Haisla voices at the Joint Review Panel: Samuel Robinson

This story presents the unfiltered voices of Haisla chiefs when they testified at the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review hearings on January 10, 2011, at Kitamaat Village, based on the official transcript.  There have been minor edits for clarity.

 

My name is Chief Jassee. My English name is Samuel Robinson. I’m from Beaver Clan;

Samuel Robinson
Samuel Robinson

hereditary Chief of the Haisla Nation. I was born here in Kitamaat Village but spent a lot of my childhood days with my father trapping in Wewanee.

The area is rich with all kinds of food; halibut, cod, mussels and all kinds of seafood. There are a lot of fur-bearing animals. This is why I’m really concerned if this is damaged. In Wewa, we have a hot spring there. The first tub was made by my dad and my uncle George, made out of wood. If there’s any kind of spill that will be damaged.

There is a lot of seafood there. There is still a lot of seafood, I know because I’m owner/operator of a fishing charter business for the last 45 years. There are still a lot of fishing charter boats that depend on fishing in the Douglas Channel. I also watch the commercial fishermen. I know every inch of our territory because I’m out there almost every day in the summertime running my business.

I’ll get back to the head of the Kitimat River; this is where my concern starts.

We used to fish the number one reserve for a fish called eulachons, which is now no more because of pollution in the river for the last 30 years. But the river is not dead yet. The salmon still go up there; that’s why we have to protect it. I know we can’t do much about the eulachons now, but the salmon still go up there.

This is our last resort. Thank you for listening to me.

Up the river, we spend our days there, harvesting eulachons. In my childhood days, you didn’t need a net, you didn’t need hook, and you didn’t need anything. You can pick the eulachons out of the water. In fact you could walk across to the other side. That’s how plentiful it was when we were thriving. No more eulachons.

From the eulachon camp, we follow the river down to Kacla’isaa in my language Kacla is, English, “foot of the river.” There on the left-hand side, you’ll see a rock, a figure of a human being. We call it in my language, kwalach; that means sissy. It was used to teach young children, teenagers, not to run away from enemy but to stand up or else you’ll turn into a rock.

That’s what it is used for, to teach our children. This is what I’m concerned about, if it’s covered up with something. You travel down the same river, foot of the river, about a few lengths down you come to another carving, carving on rocks we call handumatsa in my language. It means bow and arrow, hatweegit. That protects the river; that’s what it’s there for.

And you travel down into the sea you come to my village, and at the point called Raley Point, right outside the south end of Kitamaat Village, there is another carving right down the beach, the figure is of a killer whale. You walk along the beach further to a creek called Wart, another carving is there and it’s carved, the figure is a human face. These are all signals that we were here for a long time.

If you look across the bay, right across the Bish Creek there’s another historic site there. We call it Huntclic in my language. It means targeting area. When the raiders come to raid my village they target in this rock. And the old people used to tell me the story — this is just within 100 years. The shafts of the arrows were sticking out. When the white man came here, they heard of it and went to check it and they found the remains of the arrowheads.

You travel down a little ways more and there’s a rock sticking out, the name of it is Kabat Regat. It’s a historical site too that teaches the young kids about sex and all that, what you’ll turn into if you misuse it. Adultery was a no -no in my village and that’s what this was for, to teach the young kids.

You travel down furthermore, you come to a place called Gilttoyees, a long inlet, and on the south mouth of the river — of the inlet you’ll see paintings, paintings of Indian paint telling who owns that area, who was there. And I’m one of the last ones that can read the signs and it makes me — tears come out of my eyes.

You follow the channel; you come to a place called Foch Lagoon. There was a village there — still there, a historic site too that will be affected by whatever damage. These were half human beings and half animals. It’s recorded in our history. We call it Fochfu in my language.

So these are all the places that I’m really worried about.

And you go further down the channel, we go into the Hartley Bay area, there are big boulders there carved in stone. It’s still there. Now I will tell you what the reason is, why these are carved in a tidal water. Most of it is below low water.

The Chief hired helpers to carve these rocks at low tide so when the raiders come in they will be the first one to spot the raiders and warn the Chief to get away. They were also helpers that carved mid-tide; these were done to warn the Chief, early warning, when the raiders come.

These are all the places that I’m worried about. It’s our history and it’s how we teach our children and our teenagers up till today.

And you go up to the Kitlope, at Kemano Village, at the south end of the village there’s another carving, a carving of a human being, a human face, That’s to protect that village from raiders. You go up to Kitlope, at the mouth of the river you’ll see all kinds of paintings telling who owns that place — we own it.

So these are all the things that I’m worried about. If it’s covered up with oil how are we going to protect ourselves? This is my concern.

And getting back to the sisur rock in the mouth of the water. If we — are we going to protect ourselves or are we all going to turn into stone? I don’t know. I’m happy — I’m hoping that doesn’t happen.

So all my area where I trap, where I trap — my dad’s favourite trap, I own it now. There are an abundance of fish there. There’s halibut, all kind of seafood, all kind of birds, all kind of fur animals.

This is what I’m concerned about, because my people, my family and everybody survived on all these animals. Please help us and hear us so we can continue to live the way we are. We are who we are.

I am the 11th Haimus, hereditary Chief of Kitimaat Village. My name is Jassee. I was born into the bloodline; that is why I’m a chief. I did not choose to be a chief. All our lives my brother and I were trained in the role of responsibility as a leader of the Beaver Clan and the Haisla Nation. It just didn’t happen overnight.

I started my training from my grandmother and mother when I was only
12 years old. I know all the history, laws, ins and out of the Native culture. Probably
I’m the last one. So there, hear me, please.

The transfer of my name was done according to custom tradition of our ancestors. The oldest son of the mother is first in line for the title. When he dies the next oldest brother takes over, the son to be, same bloodline clan as the mother.

My brother Tom — the late Tom Robinson, my brother — held this name before me for 50 years. So if you add all the chiefs together it comes to a lot of numbers.

Our nation is subdivided by a clan system according to your mother’s line. The Beaver Clan, the Raven work together. The Eagle Clan, Fish, Salmon, and Killer Whale, each clan is headed by the chief who acts as their leader and all the directions of Jassee of the Beaver Clan. The major benefit of this system keeps history, maintains law, protects family, divides responsibility and education.

During a trauma, a celebration, a major undertaking all clan members provide comfort and support. We know ourselves, Haisla, which means “People Living at the Foot of the River at the South End.” Haisla means “south.” You know we’re in the north but to the Nass Valley people we’re the south people; that’s why we’re called Haisla.

Later the Tshimshian called us Kitamaat, which means “People of the Snow.” We speak part Kwakuit language. Group of why we understand people from clan too, Bellabella, Alert Bay, Macaw from the United States. Our territory is located approximately centre of the north and south border of the west coast of B.C. We are surrounded by other First Nations.
Our territory includes the land and waters surrounding all of Kitimat River, the Douglas Channel up to including Gardner Canal. We know all these places by Haisla name and by the use of their resources.

In the past, during the mid-winter, our people move over gathering and providing food, making tools, building canoes, drying salmon, digging for clams and cockles, collecting roots, berries, plants, medicine; for many other reasons.

We live here in Kitamaat Village which was used as a winter settlement because of the location from extreme weather conditions. My mother, late mother, Laura, was asked how long we have lived here. She motioned with her thumb and her index finger almost together and said: “Since the trees were this small.” That’s my mother.

Judging from the growth of the spruce tree located near the Kitimat River Oolikan camp Housing Site, we have been here for 1,500 to 2,000 years according to the growth of the tree. Our people have travelled various of locations to harvest food, material, trading with other communities up and down the Coast by dugout canoe.

We also travelled by land through the B.C. interior. For example, our people in Kimaloo area travelled over the mountain to trade our eulachon grease with people living in the B.C. interior. Some married there and some of us still have relations living there.

We know our ancestors travelled up and down the West Coast of what is called now “the United States”. Because of our isolat ion, we had to be self-sufficient, depending our ability to utilize our territory resources: the forest for its plants and animals; the river for its varieties of food, seafood, shell fish and other seafood.

Our main source is the salmon which we preserve by the hundreds for each family for immediate use and winter use. It worries me to think all of these will be lost and destroyed when there is a spill. Mark my word, when there is a spill. Experience shows it will happen.

We have always been taught to take only what we need and to leave the harvest site in the same or better manner, condition, which — when we leave the area. This is a global concern to keep everything clean now.

We always have been a peaceful nation but when it isn’t through discussion and negotiation, when all fails, we went to war to protect our family, our rights, our ownership of food, shelter and safety.

When they made our reservations, our Chiefs had very little education; in fact, couldn’t write or read. But we had one stand-out Chief named Sunre. His name was Johnny Bolton. On September 1st, 1913, the Royal Commission interviewed Kitamaat Indian Chief Sunre. Chief Johnny Bolton made the following statement — Chief Johnny Bolton, this is his words:

“We are troubled about our land. It is not straight to us somehow. It is ours because we were born here, our forefathers before us. We want you to understand it. We want to know how Government got the land outside the Reserve. Chairman, we have not anything to do with land outside the Reserve, we have no authority to settle that question at all. It is no use bringing it before us.”

“We are troubled about how the Government has gone and sold our land outside our Reserve. We know it’s our land and not the Government’s and they have gone out and sold it and done what they like with it.”

 

For that, I don’t want that to happen again. We want to say — we want our say in this process that’s coming up, this pipeline. We will be not walked over again like the way they’ve done on the Reserve system. We want to have a voice and we’re going to have a voice.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Environmental groups re-issue poll, showing BC worried about US, Chinese control of natural resources

A coalition of BC  environmental groups have re-released a poll from last spring showing that almost 75 per cent of British Columbians are worried about foreign investment in Canadian natural resources. The poll also shows that only a small minority of British Columbians (15%) are concerned about charitable funding provided by US philanthropic foundations to Canadian environmental groups.

The poll was conducted by Strategic Communications in April 2011 and commissioned by the following groups: BC Sustainable Energy Association; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter; Conservation Northwest; Dogwood Initiative; Ecojustice; ForestEthics; Georgia Strait Alliance; Greenpeace; Pembina Institute; Sierra Club BC; West Coast Environmental Law; Wildsight.

The re-release of this poll is aimed at countering a poll last week, commissioned by Enbridge showing wide spread support in BC for the pipeline and an attack ad campaign by the pro-bitumen sands group Ethical Oil, which has been saying that there is too much foreign interference in the Canadian energy regulatory process.

Based on a random online sample of 830 adult British Columbians, the results are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.4 percent 19 times out of 20.

This poll shows that 47.1% of respondents were very worried and 32.1% somewhat worried about “Americans controlling our natural resources.” Asking if people were worried about China, 39.0 % were very worried and 33.8% were somewhat worried about “China investing in our natural resources.” It shows that 38.3% were “very worried” and 34.2% “somewhat worried” about “China taking or controlling our natural resources.”

The news release from the groups says

“These poll results suggest that the oil lobby’s attacks against environmental groups are out of touch with the true values of British Columbians. The real issue is the unacceptable risk of a foreign-funded pipeline-oil tanker project that would ram pipe through unceded First Nations lands to ship some of the world’s dirtiest oil across thousands of fragile salmon-bearing rivers and streams,” said Will Horter, Executive Director of the Dogwood Initiative. “225 Supertankers a year, many larger than the Exxon Valdez, would need to transit the treacherous fjords of the Great Bear Rainforest, on route to China. This pipeline is all risk and no reward for British Columbians.”

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), over the three-year period from 2007-2010 alone, foreign companies poured nearly $20 billion dollars into the tar sands. In contrast, according to blogger Vivian Krause, US charitable foundations have given Canadian environmental groups less than 1.5% of that amount over a ten year period, accounting for all charitable funding on Canadian environmental issues ranging from forest protection to fisheries conservation.

“Funding for environmental charities helps to right the imbalance between ordinary citizens and the financial and political influence of multinational companies in Canada,” said Jessica Clogg of West Coast Environmental Law. “Since 1974, our environmental legal aid services have enabled citizens and community groups throughout BC to participate in resource decisions – like the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – that would profoundly affect their lives.”

“Canadians value the importance of environmental advocates speaking up for economic development that sustains our communities without destroying the ecology that supports us,” said Sierra Club BC Executive Director George Heyman. “We represent a legitimate Canadian viewpoint that is critical to sound policy-making, particularly when facing the influential, China-backed Enbridge pipeline lobby.”

As with many polls in a polarized situation, there are problems.  As Northwest Coast Energy News showed last week, the numbers in the Enbridge-sponsored poll are unreliable for northern British Columbia.  The environmental groups’ poll could also be considered suspect by the way the questions were phrased and the order in which they were asked.

Foreign Funding Poll Backgrounder  (Data figures from the groups who commissioned the poll)

 

Oliver releases open letter, attacking “radicals” for stifling Canadian economy

The Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, released a stinging open letter on Monday, January 9, 2012, accusing what he called “enviromentaists and other radical groups” of blocking Canada’s opportunity to diversify trade and hijacking the regulatory system.

The release of the letter and an interview with Oliver came day before Joint Review Panel hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline open in Kitamaat Village.

Text of Oliver’s letter (as posted on the Natural Resources Canada site)

Canada is on the edge of an historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo.

Virtually all our energy exports go to the US. As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country. We must expand our trade with the fast growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources. Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further. They do this because they know it can work. It works because it helps them to achieve their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.

Anyone looking at the record of approvals for certain major projects across Canada cannot help but come to the conclusion that many of these projects have been delayed too long. In many cases, these projects would create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians, yet they can take years to get started due to the slow, complex and cumbersome regulatory process.

For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete. In comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A. Macdonald took four years. Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff required the approval of the federal government. This delayed a decision by two months. Two valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century.

Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination. It must be based on science and the facts. We believe reviews for major projects can be accomplished in a quicker and more streamlined fashion. We do not want projects that are safe, generate thousands of new jobs and open up new export markets, to die in the approval phase due to unnecessary delays.

Unfortunately, the system seems to have lost sight of this balance over the past years. It is broken. It is time to take a look at it.

It is an urgent matter of Canada’s national interest.

In an interview with CBC News, Oliver expanded his comments, saying there was a marked difference between foreign investors and the radicals.

Oliver said radicals are “a group of people who don’t take into account the facts but are driven by an ideological imperative.”

Not all groups are radical, he says, but some are opposed to any use of hydrocarbons.

While Oliver took aim at foreign funding for environment groups, foreign investment is a major part of the oilsands. American, British, Chinese, French and Norwegian companies have all invested in the oilsands.

The difference, Oliver says, is that Canada needs the foreign capital.

“We don’t have enough capital in Canada to finance it and that’s why there’s a lot of investment from the United States, the U.K., France, and Norway, and other countries, and so we welcome that because we need it,” he said.

Links January 8, 2012

Links January 6, 2012

Analysis: What did Ipsos-Reid mean about “northern British Columbia” in the Enbridge pipeline poll?

A poll by Ipsos-Reid, commissioned by Enbridge, released on Jan 4, 2012, gauging support for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, has become almost as controversial as the pipeline itself.

Ipsos-Reid says their “poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge shows that British Colombians are more likely to support than oppose the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Project.”

Most important, according to Ipsos-Reid, a majority of British Columbians are not familiar with the Northern Gateway project.

Environmental groups and media reports look at the that unfamiliarity and question whether or not the poll actually represents the views of people in British Columbia.

There were also pointed questions here in northwestern British Columbia about the figures that showed strong support, 55 per cent in what Ipsos-Reid called “northern British Columbia.”

There were also questions from those familiar with the pipeline project, posted on Facebook, Twitter and blogs about the term “oil” used by Ipsos-Reid in its poll questions.

The question
As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alberta and Kitimat, in northern BC. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Ipsos-Reid vice -president of public affairs Kyle Braid for clarification.

Overall results

According to Ipsos-Reid, the poll shows slightly more than four-in-ten (42%) residents say they are “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) with the project described above. Another three-in-ten (30%) are “not very familiar” and one-quarter (25%) are “not at all familiar” with the project.

Familiarity (“very” or “somewhat”) is higher among Northern residents (61%), men (48% vs. 37% of women) and older residents (53% of 55+ years vs. 43% of 35-54 years, 30% of 18-34 years).

According to the poll, support for the project is well ahead of opposition. Nearly half (48% overall, 14% “strongly”) of British Columbians say they support the project, compared to one-third (32% overall, 13% “strongly”) in opposition. Two-in-ten (20%) are undecided about the project.

Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups. Project support is highest among Northern residents (55%), men (58% vs. 38% of women) and older residents (58% of 55+ years vs. 47% of 35-54 years, 38% of 18-34 years).

Ipsos-Reid says it asked all respondents, on an open-ended basis, to name one main project benefit and one main project concern.
The top project benefit, mentioned by half (51%) of British Columbians, is “employment/ economic benefits”. Less frequently mentioned benefits include “export/trade benefits” (10%) and “better/ safer mode of transport” (5%).

The top mentioned project concerns include “general environmental concerns” (43%) and “risk of spills/leaks” (21%). Less frequently mentioned concerns include “general safety/ protection concerns“(7%), “pollution/ contamination” (5%) and “cost/ expenses” (5%).

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman Paul Stanway said the poll, released exclusively to Postmedia News, will set a “proper context” for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.

“The argument often made by our opponents that there is overwhelming opposition from British Columbians in general, and I think that’s far from being an accurate view of what’s going on,” Stanway told the Sun.

Defining the North

As with all polls, the margin of error raises with the smaller number of people questioned as part of the larger sample. Ipsos-Reid acknowledges this when it says

These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge. The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted online using Ipsos-Reid’s national online household panel between December 12 and December 15, 2011. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error would be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual BC population according to 2006 Census data.

So what does Ipsos-Reid mean by northern British Columbia?

Braid responded by e-mail, saying the polling company follows regional districts as defined by BC Statistics. “In lieu of providing a list of those districts, an approximate break is everything Williams Lake and above is considered North,” Braid said.

As published on the table (Tables from Ipsos-Reid Northern Gateway poll pdf) handout on the website, Ipsos-Reid interviewed 168 people in “northern British Columbia.” Braid says the 168 people represents 17% of the sample. These interviews would have been weighted down to about 7% in the overall results to reflect the actual population of the North in BC. The margin of error in the North is about +/-7.6%, 19 times out of 20.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Braid if he knew how much of the sample represents respondents who live along the pipeline route. He replied, “I do not know how many of the Northern interviews were along the pipeline route.”

That likely means that the northern margin of error is much higher. If all of British Columbia north of Williams Lake is looked at carefully, there are actually three subregions within the Ipsos-Reid sample.

West of Prince George there is strong opposition to the pipeline. East and northeast of Prince George, especially in the oil and natural gas fields around the Peace River region, there is strong support for the energy industry and the pipeline. South of Prince George, toward Williams Lake, far away from the pipeline route and not involved in hydrocarbon energy extraction, it is most likely that the respondents there would fall into the “unfamiliar” category.

Oil or bitumen?

For those who live along the pipeline route, the fact that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be carrying diluted bitumen, not standard crude oil, is a key factor among those opposing the pipeline.

In response to the question about use of the oil, Braid responded. “On the use of the word “oil”, I know that few average British Columbians know what bitumen is, so that’s no good. And we also try to avoid the use of loaded words like “tar sands” in these interviews. Using a loaded word results in a question that’s biased in one direction. And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project? I believe it’s better to keep the question as clean as possible with no messaging. And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?”

There are a couple of problems with Braid’s response, which we looked at in an earlier analysis of media coverage during the Keystone XL debate.

As was pointed out in that article, in all its filings with the Northern Gateway Joint Review, Enbridge uses the terms “bitumen,” “diluted bitumen,” or “dilbit,” not oil. Bitumen is not the “bubbling crude,” the boomer generation would remember from the Beverly Hillbillies or the oil covered James Dean in Giant.

As media critics have pointed out, the use of “oil sands” is considered a loaded term by the environmental critics, who prefer “tar sands.” The neutral term is bitumen.

Thus it can be argued the use of oil instead of bitumen, even if the poll respondents are not that familiar with the subject, is itself “a loaded word [that] results in a question that’s biased in one direction.”

Braid’s other point “And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?” It would be conventional crude, which has been coming out of wells in Alberta since 1948, that bubbling crude, not bitumen.

Finally “And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project?” That leads to the other major criticism of the poll from environmentalists, that the poll had no questions about the economic consequences to British Columbia’s tourist and sports fishing industries from any “full bore” (a term used in the JRP filings) pipeline break or even minor pipeline breach or the costs of cleaning up from a major tanker disaster as well as the consequences for tourism and the sports and commercial fisheries from a tanker oil spill.

Critics have pointed to the fact that Enbridge commissioned the poll to question its credibility, and while who pays is always a factor in looking at any polling data, overall any polling company’s success depends on the long term accuracy of its findings. In this case, it is more likely that Ipsos-Reid itself should be included in the “unfamiliar” category.

Ipsos-Reid news release on the Northern Gateway Pipeline poll

 

Related Links

Enbridge Northern Gateway blog New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

CBC News  48% support for northern B.C. pipeline, says poll

Vancouver Observer Enviros question methodology of Enbridge poll disputing Northern Gateway pipeline opposition

 

Alaska governor meets with three energy CEOs to push North Slope LNG exports to Asia

Alaska Governor Governor Sean Parnell met with the chief executive officers from BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil on January 5, 2012, to discuss alignment between the three companies on commercializing the North Slope’s vast natural gas reserves.

A news release from the governor’s office says Parnell asked  “the three companies – the major lease holders for natural gas reserves on the North Slope – to work together on developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project that focuses on exporting Alaska North Slope gas to Asia’s growing markets.”

The  release says that governor is targeting LNG exports to Asia to serve the growing demand for natural gas. That would make an Alaska LNG export terminal a rival to the three projects at Kitimat and another proposed project in Oregon.

Parnell and the CEOs – Bob Dudley of BP, Jim Mulva of ConocoPhillips and Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil – met for two hours. During the meeting, the governor’s release says, the  CEOs briefed the governor on the extensive work they’ve been doing in response to his request. After meeting with the governor, the three CEOs briefed members of the Alaska state legislature.

 

Governor Sean Parnell met in Anchorage Jan. 5, 2012, with the chief executive officers from BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to discuss alignment between the three companies on commercializing the North Slope’s natural gas reserves.(Alaska governor's office)

“I appreciate the willingness of the chief executives to come to Alaska to discuss the important topic of commercializing North Slope gas,” Parnell said. “For a gas project to advance, all three companies need to be aligned behind it. This meeting is an important step, but much work remains.”

The Associated Press reports that Parnell wants the companies to unite under the framework of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, which gave TransCanada Corp. an exclusive state license to build a pipeline and up to $500 million in state incentives.

AP says TransCanada has been working with Exxon Mobil to advance the project but has yet to announce any agreements with potential shippers.

TransCanada has focused most of its attention on a pipeline that would deliver gas to North American markets through Alberta to Canada and the Lower 48 states. TransCanada has also proposed a smaller pipeline that would allow for liquefied natural gas exports through a terminal at the oil export port of Valdez. A rival project, a joint effort of BP and ConocoPhillips that also would have gone through Canada, folded last year.

The Alaska Journal of Commerce reports BP and ConocoPhillips believe a major liquefied natural gas project is the best option for marketing North Slope gas, quoting the chief executive officers of the two companies Robert Dudley of BP and James Mulva of ConocoPhillips.

“Given the outlook with shale gas in the Lower 48, it looks like LNG has the best potential. We’re not saying the pipeline (to Canada) is impossible,” but a pipeline to southern Alaska to an LNG plant appears to have the best prospects, BP CEO Dudley told reporters following the meetings with Parnell and legislators.
ConocoPhillips’ Mulva agreed with Dudley. “We believe LNG is the best alternative for North Slope gas, far better than any alternatives,” Mulva said.

 

 

West Coast Environmental Law responds to Ethical Oil’s attack ads

West Coast Enviromental Law, the first target of the attack ads by the Ethical Oil activist group has responded in a statement from Executive Director and Senior Counsel, Jessica Clogg who said: “Our campaigns are not dictated by the sources of our funding. Rather, we seek funding to support the environmental initiatives we decide on as a British Columbia organisation with deep roots in communities around the province.”

The Alberta based pro bitumen sands lobby group Ethical Oil, using figures from Vancouver blogger Vivian Krause are attacking any group opposing the bitumen sands and pipelines who may receive backing from foundations or other groups based outside of Canada.

“Our funding to support ordinary Canadians in keeping our magnificent north Pacific Coast free from the threat of oil tankers and oil spills is dwarfed by that of oil producers and refiners, which put up $100 million to promote the Northern Gateway project and push it through the regulatory review,” Clogg said.

A  statement on its website “Why West Coast is fighting Enbridge (it’s not the funding)” says in part:

Through our environmental legal aid services, citizens and community groups who could not otherwise afford it are able to participate meaningfully and democratically in decisions about resource development that have the potential to profoundly affect their lives.
Back in the ‘70s when a broad citizens’ coalition brought to a halt a proposed oil pipeline to an oil port at Kitimat, BC West Coast lawyers were there to support them. And we are there today for these northern communities as they once again face the threat of environmental devastation from oil pipelines and tankers….
Our belief remains strong today, as then, that our salmon-rich north Pacific coast and rivers should remain free from oil supertankers and the threat of oil spills….
This goal, like the other long-term strategic priorities of West Coast Environmental Law is set by our board and staff, informed by the deep connections we have forged over many decades with communities in every corner of the province. Without the generosity of our supporters, including dedicated individuals and foundations on both sides of the border, the work of our non-profit charity to protect the environment through law would not be possible. But we, not our funders, decide what issues we will focus on.

 

Five energy companies reveal backing for Northern Gateway pipeline

Five major energy companies have filed documents with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel saying they are backing the pipeline project in one way or another

Cenovus Energy Inc., which runs the condensate operation at the old Methanex site in Kitimat and MEG are funding participants, that is they are investing in the pipeline.

MEG and Cenovus have also signed a precedent agreement, meaning that the company will transport diluted bitumen along the pipeline. Other companies signing the precedent agreement are Suncor Energy, Nexen Inc., and Total E&P Canada.

The Chinese state oil company Sinopec announced earlier it was one of the pipeline funding participants.

In October, Enbreige spokesman Paul Stanway said that ten companies have contributed $10 million each to help Enbridge finance the regulatory approval process, meaning that four backers remain to be revealed.

This is likely to happen before the hearings open at the Haisla Recreation Centre, at Kitamaat Village, on Tuesday January 10.

U of Calgary reports says exporting oil through west coast will bring billions, but no info on environmental costs

Energy

A report issued by the University of Calgary School of Public Policy says if Canadian heavy oil is piped to the west coast and then shipped to Asia and possibly California, that could add $131-billion US to the Canadian economy between 2016 and 2030.

The report suggests it offers solid numbers in favour of pipeline construction to government and industry. For example it says 649,000 person years of jobs could be added to the Canadian economy over the next few years.

The report is based on differentials on oil prices in various world markets and while the final figures are not certain, the overall tone of the report is optimistic.

There is one flaw in the report. There is no consideration whatsoever by the Calgary economists of the costs of a pipeline breach, major or minor, in the wilderness of northwestern British Columbia nor the cost of a tanker disaster on the west coast. That just does not just include the costs of an extended cleanup of a spill, it also doesn’t consider the costs to the fishery and tourism industries by any such disaster. There is no estimation of the costs to the overall business and the economy of any community affected by any spill.  Nor is there any consideration of the long term effects on the environment itself of any such accident.

Read the report here. University of Calgary report on oil exports (pdf)

Related Globe and Mail Blocking pipelines to B.C. would entail loss of billions: study