Russian sail training ship tracks Japanese tsunami debris crossing the Pacific

Environment Oceans

591-palada.jpgThe Russian sail training vessel STS Pallada. (Pallada)

Ever since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated parts of northeastern Japan, scientists have been using computer models to track the debris that was swept out to sea by the waves.

Now a Russian sail training vessel has found the debris in mid-Pacific nearing Midway Island.

The STS Pallada was on a sail training mission when the officers and crew became aware of the computer models created by the International Pacific Research Center  at the University of Hawai at Manoa. So on its way home from Honolulu to Vladivostok the ship went looking for the debris.

The IPRC has now posted some excerpts from the Pallada’s log, as transmitted by  Natalia Borodina, the Pallada Information and Education mate.

Sept.  22 in position 31.42.21 N and 174.45.21 E we picked up on board the Japanese fishing boat.  Radioactivity normal, we’ve checked it with the Geiger counter. At approaches to the mentioned position  (maybe 10-15 minutes before)  we also sighted a TV set, fridge and a couple of home appliances.

Sept. 27 We keep sighting every day things  like wood boards, plastic bottles, buoys from fishing nets (small and big ones). an object resembling a wash basin, other wastes.  All these objects are floating by the ship.

With the data provided by the Pallada, the scientists in Hawaii are reviving the computer models of the debris drift.  They expect the debris to reach Midway sometime this winter. Some debris  will  reach the main Hawaiian Islands and eventually the west coast of North America.

593-mapdebris-thumb-500x273-592.jpgA map of the tsunami debris field by Nikolai  Maximenko and Jan Hafner of  IPRC. The line shows the track of the Pallada where the debris was spotted between  Sept. 21 and Sept. 28, 2011. The red rhombus (diamond)  marks the location where the Japanese boat  was found. The red circle  denotes maximum debris density spotted by the Pallada. The purple shows the extent of the debris field from the updated university computer model as of Sept. 25. Click for larger image. (IPRC)

595-recovery.jpgThe crew of the Pallada hoists on board a Japanese boat, registered in Fukishima prefecture, and presumably washed out to sea during the March 11, 2011 tsunami. (Pallada)

IPRC/ Pallada news release  (pdf)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Kitimat takes halibut fight to BC municipal convention

Environment Fishery

528-rowland_halyk2.jpg

District of Kitimat councillor Randy Halyk, seen here at the local Jack Layton memorial on August 27, 2011, will be defending Kitimat’s resolution on halibut quotas at the Union of BC Municipalities convention.   (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Kitimat is taking the fight over halibut allocation to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention to be held in Vancouver September 26 to September 30.

The resolution is one of two that the union will consider on the halibut controversry, the other comes from the Capital District on Vancouver Island,

Members of the District of Kitimat council will be at the convention to sponsor and defend the resolution.

The Kitimat resolution calls on the union to endorse:

Whereas the current federal allocation of the sustainable Pacific halibut resource is insufficient to provide reasonable catch and possession limits for the recreational and commercial sport fishery;

And whereas an increase in daily catch and possession limits would be of great benefit in attracting sports fishing tourists to coastal communities.

Therefore be it resolved that the UBCM support an increase in the allocation of the sustainable Pacific halibut resource to the sport fishing and requests that the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans increase the catch limits to two per day and four in possession.

 

 The Kitimat resolution was endorsed by the North Central Local Government Association

 The overall province wide resolutions committee gave no recommendation on the Kitimat resolution saying it wasn’t clear what impact the resolution would have on the sports fishing industry. The committee added a note to the agenda that in 2010 members of the UBCM did endorse a resolution that requested the provincial and federal governments support both the commercial fishing industry and the sports fishing industry equitably as they are both critical economic generators for residents within the province.

The resolutions committee notes that British Columbia did express “support for the sustainability of both commercial and recreational fisheries in tidal waters.” The province apparently “highlighted a number of its activities related to ensuring fisheries sustainability and maximizing the economic and social benefits.”

The somewhat stronger resolution from the Capital Region did not receive an endorsement from the Association of Vancouver and Coast Communities and a “no recommendation” from the province wide resolution committee. That resolution says, in part that the allocation between the recreational and commercial sectors in the Canadian halibut fishery during years of low abundance will destroy the economic viability of coastal communities and deny Canadian citizens access to the common property resource of halibut.

It calls for a “more fair and equitable approach that would allow the recreational and commercial fishing industries to survive during years of low annual quotas,” it calls for the federal government to purchase or lease halibut quota from the commercial sector (rather than having the recreational sector purchase individually as the current Department of Fisheries and Oceans “pilot project” calls for) so that the recreational sector has a “permanent base limit,” that the season be guaranteed from February 1 to December 1 each year and that the limit be one halibut per day, two in possession. (The Department of Fisheries and Oceans stopped the recreational halibut season as of midnight Sept. 15 while allowing the commercial season to continue).

 

Encana optimistic about natural gas exports, others cautious: CP

Energy Link

Ecana, one of the partners in the KM LNG (Kitimat LNG) is optimistic about prospects for liquified natural gas exports from the west coast of British Columbia, Canadian Press reports from a conference in Calgary.

Encana sees renaissance in natural gas, while others more bearish on prospects

Laurgen Krugel reports

Encana Corp. foresees a “renaissance” in natural gas prices once
terminals begin to pop up along the West Coast to export the fuel to
energy-hungry Asian markets, but others addressing an energy conference
on Tuesday weren’t quite so enthusiastic.

“We think that the prices are going to stay robust in Asia.
You look today in Japan, it’s still US$13 (per 1,000 cubic feet) over
there,” Mike Graham, who heads up Encana’s Canadian division, told the
Peters & Co. event….

John Langille, vice-chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. said he’s not quite so gung-ho….

:Canadian Natural has a large land position in northeastern B.C.’s shales, but has been focusing most of its attention on developing oil- properties in Western Canada and abroad. It has signalled no interest so far in jumping aboard the LNG bandwagon, though Langille said eventually the gas will have to find its way out of North America.

“And that will happen, but it’s a five-year scenario before that happens,” he said.

Edmonton region council backs Northern Gateway, but wants Alberta jobs

Energy Link

Capital Region Board to lobby for Northern Gateway pipeline

Edmonton radio station 880 News reports:

Mayors and reeves from the greater Metro Edmonton area are throwing some political weight behind the idea of a pipeline to the west coast.
 
But, there’s a catch to the proposal of the Northern Gateway.

“Don’t ship all of our bitumen out,” said Coun. Ed Gibbons during a break in Thursday’s meeting Capital Region Board meeting. “Let’s have value added, so we want to look at more upgraders into the future.

National Geographic Spirit Bear article bypasses Kitimat, lowering credibility

The August 2011 issue of National Geographic is bringing welcome worldwide attention to the National Geographic lovernorthwest coast of British Columbia and the issue of  the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the plan to ship oil sands bitumen to Asia through Kitimat.

There are two articles,  “The Wildest Place in North America, Land of the Spirit Bear,” an excellent article which introduces much of the world to the beauty of  the white Kermode Spirit Bear and “Pipeline through Paradise,” which unfortunately is a superficial sidebar and in one case glaringly inaccurate.

As might be expected, the initial reaction from the environmental movement was euphoric,  beautiful images of the Spirit Bear, the coast and the mountains, a detailed look at the ecology of the Great Bear Rainforest and the white bear’s place in the forest  which is little known outside this region.  (A couple of years ago, I was speaking to some local aboriginal carvers and engravers in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who were fascinated by what little I knew about the Spirit Bear–they had never heard of it).

The second article, “Pipeline through Paradise” has also drawn praise from many people who oppose the pipeline.

As also might be expected, Enbridge was not so happy.  Company spokesman Paul Stanway told the Edmonton Journal

“We spent a lot of time and effort with National Geographic, and in the end they didn’t say very much about the information we provided,” spokesman Paul Stanway said.
“They were given extensive information about the safety features we would employ along the pipeline route and the maritime portion….”

In the Prince Rupert Northern View, Stanway also questioned the National Geographic’s editorial process.

The company says that its “not disappointed by what’s in the article, more by what is not said in the article,” meaning that while the National Geographic spent weeks doing interviews and fact-checking with Enbridge, the magazine decided to leave most arguments out of the story.

National Geographic, quite rightly, has the editorial mission of alerting the world to environmental dangers that much of the media either ignore or dismiss as boogeymen.  The magazine bases its articles on sound science and, within that parameter, is fair to all sides of an issue. .

It’s unfortunate that the National Geographic’s  normally high editorial standards are not present in Barcott’s pipeline article.   While “he-said-he-said, tell-both-sides” journalism often obscures real issues, especially in this era of professional spin,  Enbridge does have a point, the company is given short shrift in the story with just one quote.

Even worse is one glaring error that will certainly call into question the credibility of the entire article (especially among proponents of the pipeline), where Barcott says “The government has already approved a fleet of liquified natural gas  tankers to call at nearby Kitimat in 2015.” an error that may be repeated on the magazine’s maps of the proposed bitumen and natural gas pipelines.

 

While the arcane approval process of the National Energy Board may be confusing to many in the public, it is the job of journalists to figure it out.  It should have been  very easy for the National Geographic fact checkers to discover that NEB has not yet approved the export licence for the KM LNG project. In fact, the NEB hearings in Kitimat only began on June 6, 2011. Given the deadlines and printing processes for a high quality magazine like National Geographic, it is highly likely that the article was ready for the presses even before the June 6 hearings began.  While the Pacific Trail  gas pipeline has had approval by a BC provincial environmental review, (so the map is technically correct but given the article one has to wonder if the accuracy is inadvertant)  there could be no terminal at Kitimat (even though it is under construction) nor the “a fleet of liquified natural gas  tankers” until NEB grants the export licence and the NEB can, if it wishes, put conditions on the export licence that could govern how those tankers operate.

While it is expected that the NEB will grant the licence, jumping the editorial gun is not recommended for any journalist.

The other  critical flaw in the article can be seen in Stanway’s comment to the Edmonton Journal, which permits Enbridge to dismiss the concerns of the people of Kitimat and back along the pipeline route.
(Emphasis is mine)

“We don’t believe tankers going in and out of Douglas channel (between Kitimat and the ocean) would interfere with that in any way, since Kitimat is outside the Great Bear area,” Stanway said.

The background to the National Geographic article is familiar to nature photographers, probably less so the general public.  Last year,  in early September, the International League of Conservation Photographers, which includes some of the best nature photographers in the world came to shoot  along the coast of the Great Bear Rainforest.

Stanways statement is just what I  was worried would happen when I first heard about the Great Bear photo project last fall

Here is how ILCP describes why they came

The International League of Conservation Photographers (iLCP) has teamed up with Pacific WILD, the Gitga’at First Nation of British Columbia, LightHawk, TidesCanada, Save our Seas Foundation, Sierra Club BC, and the Dogwood initiative to carry out a Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition (RAVE) in the Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia. We are focusing our energy and cameras on this pristine region in response to plans by several large multinational companies to build a pipeline for heavy crude oil from the Alberta tar sands across British Columbia to the coast of the Great Bear Rainforest.

The 14-day expedition to the Great Bear Rainforest called upon 7 world-renowned photographers and 3 videographers to thoroughly document the region’s landscapes, wildlife, and culture. The RAVE provided media support to the First Nations and environmental groups seeking to stop the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline project (and thus expansion of the tar sands) and to expose the plan to lift the oil tanker ship moratorium.

ILCP was basically piggy-backing on the years of campaigning to save the Great Bear Rainforest, a perfectly legitimate strategy.

Along with a couple of film companies, National Geographic was one of the media sponsors of the trip to the Great Bear which, according to the ILCP website, took place form September 1 to September 12. Another sponsor was the  King Pacific Lodge. All the sponsors had legitimate conservation concerns along the coast, but there were no inland sponsors or First Nations involved.

It is perfectly true that the coastal First Nations and the Great Bear Rainforest are the most threatened by any potential spill from a bitumen carrying tanker. As Frank Brown, of the Hielsuk First Nation at Bella Bella, said at the rally outside the NEB hearings in Kitimat last August 31, his people “risk everything and gain nothing” from the pipeline project and the tankers. The coast won’t even get the handful of jobs that will come to Kitimat.

The ILCP trip appears to have an unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen consequence that is echoed in the National Geographic articles and in that statement by Enbridge’s Stanway  “since Kitimat is outside the Great Bear area,”  the Douglas Channel, including its estuaries, Kitimat, Kitimat River and the areas to the east all the way back to the Rockies are less important than the Great Bear Forest itself.
Both the ILCP campaign and now likely the National Geographic article are apparently already creating the idea that  Great Bear Forest is the only major pipeline related environmental issue in this region.

That was certainly was the impression I got last spring when I attended the North American Nature Photographers Association convention in Texas.  Everyone at the conference had heard about the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Most people seemed to know there was a town called Kitimat but they knew little more and knew nothing about Douglas Channel or the wild mountains to the east along the pipeline route.  Everyone talked just about Great Bear. While some of the photographers at the NANPA convention affiliated with the ILCP were interested and enthusiastic about a Kitimat or wider BC perspective on the story, one well known and highly talented photographer who was part of the ILCP Rave and had been down in the Great Bear, when I brought up in a conversation Douglas Channel, the Gilttoyees and Foch, rather rudely told me I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Now it is perfectly legitimate and even valuable if the ILCP wants to focus on the Great Bear Rainforest,  photographing the remaining pristine regions of the world is their mandate.

It should also be noted that one ILCP associate photographer, Neil Ever Osborne,  has spent the summer flying over the route of the pipeline, capturing magnificent aerials.

The long term  problem is that National Geographic and ILCP are likely setting the media agenda. Most media organizations, if interested, but limited by shrinking budgets, overworked editors and lazy, greedy management will follow their lead and just report on the Great Bear Rainforest and ignore the rest of northern BC. It’s not just Kitimat that is beyond the Great Bear boundaries, and is being ignored, Haida Gwaii is also outside the Great Bear and could be damaged by an oil spill.

When it comes to journalism, there is no excuse for National Geographic. Although the society doesn’t have the almost unlimited  budgets they had in past decades, the National Geographic Society still has a lot more money than most journalistic organizations.  If the National Geographic was going to do a story on the Northern Gateway pipeline, why did its reporter stick strictly to the Great Bear area?

Let’s look at the dates. According to ILCP, the Great Bear photo shoot began on September 1 and ended on September 12.  The National Energy Board’s first community hearings on the pipeline were in Kitimat on August 31, a fact well known across the region and well publicized by the NEB. Enbridge had scheduled a public meeting in Kitimat on September  22.  That meeting was widely advertised in local media across the region and promoted on Enbridge’s website.

I covered the hearings on August 31 and the rally outside. Apart from a couple of activist documentary producers who were filming the hearings,  the only reporters who attended were based in here in Kitimat (while First Nations representatives from the coast and inland did attend both the hearings and the demonstration)  On September 22, only the three locally based reporters, including myself, showed up for the Enbridge community briefing.

(National Geographic is not only the other media at fault. With a couple of exceptions, reporters from the PostMedia chain  and other Canadian media continue to cover Kitimat from their desks in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.)

If the assignment editors at National Geographic  had had the vision to  widen the focus beyond the Great Bear, or if Barcott had bothered to look beyond the British Columbia coast, he could have come to Kitimat on August 31 for the NEB hearings, the day before the ILCP shoot began or, after the shoot,  he could have stuck around for another 10 days for the Enbridge presentation.

At the September 22 meeting, Enbridge officials outlined their plans and their planned precautions.  Some local people, people with knowledge of the Channel, and men from the RTA  aluminum smelter who asked highly technical questions about pipeline metal and pipeline construction, challenged Enbridge on those plans. Covering either event would have created an article that would have met the  editorial objections that Enbridge has raised.

A trip up Douglas Channel, a trip into the mountains the pipeline will cross, a visit to Smithers and the Bulkley Valley, (even if the article didn’t cover all the way east to Alberta)   would not left the unfortunate and mistaken impression that the only part of this world that counts is the Great Bear Rainforest.

A little more knowledge of the complexity of the issue, which could have been gained by speaking to NEB officials in August,  would not have allowed the error about the approval of the LNG projects to make it into print.

Barcott could not only have seen a lot more of this region. he could have attended the hearings or the public meeting and would have produced a far more accurate, credible and nuanced article.

KitimatNGS1956_2.jpgThe last time National Geographic visited Kitimat was in 1956, with a major article when Kitimat was considered a town of the future, 55 years ago.   Perhaps, in the interests of  journalistic accuracy and credibility, National Geographic should come back before 2066.

 

Map of LNG sea routes from Canada to Asia

Editor’s note:  As the result of feedback on this article, I should note that I am not singling out the environmental movement nor nature photographers.  While the energy companies directly involved in both pipeline projects are offering various incentives to the communities involved including Kitimat, as a whole, the Alberta oil patch keeps talking about Kitimat as their gateway
and their key to Canadian prosperity. The majority of Albertans pushing the projects will never come here and will never have to deal with the consequences of any problems. The energy industry has to realize that people who live here want good, sustainable jobs and to use the income from those jobs to enjoy the region’s magnificent wilderness.  The solution is for a wider viewpoint of the issues from the BC coast to northern Alberta.  Whatever position a journalist takes on the issues, don’t keep ignoring the town and port of Kitimat, the apex of the story.  (For example, this page was tweeted as I was writing this, a social media site for “professionals” discusses the Kitimat LNG project solely from the point of view of energy industry consultants.)

Related links
Indian Country Media Network:  Gitga’at and Spirit Bear Grace National Geographic’s August Cover
CTV Anti-pipeline lobby praises National Geographic story

Canadian Business (Canadian Press) National Geographic calls Northern Gateway a pipeline through paradise

Editorial: Joe Oliver twice dangerous prejudgement

Editorial
Originally published July 22, 2011


Twice in as many days this week, the new Conservative Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, has  prejudged the outcome of  National Energy Board hearings on both pipeline projects that could be built to the port of Kitimat, the Enbridge Northern Gateway  which would carry oil sands bitumen and the KM LNG project which would carry natural gas for liquefaction at a Kitimat terminal.

So we have a minister of the Crown, who will have influence around a cabinet table, once the NEB conclusions are presented to the “Governor in Council,” making it clear that he has already made up his mind on the issues.

The National Energy Board hearings are “quasi-judicial,” that is they have a special legal status and as people who attended the hearings know, special legal procedures, so that the board can fulfill the mandate from Parliament that the board decide whether or not an energy project is in the Canadian “public interest.”

If NEB hearings were full legal proceedings before a court, no cabinet minister would dare to make a public prejudgement. (“It’s before the courts”)  But the NEB and oil and gas, of course, are different, the quasi in quasi-judicial opens the door to allow Joe Oliver to say what he thinks, likely before even being fully briefed.

Oliver has already as widely reported, said his government supports the project. “Gateway in our opinion is in the national interest,” he said.

National interest. Public interest.  Same thing. A clear message to the (supposedly independent)  National Energy Board.

Then today, as widely reported on energy industry tweets (but not so far in the mainstream media) Oliver was interviewed  the subscription only  Platts LNG Daily  and the tweets quote the Platt’s report as saying “Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said that he expects the National Energy Board to approve the 20-year LNG export license sought by Kitimat LNG this upcoming fall. Minister Oliver noted that this license would be the first for exporting natural gas to a market outside the United States.”

The NEB hearings on KM LNG just wrapped up last week.  Again we have the minister prejudging the issue.

Could this be a rookie MP and rookie cabinet minister making rookie mistakes (he hasn’t been briefed fully on how his ministry works?), after all according to his official profile on the Parliament of Canada website, Oliver has just  (as of this writing)  81 Days (2 months, 21 days) of federal service?

For a rookie, Oliver has had a very high profile in the past few weeks.  (In contrast, we’ve hardly heard a peep out of  another star Conservative rookie, former cop Julian Fantino, since he took his seat in the Commons).

Given Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tight control of the cabinet and what cabinet ministers have said during the minority years, it is clear that Oliver would not be making these statements without the approval of  the prime minister himself.

First came Oliver’s July 14 interview with Bloomberg,

Oliver, in a telephone interview with Bloomberg News, said he plans a global campaign to challenge “exaggerated rhetoric” about the environmental impact of Alberta’s oil sands. Canada also must build new markets for its oil, which is now shipped primarily to the U.S., he said.

A few days later,  Oliver made it clear he wants to streamline the regulatory process, cut out the red tape,  as reported in the Calgary Herald

Oliver said Thursday the country needs better regulation of proposed projects considered to be of national interest, including pipelines and natural gas liquefaction and export facilities for the West Coast.
He said he wants to reduce duplication between jurisdictions through a “one-project, one-review” process of projects to grow energy markets in North America and Asia, including Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship bitumen from the oilsands to B.C.’s West Coast, and TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oilsands production to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
“You don’t undermine regulatory independence, necessarily, by putting time frames on decisions,” Oliver said. “There’s got to be checks and balances, but I think we can do more to avoid duplication and think about mechanisms to tighten up the time to do fulsome reviews.”

So much for the ordinary people who live along the pipeline routes, most of whom are not familiar and not always able to understand the procedures in hearings that have been the home for years of high-priced energy lawyers from Canada’s major law firms.

Then came the energy minister’s meeting in Alberta, where along with the idea that  Enbridge Northern Gateway is in the “national interest” (the spin that Enbridge has been using for the past several months)  Oliver agreed with Alberta Energy Minister Ron Lieper’s contention that Canada should become an “energy superpower” with Enbridge as a keystone, as reported in the Edmonton Journal (reprinted in the Vancouver Sun)

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert said Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway heavy crude pipeline between the Edmonton area and Kitimat, B.C., called a key export link to Asia, would benefit from a national policy.
Northern Gateway is going through National Energy Board hearings starting in January, Liepert said Tuesday at the conclusion of the two-day national energy summit held in Kananaskis Country.
“I would presume before September of next fall that we can work as governments to ensure that the federal cabinet can expedite that decision because, ultimately, it will be a federal cabinet decision.”
Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the [ministers’ national energy] plan’s collaborative approach “implies agreement to exploit resources in a socially and environmentally responsible way for all Canadians.”
He said that “Asia is a growing market and China, in particular, is the biggest consumer of energy in the world, so we are supportive of the Gateway project because it will open up exports.”

British Columbia did not send a minister to the meeting but officials did sign the final agreement.

Let’s make it clear, the Harper government does have a majority and any government should be free to follow the policies that it believes it was elected to implement. Stephen Harper  has pushing the idea of an “energy superpower” for years.

What is not acceptable, however, is for Oliver and the  Harper government to treat the LNG hearings that just concluded and the upcoming Northern Gateway hearings as a something the government can ignore because Conservatives already know what the “national interest” is. That is for the NEB panel to discover.  Of course, the government is free to disagree, after the hearings and after the final report and recommendations.

Oliver’s prejudgement is not fair to the people of northern and northwestern British Columbia who have genuine concerns about the environmental  consequences of the pipelines and the tankers.

Nor is this prejudgement fair to the energy industry (and the stockholders of companies like Enbridge, Apache, Encana and EOG)  who have spent millions of dollars for environmental impact studies and millions more in planning to make the projects as safe as their engineers can make it (within the need of those companies to make a profit).

(It should be noted that there seems to be growing support in the northwest for the LNG projects but growing opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway)

Enbridge has identified environmental hazards on both the pipeline route and in the waters of   British Columbia and come up with what the company believes are solutions.  Those hazards and the proposed solutions were explained publicly at town meetings in Kitimat and documents are available on the Joint Review website.

Those who oppose the Northern Gateway project say those hazard studies and proposed solutions are inadequate.

It is doubtful that Oliver has even had a summary briefing of the problems that Enbridge has identified. Would Enbridge be willing to spend millions of dollars on tunnels and bridges across the mountains of British Columbia and install navigation aides along Douglas Channel and the Inside Passage if  the environmental concerns were just “exaggerated rhetoric?’

A lot of people in the northwest region already believe that the Joint Review hearings are a sham, that the Enbridge pipeline will be approved by the cabinet  no matter what testimony the board hears both in the community hearings in January and the formal hearings later in 2012 and no matter what recommendations the board panel may make to cabinet. Oliver’s statements this week tend to confirm this belief.

One has to wonder, whether  supporters or opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, if all the money being budgeted for these hearings is being well spent in this time of restraint if the outcome is preordained: the  millions of dollars allocated by the government for the hearings, millions more from Enbridge’s treasury,  hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by intervenors and hundreds or even thousands of dollars scrimped and saved by those who make oral statements. Then there are the thousands of hours of research and study by Enbridge,  thousands of hours of research and legal work by the National Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment agency staff, tens of thousands of billable hours by all the lawyers, hours of work by individuals, whether they oppose or support the project,  who give up their time to craft an intervention or an oral statement.

It is entirely likely the Joint Review Panel will make every effort to come a to a fair and equitable decision.

The Joint Review Panel has to decide in the interests of all Canadians, which means the interests of northern British Columbia are only part of the decision. The current campaign by Enbridge that the pipeline is a new national challenge to join the country together like the nineteenth century railways, looks like it is aimed at the “all Canadians”  mandate of the NEB panel.

Here is where Oliver’s prejudgment of  the issues before NEB panels,  especially when he said the Enbridge project is in “the national interest”  is another blow to Canadian democratic  tradition.  This shouldn’t be ideological.  Once, not so long ago, Conservatism meant respecting traditions,  especially the hundreds of years of parliamentary and legal traditions we inherited from Great Britain. Canada then developed  a Canadian version of that tradition.  As Canadians have seen, Stephen Harper and the cabinet members around him have no respect for those traditions. The NEB hearings, decisions by other independent bodies,  appear to be an inconvenience, just as a sitting parliament was an inconvenience at the time of the two prorogations of  parliament.

That Joint Review decision, if it is against the pipeline,  is not binding on the Harper government, which clearly over the past years has shown a pro-Alberta, pro-oil sands and anti-environment bias.  The governor in council, the cabinet,  as is well known, is dominated by  Stephen Harper, who does not tolerate dissent.

Given the NEB mandate, there is a good chance that the pipeline will be approved, but likely with contingents and limitations that take into consideration the concerns of northern British Columbia.

In the final analysis, after all this, after millions of dollars, lifetimes of work, hours of hearings and deliberation, the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline and those inconvenient considerations will be made by  just one  man, Stephen Harper,  who is unlikely to attend a single hearing, read a transcript or study the millions of pages of evidence. Joe Oliver’s media blitz in the past two weeks has already shown how the prime minister and cabinet think, the Enbridge pipeline must go ahead despite all the potential dangers. The outcome has already been prejudged.  (As noted earlier there is much less opposition to the LNG projects across the northwest, but once again it is clear that the Harper government is prejudging the outcome and the NEB decision on the LNG terminal).

Before supporters cheer and the opponents lament, that very arbitrary nature of a cabinet decision by the current government, dominated by the current Prime Minister, the fact the NEB hearings could likely be seen as a worthless sham, will also likely mean court and possibly other challenges, challenges that could last for years.

Sham NEB hearings, prejudged by the Joe Oliver, Stephen Harper and the rest of  the cabinet, will  be just as disastrous for the energy companies as it will be for the environmental movement, especially in today’s polarized world where compromise is often impossible.

The energy companies probably do really believe these pipelines are a
new national dream, not a national nightmare and their environmental
safeguards will meet the test. But if the Joint Review hearings are seen as worthless, then statements and policies by the energy companies will also be seen as worthless far beyond the “activists” in the environmental movement.

The pipeline must cross the traditional territory of many First Nations, most of whom have not agreed to Enbridge’s terms and some who say they oppose the Enbridge pipeline.  The role of First Nations could also mean, at the very least,  many court challenges.

The first accident during the  construction process, and there will be accidents, or a tanker accident on the coast, and there will be tanker accidents on the coast, even if unrelated to Enbridge, will mean headlines,  demonstrations, questions in the Commons, more time in court.

It would have been better if Joe Oliver, Stephen Harper and their colleagues had kept an open mind on the issue until all the facts, opinions and options had been independently examined by the Joint Review Panel.  But as on other contentious issues, unfortunately, the Conservatives appear to have already decided the outcome.

So if events unfold as it appears they will unfold,  a decade or more from now, a  final decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline may end up in the hands of Canada’s judiciary, an arm that is, for the moment, independent of the government, with a decision coming perhaps  after Stephen Harper has retired as Prime Minister, and Joe Oliver has returned to Bay Street.

Then once the case is concluded,  all the work done for the Joint Review Panel hearings, will be shipped to Library and Archives Canada in Gatineau, to gather dust until,  in another decade  or two, someone can write their Phd dissertation on what went wrong.

Editorial: Joe Oliver’s twice dangerous prejudgement

Energy
Link to Editorial

Joe Oliver’s twice dangerous prejudgement

 Twice in as many days this week, the new Conservative Minister of
Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, has  prejudged the outcome of  National
Energy Board hearings on both pipeline projects that could be built to
the port of Kitimat, the Enbridge Northern Gateway  which would carry
oil sands bitumen and the KM LNG project which would carry natural gas
for liquefaction at a Kitimat terminal.

Douglas Channel Watch wins best float in Kitimat Canada Day parade

454-Rowland_Canada Day parade 019.jpg

(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
The environmental group Douglas Channel Watch won the award for the best overall float in the Kitimat Canada Day parade on July 1, 2011.
None of the energy companies involved in the region had a float in the parade.

Tar Sands Express – Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline or the Railway? Watershed Sentinel

Watershed Sentinel

As billionaires invest in the railways and oil tanker traffic skyrockets along the BC coast, it looks as though the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline may have been a ruse all along  – a classic “bait and switch” – with a number of PR payoff ….

 By autumn 2008, CN Rail approached the Alberta government with its plan to move tar sands oil.  Alberta’s Energy Minister at the time, Mel Knight, told Dow Jones Newswire that CN and his government have had “very good meetings,” with CN believing that it could eventually transport 400,000 barrels per day from eastern Alberta to the West Coast of Canada. 

Just six months later, CN was estimating that it could transport 2.6 million barrels per day to the West Coast if 20,000 railcars were added to its fleet.
On April 15, 2009, the Financial Post’s Diane Francis reported that CN “will deliver the oil sands production through the use of insulated and heatable railcars or by reducing its viscosity by mixing it with condensates or diluents. The ‘scalability’ of the concept – up to millions of barrels per day – means that the railway can ramp up production cheaply and quickly to provide immediate cash flow to producers which otherwise will have to wait years for completion of upgraders and/or pipelines.

First Nations “manipulated” by Americans on Enbridge: National Post columnist

National Post

Columnist Peter Foster

Northern Gateway is being ostensibly opposed by native groups. The question is how far those groups are being manipulated -and paid -by the green movement. Two weeks ago, aboriginal protestors ululated and banged on their drums outside the Enbridge annual meeting. They have also appeared at bank meetings, including that a few weeks ago of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Edinburgh. They are a permanent fixture at UN climate meetings…. 

And just how many informed natives do the protestors represent? One loud group, the Yinka Dene Alliance, has asserted its unyielding opposition to Northern Gateway, no matter how much training, and how many benefits and jobs, are provided to often desperately poor native communities. However, some observers suggest that the alliance represents only 150 people. According to Enbridge, some support the line, although the company is reluctant to identify them because it doesn’t want to stir potential conflict. This reflects the usual situation in which project proponents find themselves silenced while opponents are free to conspicuously drum their moral outrage….