 per cent of British Columbians are opposed to oil tanker traffic on our north coast," Swanson said.

Both the Pembina and Dogwood organizations promote sustainable development.

Opposition to the project will increase because of the weak terms of reference, said Jessica Clogg, West Coast Environmental Law executive director.

"Given the potentially devastating risks, citizens can be rightfully concerned about a federal environmental assessment process that has a track record of giving the thumbs up to over 99 per cent of the projects," she said.

If approved, the 1,170-kilometre pipeline would run between Bruderheim, Alta., and Kitimat, where crude oil would be loaded onto supertankers. A second line would carry condensate from Kitimat to Bruderheim.

About 670 kilometres of the pipeline would be in B.C.

jlavoie@tc.canwest.com

Citizen article on joint review panel finalized agreement

2009-12-05T21:09:00.001-08:00

Parameters set for pipeline review
Written by Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff
Friday, 04 December 2009
www.princegeorgecitizen.com

Federal agencies on Friday issued the parameters for a joint panel review of Enbridge's proposed $4.5-billion pipeline project, the first step of a lengthy process expected to take two years or more to complete.
The 1,170-km twin pipeline project is meant to transport oil from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat for export by ocean tankers to Asia and the U.S. Western Seaboard. Condensate -- a kerosene-like liquid used to thin heavy oil for transport in pipelines -- will be shipped from Kitimat to Alberta.
The proposed pipeline has already attracted opposition from environmental groups and some First Nations, but has the support of some municipalities and business interests.
The joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency review -- to be overseen by a three-member panel which will be appointed later -- is meant to provide an opportunity for all parties to make their views known. "The public and aboriginal groups are encouraged to bring their views on the Northern Gateway pipeline project to the joint review panel, once the panel is established," the two agencies said in a news release.
The panel's mandate is to consider whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if it is in the public interest.
After the review process, the panel prepares a report with its conclusions and recommendations.
Calgary-based Enbridge has said it still hopes to file its application to the joint review panel by the end of the year, but if not then, by early next year.
Enbridge officials could not be reached immediately for comment on Friday on the release of the terms of reference for the federal review.
The scope of the review includes the pipeline, which would pass just north of Prince George at Bear Lake, the marine terminal at Kitimat and tanker traffic along the west coast.
The review will include consideration of the impacts of malfunctions or accidents, and the cumulative environmental effects in combination with other present and future projects.
The Prince George-based Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance says it is concerned over the risk of a pipeline spill and the environmental implications of exporting oil from the Alberta tar sands. Bitumen from the Alberta oil sands create more greenhouse gas emissions -- and require more water and natural gas -- than conventional oil during mining and production.
Enbridge has said it has a good track record of safety on its pipelines, and it is working hard to maximize economic benefits to local economies.
Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance member Mary MacDonald is questioning the make-up of the panel, which includes two National Energy Board members and an appointment by the federal government, which is supportive of oil sands development. "It's a question of potential bias," said MacDonald.
The pipeline has gathered support among local business interests.
Initiatives Prince George president Tim McEwan has joined the Northern Gateway Alliance, an Enbridge-funded community group. "The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines project means significant new economic opportunities for northern BC. Opportunities to train contractors and employees in pipeline construction practices, an opportunity to expand the port of Kitimat, and new opportunities for First Nations," he says on the gateway alliance website.
The Nadleh Whut’en First Nation said the finalization of the review panel is a step in the wrong direction and will not deliver the certainty sought by Enbridge and the federal government with respect to aboriginal rights and title. "This is not an open and transparent process, it is not real governance or decision-making, but it is a direct infringement of our constitutional right to aboriginal governance," said Nadleh Whut'en chief Larry Nooski.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council points out flaws of Enbrige review process

2009-12-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
News Release
December 4, 2009

Joint Review Panel too weak to address First Nations and Public Interests

Dakelh Traditional Territory/Prince George, BC – The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) is not surprised the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) has issued a Joint Panel Agreement for the review of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project (Enbridge Pipeline). “It is unacceptable that the Government of Canada continues to break its own laws regarding meaningful consultation with First Nations by setting up a Joint Review Panel without First Nations involvement” stated Vice Tribal Chief Terry Teegee.

“CSTC communities were not consulted or involved in the establishment of this Joint Review Panel”, notes Vice Chief Teegee. “Here we go again! The Tsay Keh Nay (Takla Lake First Nation, Kwadacha First Nation and Tsay Keh Dene) who participated in the Kemess Joint Review in protest, fought for over 5 years to save Amazay (Duncan) Lake. CSTC and other First Nations will be prepared to fight the Enbridge Pipeline once again.” The Takla Lake First Nation have released a report that outlines their experience with the Joint Review Panel for the Kemess North decision, which stopped the dumping of 300 million tonnes of waste rock into Amazay Lake..

This proposed Enbridge pipeline will cross over 15 First Nations, 6 of which are members of the CSTC. It could be a 1,170 km long, 30 m wide, twin pipeline transporting the dirtiest, most toxic products from the oil sands in Alberta to the BC Coast and beyond. Huge super tanks are proposed to transport the oil from the North West coast to Asia and the rest of the world, further putting coastal ecosystems at risk.

“Just think. They are still cleaning up the mess from the Exxon Valdez accident. The proposed Enbridge pipeline will have twice as much oil going through it in one day, than what was spilled by Exxon Valdez in 1989.” stated Vice Chief Teegee. Teegee continued, “Canada is suggesting contributing to climate change by exporting this dirty oil, which is bound for Asian markets and the United States? No wonder Canada’s reputation is in tatters when it comes to setting targets for carbon emissions, Canada’s priorities are backwards in our fight against carbon emissions and climate change.” .”

Talks begin next week in Copenhagen, Denmark to develop a new international framework to combat climate change and replace the Kyoto Protocol. Vice Chief Teegee will be attending these meetings with a delegation of other First Nations Chiefs from across Canada and the world. “I’ll be talking a lot about this proposed Enbridge pipeline with international leaders in Copenhagen. Our lands are not for sale, we have said no to this project already in 2006. The potential detrimental impacts of a pipeline that would exist for over 200 years in our lands are not acceptable, especially for our grandchildren.”

In 2006, CSTC conducted an Aboriginal Interest and Use Study (AIUS) examining the impacts of the Enbridge Gateway pipeline. Extensive community consultations were had with CSTC members, and the risks of spills, accidents and sabotage were too high. The toxicity of the materials being transported is too high and even low amounts will have detrimental effects on the 785 watercourses and fragile fish habitats that are necessary for the survival of declining salmon stocks which are on the brink of extinction.

“These government reviews are too narrow in scope, and don’t account for impacts to Aboriginal rights and title. We have a right to free, prior and informed consent when it comes to development in our territories. Under their current Environmental Assessment framework a Joint Review Panel does not have legislation to address our rights and to make decisions on our behalf.” stated Vice Tribal Chief Terry Teegee.

-30-

For more information, contact Vice Tribal Chief Terry Teegee at 250-562-6279

Links to backgrounders:

Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project – http://www.cstc.bc.ca/cstc/67/enbridge

Nadleh Whut'en comment on Finalized Joint Review Panel Agreement for Northern Gateway Pipeline

2009-12-04T16:06:00.000-08:00

The agreement for the Joint Review Panel Agreement for the Northern Gateway Pipeline was issued today (December 4, 2009) and can be reviewed in its entirety on the Canada Environmental Assessment Agency website: www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Following is a press release issued by Nadleh Whut'en in response
(traditional territory is west of Prince George, BC)

**********************

Dec 04, 2009 15:27 ET
Enbridge Review Panel Already An Infringement of Aboriginal Rights

Attention: Assignment Editor, Business/Financial Editor, Environment Editor, News Editor, Government/Political Affairs Editor

FORT FRASER, BC, PRESS RELEASE--(Marketwire - Dec. 4, 2009) - Today's announcement of the finalization of the Joint Review Panel Agreement for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is a step in the wrong direction and will not deliver the certainty sought by Enbridge and the federal government with respect to Aboriginal rights and title.

"People need to know that any project that enters this federal process has a more than 99% chance of getting approved," said Chief Larry Nooski. "To Nadleh Whut'en, this is not an open and transparent process, it is not real governance or decision-making, but it is a direct infringement of our constitutional right to Aboriginal governance."

Nadleh Whut'en has been proposing a parallel Aboriginal rights and title process for four years with both Enbridge and the federal government, both of whom have flat-out rejected the proposals. Recent court cases on Aboriginal rights have strongly indicated that there must be consultation on the review process itself, where large projects such as the Enbridge pipeline are concerned. The courts have also indicated that Aboriginal rights are not limited to hunting and fishing, but to governance over lands not ceded to the Crown.

"We want to send a clear message to potential investors in this project that the federal government cannot be trusted to properly address Aboriginal rights and title issues," said Nooski. "This blatant disregard for our traditional governance processes will continue to pose a major legal risk to the project's viability."

Nadleh Whut'en territory is located in the Northern interior of BC, between Fraser Lake and Babine Lake. The Enbridge pipelines propose to cross approximately 50km of Nadleh Whut'en territory, including a crossing of the Sutherland River, a significant habitat for numerous types of fish. Nadleh Whut'en environmental concerns are well documented in the 2006 Aboriginal Interests and Use Study (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council).

Chief Nooski concluded: "Our territory has never been surrendered to the Crown. We are seeking a true government-to-government process with the federal government for the review of the Enbridge project. We are prepared to defend our rights and title through all necessary means, including through the Canadian courts."
/For further information: Chief Larry Nooski, Nadleh Whut'en (250) 690-7211/

Prince George Free Press on s2s.ca

2009-12-04T06:28:00.000-08:00

Prince George Free Press
New group wants more answers on project

By Arthur Williams - Prince George Free Press
Published: December 03, 2009 4:00 PM
bclocalnews.com/bc_north/pgfreepress/business/78462922.html

A local citizens group has formed to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Sea to Sands Conservation Group spokesman Josh Deleenheer said the group is concerned economic benefits from the project would be short-lived, but the potential harm could be lasting.

“In less than three weeks we’ve gathered 385 members, and more are joining daily,” Deleenheer said. “There is a lot of interest and concern out there. This is not an environmental group, per say, but a group of concerned citizens.”

The main goal of the group is to provide a counterbalance to information Enbridge has released about the project, he said.

The 1,170 km twin pipeline would run from Kitimat to Strathcona Country, Alta. just outside Edmonton.

A 36-inch pipeline would transport an average 525,000 barrels of oil to Kitimat per day to be loaded in oil tankers heading to California and Asia.

A 20-inch pipeline would move 193,000 barrels of condensate – a chemical treatment for crude oil – east from Kitimat to Edmonton.

The project involves creating three tunnels through the Telkwa Pass totaling 12 km. The proposed route for the project would follow Highway 37 north from Kitimat before veering east and passing just north of Burns Lake, south of Fort St. James, north of Bear Lake, south of Grande Prairie, south of Mayerthorpe and into Strathcona Country.

Enbridge estimates the multi-billion-dollar project would generate 4,000 jobs during the construct phase.

“They’re really pushing that,” Deleenheer said. “(But) they’re not giving the whole picture. If you’re looking at this project as an opportunity to have work for 3.5 years, it’s not going to happen.”

The 4,000 construction jobs will be spread along the entire length of the project, and take place in phases, he said. Many of the best-paying positions will be for experts brought in from outside communities.

“They’re saying there will be 200 long-term jobs: 100 for tugboat operations... (and) 54 at the marine terminal. That’s down to 46 jobs across the whole length of the pipeline,” Deleenheer said. “That’s not a lot.”

The potential cost of the project if there is a spill in an inland river or on the coast could be in the millions, he said, and have lasting impacts on wildlife and fisheries.

The B.C. Interior and North Coast have rugged terrain and difficult waters to navigate, he said.

“All the safety measures in the world can’t guarantee a spill won’t happen,” Deleenheer said. “In Wisconsin they were sued for $1.1 million... for over 500 environmental infractions. And I’d say B.C. is more difficult (to build in) than Wisconsin.”

If a spill does occur, it could be in very remote areas, making the response slow, he said.

“At one end you’ve got 225 tankers a year going into the Douglas Channel. On the other end you’ve the tar sands development. The tar sands themselves are a blight on our environmental record,” he said. “We want to see economic development. We all live in this area. (But) we’re putting ourselves in a bad position if this goes ahead.”

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project vice-president Steve Greenaway said the company welcomes input from community stakeholders, regardless of their position on the project. Community advisory boards throughout the region provide a table for groups to express their concerns and find out more about the project.

“We’ve had dozens and dozens of public meetings and open houses,” Greenaway added. “I think our project has received a great deal of discussion and will continue to do so as we proceed through the regulatory process.”

The project is close to entering the approximately two-year federal environmental review process, he said, which will include numerous public hearings.

Nor will the project be the first pipeline through B.C.’s mountains, he added.

“It’s challenging. But we also have a transmountain pipeline built in the 1950s going though Jasper to Vancouver. It’s been operating safely for over 50 years,” Greenaway said. “(And) pipeline technology has improved greatly since then.”

Enbridge has pipelines crossing the Niagara, Athabasca and Missouri river basins and has substantial experience with river crossings, he added.

“Our pipelines are monitored remotely and can be shut down at a moment’s notice,” he said. “Last year we shipped over 800 million barrels of oil... and only spilt 2,668 barrels. I think that’s a pretty good record.”

The Northern Gateway project would be built using the best available technology, he said.

“The (National Energy Board) did a study and found there hasn’t been a pipeline failure in Canada in pipelines less than 12 years old,” he said. “The most modern pipelines have proven to be very safe.”

The company has hired international marine experts to design the safety systems for tankers in the Douglas Channel, he said.

Powerful tugs would be tethered to the tankers to provide power and maneuvering in an emergency. Coastal pilots would be available for all tankers using the port, and emergency response systems would be upgraded to increase response time.

“With our planned increase in traffic, we’ll put in place a world-class response capacity,” he said. “Currently it takes 72 hours plus travel time from Vancouver. We could get that down to six to eight hours response time.”

As for the oil sands, he said, currently nearly 250,000 Canadians are employed through oil sands development.

“It represents 97 per cent of oil reserves in Canada. I think we’re an emerging superpower in energy,” Greenaway said. “As much as we support renewable energy, there is going to be a transition period. The world is looking for 15 million barrels of new crude capacity every day.”

For more information on the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance, go online to www.s2sca.blogspot.com or join their Facebook group. For information on Enbridge and the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, go online to www.northerngateway.ca.

Prince George Citizen article on sea to sands conservation alliance

2009-11-27T16:23:00.000-08:00

From Citizen newspaper, Prince George BC www.princegeorgecitizen.com
Group formed to oppose pipeline plan
Written by Gordon Hoekstra
Citizen staff
Thursday, 26 November 2009

A new environmental group based in Prince George has been formed to fight Enbridge's proposed $4.5-billion oil and condensate pipelines through northern B.C.
The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance's concerns focus on the risk of a spill from the pipeline and the environmental implications of exporting oil from the Alberta tar sands. Bitumen from the Alberta oil sands create more greenhouse gas emissions - and require more water and natural gas - than conventional oil during mining and production.
Enbridge has said it has a good track record of safety on its pipelines, and it is working hard to maximize economic benefits to local economies.
"I think the concerns outweigh the benefits," said Mary MacDonald, one of the organizers of the new group which has a core of about half a dozen people in Prince George and growing distribution list of about 50 people.
The group - whose concerns echo those of other environmental groups - has also started a facebook site with about 380 members.
The proposed 1,170-km pipeline would carry oil from Alberta's tar sands through northern B.C. to Kitimat, where it would be loaded on tankers for shipment to the U.S. west coast or Asia.
Asia offers an alternate market for oil from Alberta, which almost all flows to the U.S. via pipelines.
The proposed pipeline travels near Prince George, at Bear Lake, and will cross more than 1,000 rivers and streams.
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines spokesman Steve Greenaway said the company would like to hear the new group's concerns directly. "I hope they would consider participating in our community advisory board process because that's where groups and organizations can come and sit directly at the table, and ask all the tough questions," he said. "It's certainly our obligation to answer as many as we can."
Enbridge is getting ready to hold another round of community advisory board meetings, but the sessions are not completely open. People must apply to attend the meetings. The sessions are also currently not open to the media.
Enbridge had shelved the project in late 2006, but put it back on the front burner early in 2008 after securing $100 million from Western oil producers and key Asian refiners to get the project through the regulatory process under the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Key issues in the complex project - described by Enbridge as the largest crude oil pipeline expansion in North America - include mountainous terrain, the hundreds of river crossings and a tanker terminal at Kitimat.
Thousands of workers will be needed during the estimated three-year construction period, but relatively few when complete. It's estimated that 200 permanent workers will be needed for the pipeline, most of those in Kitimat.
Enbridge has said it plans to file its environmental application before the end of this year or early next year.
A two-year assessment timeline - should the company get approval - puts the start of the three-year construction period beyond 2012.

CKPG coverage of sea to sands conservation alliance

2009-11-27T12:22:00.000-08:00

Group Emerges to Oppose Proposed Pipeline (VIDEO) - from CKPG news. http://ckpg.com/news
Thursday, 26 November 2009 17:52
A local group has formed an alliance in opposition to the Enbridge Pipeline.
Enbridge plans to build two parallel pipelines between the Alberta tar sands
and Kitimat. The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance says the long term
consequences of the pipeline far outweigh the short economic benefits.

Check out CKPG tv's coverage and interview of Carrier Sekani Tribal Council chief David Luggi at http://ckpg.com/news/7855-anti-enbridgevideo.html.

facebook group

2009-11-27T11:45:00.001-08:00

our facebook group is sea to sands conservation alliance (s2s.ca) - please join us!

2009-11-26T22:32:00.000-08:00

from Cutbanks- the Prince George Cultural Website -- www.cutbanks.com
Not big fans of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

By Tyler Clarke, editor

It should come as no surprise that not everyone in the Prince George area supports the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, a series of two pipelines currently being proposed to run from Alberta across Northern BC to the coast. Planning for the pipeline is currently in the environmental assessment stage.

A core group of five and 370 on a Facebook page have mobilized as the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance in order to make sure this pipeline never comes into fruition.

For the group’s president Josh Deleenheer the decision to take some action against the proposed pipeline was an easy one, after viewing a presentation about CNC highlighting the implications of both the pipeline and the tar sands in general.

“There’s a pretty wide range of risks associated with it. From one end to the other,” he said. On the tar sands side of things there is the destruction of boreal forests as well as a massive carbon footprint and health problems associated with the extraction process. On the other side of things, a leak anywhere along the pipeline could easily result in severe damage to any of the water system along its path.

Deleenheer also cited a problem with Prince George mayor Dan Rogers’ stance on the tar sands, as outlined in the previous issue of Cutbanks. In a conversation with Cutbanks Rogers stated that whether we want them to be there or not, the tar sands will still be there in a few years, and there is a much smaller carbon footprint if we transport it to the coast for shipment with a pipeline versus trucks.

“I don’t think that a project like the tar sands is such that we should accept,” Deleenheer said. “These things can be changed. We largely sit by and let it happen, unless we see an immediate threat.”

This kind of action, he went on, is all about perpetuating the cycle of boom and bust that we are currently in.

There’s also the argument that the pipeline would boost the economy with local job creation, an idea that Deleenheer dismisses, as few local jobs would be created. Although he admitted that there would be a boost to the economy with outside workers coming in, he argues that the environmental risks wouldn’t make it worth it, even from an economic standpoint. Clean-up for a leak would be quite substantial, nullifying any economic gain.

In all, Deleenheer said that the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance has its odds stacked up against it. Although various other larger organizations such as the BC Wildlife Federation have also mobilized against the proposed pipeline, Enbridge has tens of millions of dollars being spent in an attempt to promote the pipeline. The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance is a small group of volunteers with no budget. That said, Deleenheer said that the group is passionate about what they’re doing and are willing to put great effort towards the cause.

The main goal of the group, he said, is to get the word out.

“Really, what we want to see is for the public to be aware of this,” he said.

To join the group’s Facebook page, search s2s.ca on Facebook. In order to find out more about the group, which meets once every few weeks, e-mail sea2sands@gmail.com.

Opinion 250 article about s2s's launch in Prince George

2009-11-25T13:54:00.000-08:00

New Group Formed To Fight Pipeline
By 250 News
www.opinion250.com
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:04 PM

Prince George- A group known as the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance has been formed in Prince George with a view to raising concerns about the proposed Enbridge Pipeline that would cross BC ending up at the coastal port of Kitimat.

Josh Deleenheer, says his group has attracted 300 members in less than a week after being formed to inform the public of the risks of the oil pipeline and the tanker traffic.

Enbridge proposes to construct two parallel pipelines from Northern Alberta’s tar sands to the port of Kitimat; one pipe will carry crude bitumen, a heavy oil product, to the coast of BC for oil tankers destined for Asian and American markets. The second pipe will carry condensate inland; condensate is used to transform the heavy oil from the tar sands into product that can be moved by pipeline.

Meantime David Luggi, Tribal Chief of the Carrier Sekani Chief Council, appearing on the Meisner program on CFIS says the majority of the bands over which the pipeline will pass are opposed to the construction.

Between Alberta and BC, Luggi says there are 60 First Nations over whose territory the line will pass.

Enbridge says they have 29 bands on side, but many says Luggi are fringe bands , in other words whose territory borders another band were the pipe line crosses. Plain and simple says Luggi the majority of the bands are opposed to its construction, right down to the port of Kitimat.

Enbridge according to Luggi would employ about 200 people when the line has been finished and the risk to the watersheds of the Fraser, Skeena, Bulkley, and all of the northern rivers is too great to allow the project to go ahead.

Luggi singled out Mayor Dan Rogers for criticism saying that the city has recently hired a Public relations officer and Rogers supports the pipeline project. "Can we expect that the new PR guy will be spinning a story to us about the benefits of the pipe line at a cost of $95,000 a year?"

A recent study prepared for the Pembina Institute by David Levy, outlines the vast number of salmon that would be at risk in the event of a spill along the line.

Oil and Salmon Don't Mix

2009-11-13T06:42:00.001-08:00

Read about the risks that would be posed to salmon in northern BC by the Enbridge pipelines in the Pembina Institute's new report: http://bc.pembina.org/pub/1894

Welcome to Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance

2009-11-10T14:14:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance blogspot!

The Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance is based in British Columbia and has been formed by concerned citizens opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

Enbridge proposes to construct two side by side pipelines from the tar sands in northern Alberta to the deep sea port in Kitimat, BC. One pipe will carry crude bitumen, a tar laden sand extracted from the land to tankers in the port. These tankers will be destined for Asia and the US. The other pipe will bring back the condensate, a toxic waste that will be used to thin the crude bitumen and make it suitable for movement.

Please also join us on our facebook group: S2S.ca!