First Nations | Northwest Coast Energy News

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.

Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs take $7 million stake in Northern Gateway project

Energy First Nations

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

Update 2: Enbridge video embedded at end of this story.

Elmer Derrick, representing the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs today announced the Gitxsan Nation was taking a $7 million stake in the controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline.

Derrick told a conference call with reporters that the the hereditary chiefs signed the agreement with Enbridge on the basis of a 1997 Supreme Court decision that granted the chiefs “rights and title” to their traditional territory.

Derrick spoke about the poverty of the Gitxsan people, especially after the collapse of the forest industry beginning in the 1980s, with the exhaustion of good quality timber, leaving only pulp trees. He said “the situation was bleak” with a high number of youth suicides then said “young people cannot eat Gitxsan rights and title.”

He said the Gitxsan have been looking for economic development partners in many fields, including mining and biofuels and that Enbridge was one of the companies that had approached the nation with a partnership offer.

The agreement, Derrick said, calls for the pipeline to be built and operated safely by Enbridge.

Under questioning by reporters, Derrick acknowledged that the Northern Gateway pipeline will only a cover a small area of the 33,000 square kilometres of Gitxsan traditional territory, “five or six small streams that feed into the Babine Lake.” (Babine Lake itself is largely in the traditional territory of the Dakleh or Carrier First Nation). Gitxsan traditional territory is partly along the upper reaches of the Skeena River. Enbridge’s plans call for the pipeline to avoid that area altogether by crossing directly west from the Burns Lake area over and through the mountains, including using two tunnels, to the Upper Kitimat River.

Derrick said there had been no consultation with the local band councils, because, he said, the hereditary chiefs have the right and title to the land. He characterized the band councils as the equivalent of municipal councils.

There are six band councils in Gitxsan traditional territory and like many other BC First Nations there are those who support the hereditary system and those who prefer the elected councils.

There were repeated questions from reporters about how much consultation there had been with the band councils and members of the Gitxsan Nation. Asked if the Gitxsan band councils approved the deal, Derrick replied, “I don’t know.” He did say that the hereditary chiefs had “conferred” with the elected officials and had “talked to as many people as possible over the past six years.”

Derrick said that the $7 million dollar would go into a trust fund, likely for the education and training of younger members of the Gitxsan First Nation. He could not give specific details, but did add that the whole community would be consulted about the trust fund. That number is based on an offer from Enbridge of a total of 10 per cent equity in the pipeline project. With 50 First Nations along the route, Derrick said the Gitxsan will be getting approximately one fortieth of that ten per cent. The pipeline project is estimated to be worth $5.5 billion Canadian.

He said there was no estimate of the jobs that the Gitxsan Nation would get as a result of the agreement. He noted that the members of the Gitxsan nation travel across northwestern BC in search of work and said that if Gitxsan worked for the pipeline project, that wouldn’t be much different from other jobs. In response to a question about rumours that the Gitxsan had been in negotiations with Enbridge about operating the “pig” the robot that monitors the interior of a pipeline for maintenance and safety purposes, he said that was no part of this deal.

Derrick also said he did not anticipate any problems with neighbouring First Nations that have expressed opposition to the pipeline.

Derrick said there was no connection with the announcement Thursday by 131 First Nations from across North America that they opposed the Northern Gateway Pipeline, saying he wasn’t even aware of the Save the Fraser Gathering until asked about it. Derrick said the news of the deal was released “because of the opportunity to sign today.”

Janet Holder, executive vice president of Western Access for Enbridge emphasized to reporters that it was the Gitxsan making the announcement, not Enbridge. Like other, unspecified, agreements with other First Nations along or near the pipeline route, the Gitxsan agreement had confidentiality clauses and it was up to the First Nations to make public whether or not they had agreements with the company. Pressed by reporters how many other First Nations had agreements with the company, Holder would not even give a rough figure.

She said “we are making good progress along the right of way and we’re optimistic from our discussions that the majority of First Nations support the project.”

An earlier news release from Enbridge says:

“Over time we have established a relationship of trust with Enbridge, we have examined and assessed this project, and we believe it can be built and operated safely,” said Chief Derrick. “We believe that the construction of this pipeline is of vital importance to the future of Canadian energy security and prosperity.”

The agreement is expected to deliver at least $7 million in net profit to the Gitxsan people. Enbridge will be providing financing at favourable rates, and the partnership will provide a solid foundation for an ongoing dialogue between the Gitxsan and Enbridge regarding regional renewable energy projects.

“Let me stress that all decisions we make in pursuing business on Gitxsan land remain faithful to the laws of our people, said Chief Derrick. “Those who wish to do business in Gitxsan territory will be held to Gitxsan standards.”

Janet Holder, Executive Vice-President of Western Access for Enbridge, welcomed the announcement and the support of the Gitxsan Nation. “I want to acknowledge the vision demonstrated by Chief Derrick and the Hereditary Chiefs,” said Ms. Holder. “The most significant way in which Aboriginal people can benefit from the Northern Gateway project is by owning a stake in it and sharing in the net income it produces.”

The announcement comes a day after 61 First Nations declared their opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline. According to the Vancouver Sun by the end of the day Thursday, that number had grown to 131 First Nations.

Enbridge video of Janet Holder and Elmer Derrick (via Youtube)

Coalition of First Nations stands against Northern Gateway pipeline

Energy Environment Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related: Save the Fraser website

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

Energy Environment Politics

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

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

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

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

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

Gitxaala First Nation settles with KM LNG

Energy

The Gitxaala First Nation has settled its dispute with the KM LNG (also known as Kitimat LNG) over it’s application before the National Energy Board for an export licence.

A letter from Robert Janes, representing the Gitxaala, was filed with the NEB on Sept. 29, saying they were withdrawing their intervention and their motion for further hearings.

In original filings, the Gitxaala First Nation objected to a lack of consultation between the Crown and the First Nation as well as expressing concerns about the in adequacy of the Transport Canada TERMPOL process which is looking at the environmental and socio-economic effects of tanker traffic on the west coast. (TERMPOL is also part of the Enbridge Northern Gateway application).

One of the concerns of the Gitxaala that came in out in the June hearings in Kitimat was the effects of tanker wake on the coast. Janes’ cross-examination of the KM LNG witnesses was one of the liveliest part of the Kitimat hearings.

No details of the settlement were released.

Review: Pipeline to prosperity or channel to catastrophe? Globe and Mail

Energy Pipeline Review

Pipeline to prosperity or channel to catastrophe?

The Globe and Mail publishes an essay by Alberta author Chris Turner, author of The Leap: How to Survive and Thrive in the Sustainable Economy.

The essay appears, on the surface, to be an even handed look at the Northern Gateway Pipeline, balancing the environmental concerns with the economy.

In the end, however, Turner sides with where he lives, the province of Alberta, and his compromise could be the destruction of an area that is a thousand or so kilometres from his home.

There’s a more recent Canadian tradition, though – the one that celebrates moderation, fair play, stewardship and compromise. It gave rise to the national parks, land-claims tribunals, Nunavut, Greenpeace and the Montreal Protocol. It argues that Canada can do more with its natural abundance than extract, export and exhaust it at maximum speed. When Enbridge touts its pipeline-safety measures and marine stewardship – the double-hulled boats, the master mariners tugging the tankers carefully past Great Bear’s salmon streams – it is sincerely attempting to participate in that vision.

Yet sincerity is not the same as authenticity. Avoiding an oil spill is not a substitute for reducing greenhouse gases. The conversation has skipped ahead a generation while Canada slept. Catching up could begin with the simple agreement that the wild land of the spirit bear is no place for pipelines – but also that there will probably be a place for pipelines, at least for the near term. But that would be just the start of an honest discussion of Canada’s uncharted energy future.

For the long term health of the planet, reducing greenhouse gases is vital for the preservation of our current civilization.

For Turner, in the end, the old argument prevails, what is good for Albertans is good for the rest of the country, Alberta=Canada.

There is little doubt that the current management of Enbridge and Northern Gateway is sincere in their efforts, or as sincere as an energy company can be. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that subsequent management will care as much after the approvals are signed and sealed and the pipeline is built.

Apart from those who may actually work for Enbridge if there is an oil spill in the future, Albertans will be able to drive into the wilderness and enjoy the Rockies while, if there is a spill, the salmon, halibut, seals, whales, eagles, gulls, grizzlies, black and kermode bears, not to mention the residents of the northwest First Nations who have been here for thousands of years and the relatively recent non-aboriginal residents will be left to clean up the mess and pay for that cleanup, while Alberta continues to prosper.

Harper’s decision to defund coast management group may blow back on Enbridge, lawyer says

Energy Environment Link

The West Coast Environmental Law blog says the decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take funding away from the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area plan may actually blow back on Enbridge, delaying the Northern Gateway pipeline project for years.

The cancellation of the funding is perceived as part of the Conservative government’s aim of pushing the
Northern Gateway pipeline through no matter what the cost. (Two cabinet ministers, Joe Oliver and James Moore are publicly endorsing the Northern Gateway, despite the fact the Joint Review Hearings don’t even begin until January 2012. It is unlikely either minister would make an endorsement like that without Harper’s approval.)

In the blog post, Why Harper’s shot at PNCIMA also hit Enbridge in the foot, lawyer Andrew Gage argues that Harper’s move, apparently motivated by fears that the PNCIMA process could block the pipeline, fears created by Vancouver blogger Vivian Crause and her allies among PostMedia’s right wing columnists, will actually delay the pipeline for years because it negates the legal obligation to consult First Nations and thus will likely throw the entire process into the courts for years.

Litigation by any of the Coastal First Nation against the Enbridge Pipeline could pose a serious problem for Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Project. Because of First Nations title and rights that are protected by Canada’s constitution, the federal government has a duty to “act honourably” and to consult and accommodate First Nations who have a “credible but unproven claim” of rights that may be adversely affected by a government decision (such as approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project and related tanker traffic.)

As a result, anything that the federal government does in relation to consultations with the Coastal First Nations about tanker traffic and the Enbridge Pipeline that might be considered “dishonourable” creates legal uncertainty and problems for Enbridge. So was the decision to withdraw from the current PNCIMA funding arrangement “dishonourable?”

Gage notes that the federal government is required by the Oceans Act, passed under the Liberals in 1997, to set up integrated management plans for all coastal areas of Canada, not just the northwest, a process that began in 2005.

Gage also points out that Enbrige has, in the past, participated in the process:

A wide range of stakeholders, including one seat for the conservation sector, provide input and consensus based advice on an Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, but do not determine the outcomes of the PNCIMA process. Enbridge has itself participated on the Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, along with representatives of the fish farming, commercial fishing, renewable energy, recreational fishing and tourism industries, and even sponsored an early workshop in the PNCIMA process.

In short, PNCIMA is created by the federal government, managed jointly by the federal and provincial governments and First Nations, but with efforts being made to involve a wide range of stakeholders. Because the PNCIMA is co-chaired by a federal government staff-member, and requires sign-off from the government, it was unlikely to have resulted in a complete ban on oil tanker traffic, although it might have placed restrictions on marine travel, or otherwise provided protection for the coast from shipping impacts.

However, progress was slow, in part due to the limits of federal funding available for the process.

He goes onto to say that the Harper government itself agreed to the now controversial foundation funding in 2010. That was before the attacks from Crause and the PostMedia’s business columnists reached a crescendo in recent weeks. But now there is no longer any mechanism that can be perceived as neutral that consult with First Nations and other northwest coast stake holders.

To flip-flop now, slightly more than a year before the process was supposed to wrap up, leaves the PNCIMA process without the funding that the government has acknowledged is required for a thorough planning process. It is also a slap in the face for the Coastal First Nations, the BC government, environmental organizations and industry stakeholders who have worked on this process for years.

Prime Minister Harper’s government may have believed that it was helping Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Pipelines by withdrawing from this funding agreement. But the resulting uncertainty, and the appearance that the federal government has acted less than honourably towards the Coastal First Nations, may well cause Enbridge huge legal head-aches in the future.

Editor’s note: As I said in this post, there appears to be a double standard, since what the Harper government, PostMedia’s columnists and Krause apparently are saying that it is only acceptable if billionaire capitalists spend their money on a conservative or pro-energy industry agenda, but it is not acceptable if a billionaire capitalist decides to spend his money to protect the environment.

Kelp has great potential as green biofuel studies suggest

Energy Environment Biofuel

A surfer enters the water on a stormy beach at Tywyn, Wales, July, 2008. Scientists from nearby Aberystwyth University have studied kelp as a potential biofuel. The kelp was growing near a rocky outcrop some kilometres south of Tywyn at Aberystwyth Beach near Ceredigion. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Kelp has potential as a renewable biofuel resource because it is a fast-growing, large “macro-algae” that could be harvested, processed and turned into ethanol, methane or bio-oil, according to a recent study in Wales.

The study by Jessica Adams and colleagues at Aberystwyth University in the west of Wales was presented at a biology conference in Glasgow on July 4, 2011 and published in the journal Bioresource Technology.

Coastal Wales has a similar environment to the west coast of North America and both regions are abundant in kelp.

In her paper, Adams says that most biofuels today come from terrestrial sources such as agricultural products or forests, and both sources can cause environmental problems. Harvesting kelp for biofuel would mean that potential food crops, such as maize, would not be taken out of the food supply chain. She says the ocean accounts for half of the primary biomass on the planet, but has not been used very much in the search for biofuel.

Her study, assisted by the Energy and Resources Institute at the University of Leeds, concentrated on the potential that kelp has for producing fuel at various times of its life cycle during the year.

View Larger Map

By analyzing the chemical composition of kelp harvested at low tide at rocky outcrop on Abesrtystwyth Beach, Ceredigion, Wales, Adams and her colleagues determined the best time to harvest the kelp for use as potential biofuel, which in the case of Wales, was in July when the kelp had the highest levels of carbohydrates, including two key sugars, mannitol and laminarn, which are easily converted to biofuel. Those carbohydrates could be fermented or put through anaerobic digestion to produce either ethanol or methane. Another method is pyrolysis, a method of heating the fuel in the absence of oxygen, which can produce bio-oil.

Another advantage that kelp has over terrestrial plants is that it contains little cellulose and thus is easier to handle when creating biofuel.

The First Nations of British Columbia used the kelp for centuries, as a place to find fish, crustaceans and shell fish in the kelp beds or to hunt seals that fed on the fish. In some parts of the BC coast, First Nations used kelp branches to harvest herring roe (before the collapse of the herring stocks)

For the past century, modern use has concentrated on the minerals the kelp produces, it was burned to obtain soda ash (sodium carbonate) , used for the production of soap, ice cream and lotions as well as in some processes for making glass.

Kelp is increasingly popular as a health food, both as an edible seaweed and for health supplements. In British Columbia, kelp is harvested for health food at a time of peak mineral content, when the content is 25 per cent to 50 per cent minerals, including potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and iodine. Salt extracted from BC kelp is high in potassium and thus attractive for people on low sodium diets.

For biofuel, however, the time when kelp is highest in minerals, and thus attractive to the current harvesters, is not the time it would be best for biofuel. Adams says: “Seaweed ash has previously been reported to contain, potassium, sodium and calcium-carbonate and high concentrations will lead to increased slagging, fouling and other ash related problems during thermochemical conversion.”

In Wales, Adams’ study showed that the mineral concentration in the kelp peaked in March and was lowest in July, a time when the carbohydrate content is also higher. She says “This means that a July harvest would provide the highest heating value and the lowest ash and alkali index values, making it the best month for harvesting for thermochemical conversion.”

It appears also that cleaner water will produce kelp that is better suited to biofuel conversion, since the kelp her study used from Cardigan Bay had a lower mineral content than kelp from areas off Cornwall where effluent from the tin mines was carried by rivers into the ocean in that region.

An earlier small pilot project in 2008 at a royal estate on the north coast of Scotland looked into the possibility of setting up a kelp farm that could potentially used for biofuels. That project showed that using kelp for biofuel meant that agricultural land did not have to be taken out of production for biofuel planting and even that agricultural runoff could be used to fertilize a concentrated kelp farm.

The species of kelp used in the Welsh study had high concentrations of both water and minerals and that is whyJuly was the optimal time for a possible biofuel harvest. Other species, in other areas, once studied, might be better suited to be used as biofuels. Adams concludes by saying: “Macroalgae or macroalgal residues could pryrolysted to create a bio-oil or used in hydrothermal liquefaction to make bio-crude in a process which does not require the initial drying of the feedstock.”

Map of the kelp beds on the north coast of Haida Gwaii, taken from the BC provincial government kelp inventory survey.

Correction: An earlier version of the story said the journal was Biosource Technology. This has been corrected to Bioresource Technology.

Obama press secretary questioned on anti oil sands demonstrations

Energy Environment links

U.S. president Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, was asked about the continuing demonstrations in Washington against the Alberta oil sands and the Keystone XL pipeline proposal during a “gaggle” (an informal news conference) aboard Air Force One en route to Minnesota today.

The White House released this transcript of the brief exchange:

Q Also, anything on these protests outside the White House on this
pipeline? Has the President decided against TransCanada’s permit for the
pipeline? It’s the tar sands pipeline. There have been a lot of arrests
outside the White House about it.

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything new on that. I believe the State
Department has — that’s under the purview of the State Department
presently, but I don’t have anything new on that.

Q Is the President aware of the protests?

MR. CARNEY: I haven’t talked to him about it.

Protestors have been demonstrating in a restricted area near the White House and are inviting arrest as part of an ongoing effort to stop the Keystone XL bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Texas. The latest celebrity to take part in the protests was actress Darryl Hannah, who was arrested today, as reported by The Guardian.

The State Department did give its approval to the Keystone XL pipeline on Aug 26, saying, as reported in The Guardian.

The State Department said the proposed 1,700-mile pipeline would not cause significant damage to the environment.

The State Department in its report said the project – which would pipe more than 700,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude to Texas refineries – would not increase greenhouse gas emissions. It also downplayed the risks of an accident from piping highly corrosive tar sands crude across prime American farmland.

Campaigners accused the State Department of consistently overlooking the potential risks of the pipeline.

The largest anti-pipeline demonstration is expected on Sept. 2, when First Nations leaders are expected to join the protests in front of the White House.

Kitimat LNG hearings to resume in Calgary July 13

The KM LNG (also known as Kitimat LNG) hearings for an export licence will resume before a National Energy Board panel in Calgary on Wednesday July 13, and run to Friday, July 15, the NEB has announced on its website.

This phase of the hearing will consider “the potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects, including any such effects to aboriginal interests”, and “consultation with the public and aboriginal peoples.”

But it appears that the NEB is using its procedures to block consultation with some “aboriginal peoples,” the Coast First Nations. In a letter on its website, the NEB says that an early June submission from Art Sterritt,the Executive Director of the Coast First Nations came too late, since the deadline for submissions was April 26. That means the First Nations group must present a motion before the board panel asking to be heard.

A32-1-_Letter_to_Coastal_First_Nations_-_A1Z9R3_.pdf