Pipelines | Northwest Coast Energy News

Derrick writes opinion piece for Vancouver Sun, Gitxaala say they are “unified” against Gateway

Energy Environment First Nations

The dispute over who represents that Gitxsan First Nation became a media duel Wednesday, with an opinion piece by Gitxsan Treaty Office leader Elmer Derrick published in The Vancouver Sun and an almost simultaneous news release from the coastal Gitxaala First Nation from Kitkatla, emphasizing that nation’s opposition to the pipeline.

The two headlines also tell opposite stories:

Vancouver Sun: Gitxsan Nation supports Enbridge pipeline

The Gitxsan are positive people with a clear vision towards economic prosperity. We like to be creative in our thinking, and approach opportunities — such as the one presented by the Northern Gateway Pipelines project — with an open mind. We also wish to be self sufficient, and we intend to do this through joint ventures in oil and gas, logging, ecotourism and run-of-river power projects…

[T]he status quo is not working. We own 33,000 sq. km of productive land which has sustained us for thousands of years. Yet for too long we have watched resources leave our territories, without a say in its destination or a share in the profits.

We as Gitxsan believe we have a huge potential. Our people know how to work, and Gitxsan country continues to be the foundation of a prosperous economy — as it has throughout our long history…

More than that, the Northern Gateway project supports the vision and leadership demonstrated by the Gitxsan Nation. We believe that there should be the development of a legislative framework that would serve Canada’s interests in energy security and supply, and access to world markets. We believe that the construction of this pipeline is of vital importance to the future of Canadian energy security and prosperity.

News release: Gitxaala Nation Opposed to Northern Gateway Pipelines Project

Gitxaala expresses dismay at the approach that Enbridge has taken in its dealings with the Gitxsan in relation to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Project. Enbridge’s abrupt announcement of its dealings with the Gitxsan in relation to the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project has created deep divisions in an aboriginal community, and appears to incorrectly suggest that there is aboriginal support for the Project. The time has come for the Government of Canada to step in to assume its proper role in managing and carrying out consultation and ensuring that accommodations and agreements are fair, transparent and properly approved.

What ever happens in Gitxsan Territory, the leaders and people of Gitxaala are unified in their opposition to Enbridge’s efforts to impose dangerous tanker traffic on their people. Gitxaala expects Enbridge and the Government of Canada to respect Gitxaala’s governance rights and its aboriginal title and aboriginal rights in these waters. Gitxaala will also be challenging the many deficiencies and information gaps found in the Environmental Assessment for the Project. As Chief Elmer Moody noted: “Our leaders and people have been shocked that a massive project like this could be brought forward for consideration with such profound deficiencies.

Oregon moves to block Jordan Cove LNG project

Energy LNG Politics

The state of Oregon has filed a motion with the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the American equivalent of the National Energy Board) to block, perhaps temporarily, the Jordan Cove Liquified Natural Gas project at Coos Bay, Oregon.

Experts at the June NEB hearings in Kitimat testified by the Jordan Cove could be Kitimat’s chief rival as an LNG terminal.

Like the plans for Kitimat in the early 2000s, the Jordan Cove facility was originally planned as an import terminal and the FERC eventually did issue a permit for the construction of the import terminal.

In the meantime, the natural gas market changed, with the growth in the hydraulic fracturing to retrieve gas from shale deposits. In September, the company involved, Jordan Cove LP applied to the Department for authorization to export natural gas. At the time the company said it intended to ask the Commission in early 2012 to amend its existing authorization to add export facilities.

On Dec. 2, 2011, the Oregon Dept. Of Justice filed a motion with the FERC to revoke the approval of the LNG terminal in Coos Bay and reopen the record so the state can submit evidence that a revised terminal proposal is not in the public interest.

Oregon wants the company to file a new application, arguing that is more appropriate than amending of the import application.

The filing says: “The facts demonstrate a change in core circumstances that goes to the very heart of the case. The heart of this case is whether the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal is in the public interest and the pipeline is required by public convenience and necessity….

Oregon wonders how the “additional imported natural gas supply” would benefit the state and how that would outweigh “the adverse impacts on private landowners and the environment.”

Oregon says that “any benefit that may have existed when the import Project was proposed, no longer exists to offset the adverse impacts of the Project.”

The filing also argues that if the United States exports natural gas through Oregon that will increase domestic prices. It also argues that there hasn’t been enough consideration about the environmental impact of the liquefaction facility.

“This is the right thing to do, to tell them we don’t accept this bait and switch with Jordan Cove,” said Dan Serres, an organizer with the conservation group Columbia Riverkeeper, told the Oregonian newspaper.

Bob Braddock, project manager for Jordan Cove, told the Oregonian he wasn’t surprised by the filing, claiming that Oregon Attorney General John Kroger has made no secret of his opposition to any LNG terminal since before he took office

Braddock repeated arguments familiar to northwest BC from both the LNG and Enbridge Northern Gateway projects, saying the public interest in the pipeline and export terminal includes jobs, tax revenue and pipeline interconnections that would bring a better gas supply to southern Oregon.

A few days earlier, on Nov. 22, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife filed a letter with the FERC, saying it was not being kept up to date about changes in plans by Jordan Cove for the LNG terminal and so could not fully assess the environmental impact. The letter said the project’s mitigration plan had not been provided in sufficient detail and assurance about theit nature, location, effects and implementation. The Fish and Wildlife Service also noted that the company had not addressed or supplied information on the impact the LNG project might have on the program to help the recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl population. In fact, according to the Fish and Wildlife filing the plans were so inadequate that it wasn’t possible to begin formal consultations with company over environmental impacts.

Opponents of the project note that Oregon will probably have the final say on the project, since the terminal location is on state-owned land and the state must approve the leases.

Oregon motion to FERC to set aside order (pdf)

Fish and Wildlife Jordan Cove letter (pdf)

Enbridge boss points to ‘curious’ funding of pipeline opposition by U.S. charities: Edmonton Journal

Energy Politics

The Edmonton Journal reports Enbridge boss points to ‘curious’ funding of pipeline opposition by U.S. charities

The man chosen as Canada’s top executive of 2011 has added his voice to those who argue that major U.S. charities have a hidden agenda when they finance Canadian environmental and aboriginal groups opposed to a pipeline that would open up Asian markets to the oilsands industry.

Enbridge Inc., president Patrick Daniel joins Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who recently delivered an even more blunt accusation about the possible ulterior motives of American trusts providing millions to the anti-oilsands movement.

They assert, directly or by inference, that the foundations and trusts oppose Enbridge’s $5.5-billion pipeline to Kitimat, B.C., because the link to Asian markets would end the U.S. near-monopoly on below-market-priced oilsands bitumen.

“I guess one’s mind runs to why do U.S. foundations feel they need to come here to fund opposition to a project that is obviously not in the U.S. national best interests. It is curious,” Daniel, named Canada’s 2011 chief executive of the year by Caldwell Partners, told the Edmonton Journal.

Stand firm against “divide and conquer” tactics on pipeline, Wet’suwet’en say

Energy Politics First Nations

In a news release posted on the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network Facebook page, 13 Wet’suwet’en chiefs are criticizing what they call “divide and conquer strategies’ of industry and government” in advocating the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The reference is the signing Friday of an agreement with Enbridge by Elmer Derrick of the Gitxsan Nation, an action denounced by other Gitxsan people.

Text of release

United We Shall Win the Battle against Enbridge

Moricetown, British Columbia

The
Wet’suwet’en feel compelled to address our many friends and supporters
in the fight to resist the pressures of the tar sands. It comes as no
surprise to us that the money of the oil barons is being used to drive a
wedge between the Nations who stand united in opposition to the
Northern Gateway pipeline.

“We are very familiar with the
‘divide and conquer strategies’ of industry and governments but we stand
firm in resisting these pressures”, says Chief Kloum’Khun. “There is a
lot at stake in this fight. From First Nations in the
Athabascan/Mackenzie watershed who are suffering from the chronic
consequences of tar sands development out to BC coast with the threat of
oil tankers through the waters of Coastal First nations.”

Wet’suwet’en
territory encompasses the headwaters of the Fraser watershed and major
tributaries of the Skeena watershed (Morice/Bulkley River) and feed BC’s
most vibrant salmon fisheries. Enbridge’s proposed pipeline route will
rip the heart out of our traditional lands and place our functioning
ecosystems in dire peril.

Chief Na’moks says, “This pipeline
proposal does not meet the need of current and future Wet’suwet’en
people. This decision was made through a series of clan meetings held
with Wet’suwet’en people using our traditional laws. Today we continue
to stand firm in our opposition to Enbridge.”

“For the Wet’suwet’en, we will not risk our culture and livelihood for a few petro dollars.”

Regarding,
the internal conflict currently being experience by our Gitxsan
cousins, we feel deeply. We remain committed to continued collaboration
in our fight against the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. This is merely the
beginning of a lengthy fight and collectively we must remain steadfast,
and honourable and stay the course.

The Wet’suwet’en have
a history of collaboration. We jointly worked with the Gitxsan Chiefs
in the historic Delgamuukw/Gisdayway court case. We supported the
Tsilhqot’in First Nation’s fight against the Prosperity Mine proposal
and the destruction of Fish Lake. We are supporting the Tahltan First
Nation in their opposition to Royal Dutch Shell’s attempt to develop
coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters. We are interveners in the
Hul’qumi’num petition to the Inter-American Petition on Human Rights.

UNITY ABOVE ALL ELSE & WE SHALL WIN THIS BATTLE. Be strong friends!

Chief Kloum’Khun (Alphonse Gagnon)

Chief Smogelgem (Gloria George)

Chief Nedabees (Warner Williams)

Chief Samooh (Herb Naziel)

Chief Hagwilnegh (Ron Mitchell)

Chief Wah’Tah’Kwets (Frank Patrick)

Chief Wah’Tah’Ghet (Henry Alfred)

Chief Nam’oks (John Ridsdale)

Chief Wigitamschol ( Dan Michell)

Chief Kweese (alternate Bill Naziel – Mutt)

Chief Madeek (Jeff Brown)

Chief Gisday’wa (Dr. Alfred Joseph)

Chief Woss (alternate Darlene Glaim – Gyolo’ght)

Gitxsan again reject Enbridge deal, demand resignation of GTO employees

First Nations Energy Environment

Leaders of the Gitxsan Nation have again rejected the deal the Gitxsan Treaty Organization made with Enbridge, endorsing the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

A press release published on Facebook by the environmental group Pipe Up Against Enbridge says in part.

On Sunday, December 4th, 2011, 3 of the Gitxsan Clans held separate meetings in 3 locations to voice their concerns and consider their future action in regards to the announcement of the signing of an agreement between the Gitxsan and Enbridge.

Gitxsan people were unaware of the undertakings with Enbridge. The Gitxsan people through Simogyet Delgamuukw say, “NO to the Enbridge Pipeline Project”. Numerous concerns from the meetings were brought forward to an emergency Gitxsan Treaty Society Board meeting held on Sunday afternoon, December 4th, to have the Gitxsan voices transferred into action.

On Sunday evening, an All Clans meeting was held to discuss the unified direction of the Gitxsan. Simogyet Delgamuukw was selected to be the spokesperson for the Gitxsan. The Simgigyet (Gitxsan Chiefs) stated: “We have traditional protocols in place that dictate the actions of the Gitxsan people when making important decisions that will impact the whole Gitxsan Nation and/or neighbouring Nations. These protocols were not followed by the Gitxsan Treaty Society negotiators.”

Immediate action has been taken to deal with the people responsible for negotiating and signing the agreement with Enbridge. The press release of December 2nd, 2011 was not sanctioned by the Gitxsan. All government agencies and other related business contacts are put on notice with this press release that our 2 negotiators and our Executive Director no longer represent the Gitxsan at any level.

The Globe and Mail in Gitxsan hereditary chiefs demand negotiators in Enbridge deal resign reports:

After emergency meetings over the weekend, a group of hereditary chiefs marched on the offices of the Gitxsan Treaty Society on Monday to demand the immediate resignation of three of the society’s employees. Those employees include Elmer Derrick, a Gitxsan Treaty Society negotiator and a hereditary chief who on Friday announced a deal with Enbridge to support the Northern Gateway project.

Gitxsan chiefs, band leaders, “stand in solidarity” opposing Gateway pipeline, say they do not support Derrick’s Enbridge agreement

Energy Politics First Nations

A coalition of Gitxsan hereditary leaders and band councils have repudiated Friday’s announcement by Elmer Derrick of an agreement with Enbridge to take an equity stake in the Northern Gateway Pipeline. A news release from the group says The Gitxsan people are outraged with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Agreement.”

Complete text of release:

Contrary to the announcement of Elmer Derrick of today’s date, the representatives of the Plaintiffs to the British Columbia Supreme Court Action No. 15150, cited as Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society, oppose the Agreement. The Gitxsan plaintiffs include Hereditary Chiefs and four Gitxsan bands with a population of over 6,000 Gitxsan people; the majority of whom are House members in the Gitxsan traditional system represented by Hereditary Chief, Spookw, in the court action.

The representatives do not support Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline agreement entered into by Elmer Derrick and state “Elmer Derrick and the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. does not speak for all Gitxsan. The Gitxsan people had no knowledge of the proposed Agreement nor were they consulted”. The Plaintiffs contend that the Gitxsan Treaty Society, or the Gitxsan Development Corporation, does not have the authority to enter into such Agreements without consulting or being authorized by the Gitxsan people.

Knowledge of the signed Agreement was only obtained through media, much like the Gitxsan Alternative Governance Model of May 2008, the subject matter of litigation in Spookw v. Gitxsan Treaty Society.

The representatives say that not only were the communities not consulted, but importantly, the Environmental Review Process is not yet complete with community hearings being scheduled for January 2012; therefore, a decision to support it is, at best, premature. Until the Environmental assessment is complete there is no basis for saying this project is safe to build.

The Representatives say the 7 Million dollars is a pittance in comparison to the potential environmental impacts which will be catastrophic. The GTS/GED is willing to jeopardize the sustenance of the First Nations people for a few million dollars is reprehensible and is not supported by the Gitxsan people.

Mr. Derrick espouses the importance of Gitxsan Law; however, breached such law by announcing and celebrating the Agreement on the day of the funeral of an elder matriarch and Hereditary Chief. This type of conduct brings shame and is disrespectful to the grieving family and the traditional system.

The representatives say that Mr. Derrick has embarrassed and shamed the Gitxsan people by undermining the 61 First Nations who are opposed to the project. The representatives say “We stand in solidarity to those opposing it.”

Related: Vancouver Sun :

Uproar in Gitxsan First Nation after support for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline announced

Coalition of First Nations stands against Northern Gateway pipeline

Energy Environment Politics

An alliance of up to 130 First Nations from across North America say they will oppose any efforts to construct the Northern Gateway pipeline from the Alberta bitumen sands to the port of Kitimat.

Vancouver Sun: First nations claim alliance is barrier that pipelines won’t break

On Thursday, signatories to the initiative called the Save the Fraser Gathering of Nations, said they had increased their roster to 130 from 61 western Canadian first nations that oppose not just construction of Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway project, but any project to increase Canada’s exports of oilsands crude, on the grounds that they infringe on aboriginal title.

“I have news for you [Prime Minister Stephen Harper], you’re never going to achieve your dream of pushing pipelines through our rivers and lands,” said Chief Jackie Thomas, of the Saik’uz First Nation, and head of the Yinka Dene Alliance, a key spokeswoman for the group in B.C.’s interior.

“It doesn’t matter what route you take, you can’t get a pipeline around opposed first nations. The path is blocked, and it’s going to stay blocked,” Thomas said.

Globe and Mail: B.C. natives form front to fight oil pipelines

First Nations say they fear the consequences of a spill from the pipeline, which would pass through some of Canada’s most spectacular mountain landscape. They also oppose the idea of shipping oil from British Columbia ports.

“First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning all exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories,” more than 60 aboriginal groups said in a statement.

Thursday’s declaration could also affect a planned expansion of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver. The company is seeking commitments from potential shippers for the project.

Canadian Press First Nation leaders say they are closing B.C. borders to Gateway pipeline

Chief Art Adolph, of the St’at’imc Nation, said he’s opposed to any plans by the federal Conservative government to push the pipeline through.

“If they are serious about respecting our rights, the government of Canada must stop pushing the oil companies’ line that this is in the public interest, and the government of B.C. should step up to the plate too and begin protecting our rivers and coastlines from further environmental damages that violate our basic human rights,” he said.

Related: Save the Fraser website

Coastal First Nations reaffirm opposition to Northern Gateway and tanker traffic

Energy Environment

Updated at 1630 Nov. 23, with First Nations are calling for a complete overhaul of the Northern Gateway Joint Review process

The Coastal First Nations have reaffirmed their “categorical” opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, contradicting media reports that a deal with Enbridge was in the offing.

In a news release issued Wednesday, Nov. 23, Art Sterritt, executive director said:

The Coastal First Nations categorically oppose Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project ….we unequivocally maintain our ban on oil tankers on the coast.”

It was Mr. Daniels, of Enbridge, who spoke of wanting a fresh start with the Coastal First Nation.

Sterritt, on behalf of the board, told Daniels that a fresh start from the Coastal First Nations perspective meant having Enbridge ask the Joint Review Panel (JRP) to stand down. “The Joint Review Process is seen by the Coastal First Nations not as objective, rather as a process that advances the Enbridge Project.

Subsequently the Coastal First Nations has been informed that Enbridge is not prepared to ask the JRP to stand down or reveal who the other proponents are, he said.

In August of 2009, Enbridge stated that the proposed project would not go ahead if First Nations communities opposed it, said Sterritt. “None of our communities support the project. Nor do any First Nations along the pipeline route.”
“Why would we support a proposal that would put our rivers, oceans and lifesource at risk?” Sterritt said. “It’s time Pat Daniels and Enbridge take the correct action and give us the fresh start they promised. It’s time to shut down the Joint Review Process and the Northern Gateway project.”

More to come

First nations seek fresh start with Enbridge over pipeline to coast: Globe and Mail

Energy Environment Politics

Carrie Tait writing in the Globe and Mail in First nations seek fresh start with Enbridge over pipeline to coast

First nations groups protesting against Enbridge Inc.’s controversial pipeline to the B.C. coast will reconsider their opposition to the project if its regulatory approval process is put on hold.

The Coastal First Nations in a September meeting told Pat Daniel, Enbridge’s chief executive, they want the Joint Review Panel (JRP) to delay hearings on the company’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline so negotiations between the two sides can resume and a stronger relationship can be built….

The Coastal First Nations say it is not to late for Enbridge to win them over on the Gateway plan.

“If we could have a fresh start and were able build a good relationship, the Coastal First Nations might be willing to take another look at the project,” Art Sterritt, the group’s executive director, said in an interview. “That wouldn’t mean we would necessarily come out and agree with it, but we would certainly take a closer look at it.”

Enbridge, EPA dispute amount of “oil” spilled at Kalamazoo

Energy Environment

AP reports that Enbridge and the US Environmental Protection Agency are haggling over how much “oil” was spilled into the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge is sticking with its estimate that 849,000 gallons were spilled when the pipeline was breached. The EPA says 1.1 million gallons have been recovered and there may be more to be recovered.
Apparently it all comes down to different definitions of the word “oil.”