Politics & Government | Northwest Coast Energy News

Harper concerned Joint Review hearings being “hijacked by foreign money”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at a photo op in Edmonton on Friday, January 6, 2012, that he is concerned about the possibility that the Joint Review hearings on Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would be “hijacked” by “foreign money, to really overload the public consultation of regulatory hearings for the purpose of slowing down the process.”

Harper said what he called the slow process of the hearings “was not good” for the Canadian economy, he said. “We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said. “The government of Canada will be taking a close look at how we can ensure our regulatory processes are effective and deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time.”

Harper added that his government would be watching the Joint Review hearings closely and added his government may review the public consultation procedure to make sure they are not overloaded solely for the purpose of slowing down the process.

Harper’s comments did not identify the “foreign money,” but he was clearly referring to criticism from blogger Vivian Krause, the pro-bitumen sands group Ethical Oil and right wing columnists who are crusading against Canadian environmental groups for accepting money from U.S. sources. Harper, apparently, made no mention of foreign investment in the bitumen sands and the pipeline projects.

Gitxsan protestors ordered to end blockade by Sunday

First Nations

Members of the Gitxsan First Nation who are objecting to the deal signed between Enbridge and the Gitxsan Treaty Office have been served an injunction ordering them to end their blockade of the office in Hazelton by Sunday.

CFJW Gitxsan Protesters Vow to Defy Court Injunction

Protesters continue to bar access to the Gitxsan Treaty Society Office in Hazelton — and are vowing to defy a court injunction ordering them away from the office.

They’re furious over last Friday’s announcement by Treaty officer and Hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick, that the Gitxsan had entered into a partnership with Enbridge on the Northern Gateway project.

Hereditary chief Norman Stephens (Guuhadakw) of the Wolf Clan says the announcement was completely improper. “Elmer Derrick had no right to negotiate a deal with Enbridge on behalf of the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs,” said Stephens, adding “he’s employed as a Gitxsan Treaty Society negotiator for treaty, not with industry.”

CFJW Gitxsan Treaty Society hoping cooler heads will prevail

The Gitxsan Treaty Society is fighting back against Gitxsan members opposing a $7 million ownership deal with Enbridge relating to the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project.

A negotiator with the society says they sought a court order against the protesters blocking access to their Hazelton office, so they could return to work and begin to address the concerns of the Gitxsan members denouncing the deal announced last week.

Beverley Clifton Percival says the society’s directors are prepared to talk, but need to be working in order to do so.

“I think they have valid concerns and valid questions and I certainly do want to answer them, but I cannot do that when I’m not allowed into my office or access to any of the papers or anything.”

Vancouver Sun Enbridge pipeline protesters issued eviction date

Hereditary chief Norman Stephens said the group received the notice on Tuesday…

The opposing leaders and members are now collecting written declarations from other hereditary chiefs supporting their position, Stephens said.

“[Derrick, Sebastian and Percival] are three disgruntled employees that we’ve laid off, and they are the ones who filed for the injunction, so we’ve got letters from people saying they are no longer employed by the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs,” Stephens said.

“They can’t [file] an injunction on a building they don’t own.

“They just don’t recognize that they’ve been fired.”

TD Waterhouse posts Reuters analysis: Enbridge pipeline deal with native group fraying

Energy First Nations Economy

TD Waterhouse Marketwatch has picked up an analysis from Reuters Enbridge pipeline deal with native group fraying. Not the best news for Enbridge now that a major bank is letting the markets know about the unraveling deal with the Gitxscan Treaty Organization and Elmer Derrick.

A deal with a native chief that Enbridge Inc
held up last week as an example of rising support of their planned oil
pipeline to the Pacific appears to be unravelling as the community
battles over who has the authority to make a deal.

Pipeline
operator Enbridge touted the Gitxsan agreement to take an equity stake
in the Northern Gateway pipeline as the first public display of what it
says is substantial support for the C$5.5 billion ($4.5 billion) project
among British Columbia’s First Nations…

Enbridge signed the deal with Hereditary Chief Elmer Derrick, chief
negotiator for the Gitxsan Treaty Society (GTS), an embattled
organization that is facing a legal challenge to its authority from four
of the five community bands that make up the first nation….

“Many of the hereditary chiefs said that they
had not been directly posed the question of ‘Do you want to sign this
deal with Enbridge?’,” said Doug Donaldson, who represents the region in
the British Columbia legislature. “From a Gitxsan governance point of
view, that’s not the way decisions are made, as far as not consulting
everyone.”

Enbridge response to Gitxsan controversy

Enbridge has released a response to the controversy over its agreement with Elmer Derrick of the Gitxsan Treaty Office.

Agreement With Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs

• Enbridge
Northern Gateway Pipelines welcomes the agreement with the Gitxsan
Hereditary Chiefs on behalf of the Gitxsan Nation. We believe it
demonstrates vision and leadership and will bring significant benefits
to the Gitxsan people.

• The agreement is between the
Gitxsan First Nation as represented by Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs, and
Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. The Hereditary Chiefs hold title to
Gitxsan territory and are the negotiating authority for the Gitxsan
Nation.

• The agreement is expected to deliver $ 7 million
in net profit to Gitxsan. Northern Gateway is providing financing. This
commitment to partnership has helped provide foundation for pending
Gitxsan and Enbridge dialogue regarding regional renewable energy
projects

• Aboriginal participation in Northern Gateway is
an important goal, and one we have worked hard to achieve. The design of
our benefits offering reflects years of consultation with First Nations
and Métis communities along our existing and proposed pipeline
rights-of-way.

• We believe these commitments will break
new ground by providing an unprecedented level of long-term economic and
social benefits to Aboriginal communities in the North. We are working
to ensure Northern Gateway will create a positive long-term impact on
the economy and way of life of northern residents, particularly
Aboriginal communities.

• Through equity ownership,
Aboriginal people will be able to generate a significant new revenue
stream that could help achieve the priorities of their people – such as
improved health care, education and housing.

All quotes can be attributed to Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway.

Haisla won’t “negotiate” with Enbridge until after Joint Review decision, Ross says

Energy Environment First Nations

Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross speaking at the September 2011 District of Kitimat public forum on the Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross said Friday that Haisla will not “negotiate” with Enbridge over its planned Northern Gateway Pipeline until after there has been a decision from the Joint Review Panel on whether or not the pipeline is in the public interest.

Ross said the Haisla had recently written to Minister of the Environment Peter Kent, asking if the Crown was prepared to enter the constitutionally mandated consultations with First Nations over the pipeline. Ross says Kent’s reply indicated that there would be no Crown consultations until after the conclusion of the Joint Review Process.

The Joint Review Panel hearings begin in Kitimat on January 10, 2012. The hearings will proceed in two stages, first hearing presentations from registered intervenors, with the second phase hearing from members of the public who wish to give 10 minute comments on the pipeline project. That stage of the process could take up to three months before the panel can even begin to consider a decision.

Reacting to today’s decision by Gitxsan hereditary chiefs to sign an agreement with Enbridge to take a $7 million partnership stake in the pipeline, Ross said he was surprised by the move, “given the opposition from the public so far, and we’ve be told that in terms of consultation and accommodation [with First Nations].”

Earlier today, in the news conference with Gitxsan heriditary chief Elmer Derrick, Enbridge executive vice president of Western Access Janet Holder told reporters that the company was negotiating with all 50 First Nations along the pipeline route.

Ross disagreed with that term. He said, “The Haisla are not negotiating with Enbridge. You can’t confuse negotiation and talking.” He said without the participation of the Crown there is no real process for negotiations and accommodation with First Nations over the pipeline.

Ross said any talks with Enbridge by First Nations shouldn’t be considered negotiations unless there is some type of formal agreement saying “we are in negotiations.”

Ross also said in terms of possible agreements with Enbridge “it is pretty easy to negotiate in an area where there will be very little impact.”

The Haisla, he said, have all three major impacts from the Northern Gateway project, “the pipeline, the terminal and the tankers. It`s pretty easy to negotiate if you`re not paying the full price. The Haisla will pay in full if the project goes ahead.”

The Haisla have always been wary of the Enbridge project but have also been careful in stating their opposition to the pipeline. At public meeting in Kitimat in September, Ross said, in part.

As far as we can tell, based on oil company’s track records, there will be a spill whether it is pipeline, terminal or tanker.

The only questions are how much oil will be spilled, who will clean it up and who will pay for the cleanup. We’ve been accused of NIMBY but in terms of our concerns, when it comes to a spill, we predict a POTB (Passing of the Buck) will occur…

And ultimately, apart from the acceptable risks that Haisla have already taken on against our will as well as current risks that we are a part of mitigating, why do we want to consider a project that has the potential to destroy the beauty of our resources that are still left?

We are not opposed to development, but in the case of oil export or oil by products import/export, the Precautionary Principle still makes the most sense

Other First Nations also reacted strongly to the Gitxsan chiefs’ decision.

In a news release Chief Na’Moks (John Ridsdale) representing the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs said:

Enbridge is just not going to happen. We have said no and banned this pipeline from going through our territories – not only to protect ourselves and our lands, but also all the communities downriver from our lands. We have reviewed the project, and we have made a decision based in our traditional laws that we will not allow the devastation of an Enbridge oil spill in our lands to affect us and other communities further away who are all connected to us through the water.

Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik’uz First Nation, speaking for the Yinka Dene Alliance, stated:

Enbridge has always had a strategy of offering money to lots of First Nations. Lots of First Nations have refused this money. This is just the same old divide and conquer tactic we’ve known for centuries. It doesn’t matter who they get a deal with. The wall of First Nations saying no is unbroken. They plan to come through our territories and we’ve already said no, and we’ll use every legal means we have to stop them.

Their proposed pipeline is against our laws because we refuse to put our communities at the risk of oil spills. Water means more to us than money. We know we have overwhelming support from a large majority of British Columbians for stopping this dangerous Enbridge pipeline.

First Nations are calling for a complete overhaul of the Northern Gateway Joint Review process

Energy Environment

British Columbia’s coastal First
Nations are calling for a complete overhaul of the Northern Gateway
Joint Review process and have a filed motion that calls for the hearings, scheduled to begin
January 10, be adjourned until the proceedings are reformed.

Motions were filed between
October 28 and November 14, with the JRP by the Coastal First
Nations, an alliance of coastal aboriginal nations, the Haisla First
Nation in Kitimat, the Gitxaala First Nation in Kitkatla and a coalition of
environmental groups known as the Sustainability Coalition that
includes the Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation
Foundation, ForestEthics.

A number of reasons emerged in
recent weeks that led to the motions.

The First Nations and environmental
groups spent the summer studying the hundreds of thousands of pages of
studies, plans and other documents filed by Enbridge and its
consulting firms with the Joint Review Panel.

The Haisla First Nation, Gitxaala
First Nation, the Coastal First Nations coalition and the
Sustainability Coalition then filed a series of questions and
requests for clarification with Enbridge based on those documents.
It soon became clear that there was no time for Enbridge or its
consultants to respond to the questions before the hearings are
scheduled to begin on January 10, 2012.

The Joint Review Panel also recently
rejected a request from the Haisla that the First Nations’ evidence
and oral comments be heard at the same time.

Art Sterritt, executive director of Coastal First Nations
addresses the
Solidarity Gathering of Nations at Kitamaat Village, May
2010.
(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

In September, Enbridge CEO Pat
Daniel did meet with the Coast First Nations and according to Art
Sterritt, executive director, asked for a “fresh start” in the
company’s relationship with First Nations. Sterritt said that Daniel
admitted to the meeting that Enbridge had not listened.

Sterritt said he asked Daniel to
support Coastal First Nations request for a delay and overhaul of the
Joint Review Process. Daniel promised to get back to them. There was
no hints of any other deal in the offing as reported on Tuesday,
November 23 by The Globe and Mail and other media.Gateway pipeline,
contradicting
media reports that a deal with Enbridge was in the offing.

In
a news release issued Wednesday, Nov. 23, Sterritt, 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.”

Sterritt told Northwest Coast Energy News that they had heard
nothing from Daniel for two to three weeks and had to contact his
office, and then were told that Enbridge could not agree to a delay
in the Joint Review Process nor could it reveal, for confidentiality
reasons, who the other “proponents” are.

The first motion to the JRP, filed by the Haisla First Nation on
October 28, concentrates on the long list of questions and
clarifications, calling for Northern Gateway to provide a “full and
adequate response” to their concerns by a fixed date and until
that happens

an amendment to the Hearing Order that sets new and reasonable
deadlines for information requests and written intervenor evidence,
oral testimony and final hearings once the Northern Gateway has
provided all the information required….

The other motions are similar. The Gitxaala motion also calls
for release of studies that have not yet been filed on the Northern
Gateway site, asking that “Northern Gateway provide copies of
pending studies referenced in its various responses to information
requests from the Gitxaala and the Government of Canada.”

The part of the motion looks like the First Nations want to be able to forgo the often overly formal National Energy Board legal process to allow both presentation of evidence and oral comments from First Nations members, as the Haisla requested.

The flexibility in deadlines is also needed because, so far, Enbridge has not clarified its announced plans for a possible natural gas pipeline to the west coast and how that might affect the Northern Gateway.
(See Editorial, Oct. 7, Lawyers have a lot to be thankful for )

The Joint Review Panel did extend the deadline for information
requests for the four groups filing the motion notwithstanding the
previous deadline of November 3.

Other intervenors have until November 30 to file their own
comments. Northern Gateway can respond by filing comments up until
December 9, and the four that filed the original motions can respond
to those comments by Dec 20.

All other written evidence must filed by December 22, in
compliance with the original order.

Given the Christmas and New Year’s holiday, any decision to
postpone the Joint Review hearings will have to come quite close to
the January 10 opening date.

Enbridge had no comment on the notice of motion or its discussions with the
group, spokesman Paul Stanway told Reuters:”We
remain committed to the consultation process and to the regulatory
review. We’re talking to a number of first nations and we will continue
to talk to them.”

JRP letter summarizing motion files by Haisla Nation, Coastal First Nations, Gitxaala Nation and the Sustainibility Coalition (pdf)

Haisla Information request(pdf)

Haisla notice of motion (pdf)

Anti Kitimat pipeline 1977 letter from Tommy Douglas goes viral on Twitter

Energy Environment Social Media

The environmental group the Dogwood Initiative has discovered a letter from the late New Democratic Party leader Tommy Douglas, opposing a Kitimat pipeline project in 1977. (pdf)

Dogwood’s initial post about the letter, which is on the institute’s website, quickly went viral on Twitter at least in British Columbia.

The Feb. 8, 1977, warns that a group called the Kitimat Pipeline Project, a consortium of U.S. owned or controlled companies planned to build a pipeline from Edmonton to Kitimat to then onship oil to ports in the United States.

The Douglas letter goes over arguments that are familiar to those following the current controversy over the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, the few jobs in British Columbia as opposed to jobs in the United States, why were there no refining jobs in Canada and the advantage of tax revenue all opposed to the prospect of a catastrophic oil spill on the west coast.

Douglas urges the people of BC to petition the federal government and to ask for public hearings. He concludes by saying:

Remember that in a democracy, governments are your servants not your masters. It is your land, your environment and your future that are at stake. Now is the time to speak out in clear and unmistakable terms and say “Keep tankers out of Kitimat.”

The Kochs and Keystone XL: Columbia Journalism Review

Columbia Journalism Review looks at the Koch brothers, their Canadian holdings, and attempts to intimidate the media from small news sites to giants like Bloomberg and Reuters.

The Kochs and Keystone XL

The article concentrates on a small site called InsideClimateNews. This is what CJR says about InsideClimateNews and Koch’s Canadian holdings

Koch Industries owns an Alberta-based subsidiary called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, whose website says it is “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters.” According to InsideClimate, it “supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers,” and “operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.”

“Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices,” InsideClimate reported. “The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline,” putting at least a $2 billion in Canadian oil producers’ pockets.

“Given its deep involvement in the Canadian petroleum industry, the Koch brothers’ operation stands to snare some of the windfall,” Sassoon concluded.

Update:
Koch owned Flint Hills Resources is intervenor in Northern Gateway Joint Review

Non disclosure demands from new energy industries raise tensions at Kitimat Council

Members of the District of Kitimat council vote on Nov. 7, 2011, in favour of releasing three internal consultants reports that had been commissioned to ease the council’s dysfunction and improve relationships among members. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Apparent demands for confidentiality from the companies that plan to locate in Kitimat, or may locate in Kitimat, have thrown gasoline on the flames of long existing tensions that exist on District of Kitimat council.

Those tensions, which have not been that apparent in recent meetings, but have been reported in the past three years, flared up Monday, Nov. 7, 2011, when Councillor Randy Halyk, a candidate for mayor in the municipal election two weeks from now, introduced a motion to publicly release three consultants reports on internal dysfunction and personality conflicts in the council.

Halyk then accused the current mayor, Joanne Monaghan of withholding information from the rest of
council “on numerous occasions.”

As Monaghan sat by stoically, Halyk listed his grievances against the current mayor: “Meeting with industry people or government on the sly, signing
letters of intent without council’s blessing or even their knowledge,
discussing in camera topics with non governmental groups, yet not
communicating with council on important matters…A mayor, as part of council, should promote teamwork and yet… it has not happened in the last three years.”

Retiring councillor Gerd Gottschling joined Haylk, accusing Monaghan of not following the usual collegial practices among municipal councils, keeping council members out of the decision making process. “I believe this is a team effort, we are a team and you are our leader, and when we have to make decisions, we need information to make those decisions.”

Monaghan replied by simply saying that she had had conversations with various industry representatives visiting Kitimat and that often those people visiting Kitimat had requested confidentiality. She emphasized that she had never signed a letter of intent without disclosing information to District Council.

Between 2009 and 2010, the council hired three different consulting firms to help facilitate the operations of the council, help members to overcome their differences. Previous attempts to release all or part of the reports failed in the past.

Much of the debate went over old grievances, including a time a BC cabinet minister had requested a meeting with Monaghan where council members were excluded. A couple of councillors pointed out that the three consultants reports could have been released at any time between 2009 and 2011 and that two weeks prior to an election was not perhaps the best time.

Halyk said that the council had “run by the seat of its pants for the previous three years,” pointing out that the council had to scramble to deal with the closure of the Eurocan paper plant and didn’t deal with it very well and said that was one reason he was standing for mayor.

Council then voted to release redacted copies of the reports, with one member, Mario Feldhoff, voting against, the rest, including Mayor Monaghan, voted in favour.

It was not the first time that demands for confidentiality have been raised in Kitimat. During the June National Energy Board hearings on the Kitimat LNG project, counsel for the KM LNG partners, Gordon Nettleton, requested that the project be exempt from certain NEB disclosure requirements to satisfy the stricter confidentiality demands from Asian natural gas customers, a request that the NEB granted in its decision.

So, in effect, when the Asian LNG rush began last spring after the Japanese earthquake, Monaghan, whose practices and personality did sometimes cause tensions with the rest of the council, was getting demands from potential industries that could locate in Kitimat, to follow Asian, not North American customs for non disclosure of information prior to the announcement of any final deal. Members of council were excluded when standard practice meant they should have been in the loop.

Two of the many reasons for are:

One is that Asian companies generally have to disclose less information to the public than North American companies, unless they are publicly listed in the United States and thus subject to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.
The second is the long time custom of not disclosing a potential deal in case if fails and the parties loose face.

The longer term problem, beyond the personality conflicts on the District of Kitimat Council, which may or may not be solved by the upcoming election, is whose transparency practices Kitimat should follow, North American or East Asian, the seller (Kitimat and its port) or the buyer (China and Japan)?

For legal reasons, it may be that Kitimat will have to follow Canadian transparency rules in future dealings.

At very least, if there is any money left in the consulting budget, the new council should probably hire yet another consultant, one who can advise the members on business practices in China, Japan and the rest of East Asia, a subject they didn’t need to know much about a year ago, but is now vital to Kitimat’s future.

Joint Review media analysis Part two: Postmedia and The Great American Energy Conspiracy

In her column in The Calgary Herald, Nov 4, 2011 aimed at making the Northern Gateway Joint Review process quick, efficient and excluding a lot of people who want to make oral comments pro-pipeline columnist Deborah Yedlin raises once again what is a big deal for the mostly conservative Postmedia columnists. (See Part One of this analysis: Calgary Herald columnist advocates curbing free speech on Northern Gateway Hearings)

It could be called ” The Great American Energy Conspiracy,” which has apparently now gone international since a tiny minority of those wishing to give oral comments to the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel are not only from the United States, but from the United Kingdom and even Germany. Yedlin doesn’t want non-Canadians (at least non-Canadian environmentalists, no mention of oil executives flying up from Houston) to give oral testimony at the Joint Review Panel.

So where does this conspiracy originate? It was uncovered from the research by blogger Vivian Krause, who has detailed all the contributions made by US-based foundations to support environmental issues in Canada, especially on the bitumen sands, protecting the coastline and salmon farming.

Several Postmedia columnists, including Yedlin, go completely ballistic over this issue, quoting Krause as saying, in effect: How dare these foreigners interfere in a Canadian issue
(They don’t actually use the term foreigners)

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Sea Change Foundation and San Francisco Oak Foundation. She will show you how these organizations have heavily funded the opposition to the oilsands in Canada.

To wit: a tax return filed for 2009 by Sea Change indicates $2 million was given to the Tides Foundation to be used for “promoting awareness and opposition to oilsands.”

(I should note here that Postmedia’s reporters continue with generally fair and accurate coverage of the pipeline issues, although the chain as a whole tends to tilt in favour of the energy industry)

Yedlin goes on to say

the involvement, nay, interference, by U.S. foundations in the development of Canada’s natural resources constitutes a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement or of Canadian economic sovereignty.

Were the shoe on the other foot, and Canadian organizations were sending money to U.S. environmental concerns opposing development of, say, shale gas reserves, it’s a good bet steps would be taken in short order to shut it down.

Really?

Has the United States taken any steps to stop the millions of dollars Canadian corporations are spreading along Washington’s lobbying central, K Street, not to mention throughout the six western mountain and southern states the Keystone XL pipeline will cross, to promote that proposed pipeline?

Is the United States objecting to Ambassador Gary Doer crisscrossing the United States until he will equal George Clooney’s character in Up in the Air, building up frequent flier points lobbying in favour of the bitumen sands and cross continent pipelines?

Yedlin’s statement is the height of hypocrisy. For conservative columnists in Canada, it is unacceptable for American foundations to support the groups concerned environmental issues and opposing the bitumen sands. Yet apparently there is nothing wrong for Canadian companies to spend millions of dollars to lobby the United States on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline:

The Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 20, 2011 that

In the past two years, TransCanada Corp. which is seeking to build the $7-billion pipeline, has spent over $1.5-million on U.S. federal lobbyists, and even more in individual states like Nebraska, where opposition has been the most vocal. That’s in addition to the money it has poured into advertising campaigns, which include a current print, TV and online effort in Washington, D.C., aimed at persuading decision makers that the pipeline will help “real Americans.”

TransCanada has been joined by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), which has marshalled the considerable connections of Gordon Giffin and David Wilkins, both former U.S. ambassadors to Canada, to press the case for the pipeline and the Alberta oil sands. The American Petroleum Institute has banded together with the Laborers International Union of North America to feed union workers and ferry them to public meetings, clothe them in orange shirts and ask them to make the case for the pipeline.

Now, of course, the United States is taking some action, with the Inspector General of the State Department investigating possible undue influence by TransCanada, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

The U.S. State Department’s Inspector-General on Monday launched a conflict-of-interest review of the pipeline’s permitting process to examine “the Department of State’s handling of the Environmental Impact Statement and National Interest Determination for TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL permit process.”

The Inspector-General review comes after a request by several powerful U.S. senators, who questioned the impartiality of Cardno Entrix, the consultant hired to conduct the Keystone XL permitting process. Cardno Entrix has listed TransCanada as one of its major clients, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.

TransCanada denies any wrong doing and told the Globe

… spokesman James Millar welcomed the Inspector-General’s review “so that these latest claims by professional activists and lawmakers who are adamantly opposed to our pipeline project can be addressed.”

“At TransCanada, we conduct ourselves with integrity and in an open and transparent manner,” he wrote. “We are certain that the conclusion of this review will reflect that.”

Note that the Inspector General is not investigating the money that Canadian corporations and the Canadian government is showering on the United States, but the fact that a company that had worked for TransCanada was reviewing the company’s plans for the State Department. Is it just “professional activists and lawmakers” who perceive that as a conflict of interest?

In her column Yedlin says one of the foundations Krause has “exposed” has lobbied against Keystone.

Sea Change was apparently a signatory to a letter signed by 251 environmental organizations and sent to the U.S. State Department asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Just what is going on here? Sea Change is, as Krause and Yedlin point out, an American foundation. Now these two object to an American foundation lobbying the US Secretary of State on the issue of a bitumen sands pipeline crossing United States territory. Huh?

Why? Apparently this is all a giant conspiracy to cripple the Canadian energy economy:

it’s hard not to wonder if some of what is going on vis-a-vis Northern Gateway in particular is a (not so) veiled attempt by the U.S. foundations to ensure there is a wide differential between the continental North American price of oil price and the world price.

After all, low oil prices are better for the U.S. economy than are higher prices and what better way to do this than by cloaking oneself in an environmental cape?

So American environmental foundations, worried about the effects of a giant oil spill along our mutual coast, are secretly in the pocket of the American energy companies. Quick call Dan Brown and hire a boat to look for a Da Vinci Code among the petroglyphs along the cliffs of the Inside Passage and rocks on the shores of Douglas Channel.

Then there’s the issue of Chinese investment in the bitumen sands and various pipeline projects. Some of those millions of yuan will surely make their way into the lobbying funds used by Canadian energy companies. Apparently there’s nothing wrong with China having its hand in Canada’s natural resources, as long as they’re sending money to energy companies and not to environmental groups.

No conspiracy, just more hypocrisy.