Tag: Kitimat

Kitimat key to Canada’s future relationship with China, Asia Pacific Foundation says

Asia Pacific FoundationAn editorial published today by the president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada says that the media concentrating on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s trip to Beijing has it wrong, the key to the relationship between Canada and China is in Kitimat, not Beijing.

Yuen Pau Woo
Yuen Pau Woo (Asia Pacific Foundation)

In the editorial, President’s View, Future of Canada-Asia Energy Relations in Kitimat , foundation president Yuen Pau Woo reflects on a recent visit to Kitimat where he met representatives of the First Nations, industry, and municipality.

Woo says: “Kitimat’s livelihood depends on trade with Asia and the community knows it.”

The editorial lists such projects as the Kitimat modernization porject at the Rio Tinto Alcan, KMLNG’s Kitimat LNG project, other proposed LNG projects, “sharply increased vessel traffic through the Douglas Channel” and, of course, the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipline.

Woo’s key paragraph reads:

The future of Canada-Asia energy relations is not about Beijing; it is about Kitimat. It is in this remote coastal community that the confluence of Asia’s growing economic clout, Canada’s abundance of natural resources, the livelihoods and economic aspirations of First Nations, the challenge of supporting rural communities, and the pristine environment of the Canadian wilderness have created conditions that demand new forms of partnership for a sustainable future.

Woo says that “the Alcan Modernization Project and the Kitimat LNG Plant are excellent examples of community and First Nations consultation and collaboration that have so far yielded positive results,” without mentioning how long it took to come to those agreements; the decades of problems outlined by Haisla leaders before the Joint Review Panel, and that the current agreements are just the start to redress those problems.

On Northern Gateway, Woo concludes:

The challenges facing the Northern Gateway Pipeline project are of a different order of magnitude, but even on this most contentious of projects, I would not underestimate the capacity of stakeholders to find a uniquely Canadian solution that is based on mutual benefit, compromise, and the long-term good

Enbridge won’t offer better deal to First Nations, may be considering alternate Gateway routes: Reuters

David Ljungren of Reuters, with the Canadian delegation now in Beijing, reports in Enbridge CEO says company won’t offer natives better terms on pipeline (as published in the Globe and Mail) that:

Enbridge Inc. will not offer better financial terms to aboriginal bands standing in the way of a major oil pipeline from energy-rich Alberta to the Pacific Coast, the firm’s chief executive officer said on Thursday.

Pat Daniel also told Reuters that while he was prepared to look at alternate routes for the Northern Gateway pipeline – which is crucial to Canadian plans to export oil to China – he felt the current routing plan [to Kitimat] was the best.

Three new powerful players said to join the BC West Coast LNG export rush

The race to ship liquified natural gas to Asia is getting hotter with three new powerhouses joining the scramble for west coast export terminals.

BG GroupThe Prince Rupert Port Authority announced Tuesday, Feb. 7, that it is working with an energy powerhouse BG Group, on a feasibiity study for an LNG terminal at Ridley Island.

At the same time The Globe and Mail reports that there are rumours that Exxon Mobile is “examining LNG options” in the northwest. The paper also quotes sources as saying the Japanese firm Itochu is looking to export gas via Kitsault, where there is an abandoned molybdenum mine, town and port.

British Gas was once the retail domestic supplier of natural gas to the UK market. The company split in two in 1997, with BG Group becoming an international exploration and energy production company.

Itocchu logoItochu is a 150-year old Japanese company which began as Chibou Itoh’s one man linen trading company, later adding drapery shops and over more than a century expanding operations to become a major international conglomerate with strong interests in the energy sector. According to the company website, Itochu is also a player in the solar energy and bio-ethanol fields.

“The Prince Rupert Port Authority has engaged with the BG Group to consider Prince Rupert for a potential LNG export facility. The BG Group is number two in the world in LNG, next to Shell and they are number two depending on what measurements you look at, so they are already a big player in that industry” according to Shaun Stevenson, vice-president of Marketing and Business Development for the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

“We have an agreement signed to provide them a site and to secure that site to examine the suitability of it and the feasibility of the facility…We have given them a period of time to conduct the feasibility and suitability study, and if it is determined to be viable from the preliminary work that is done then we will look at further development,” he said.

David Byford, spokesman for the BG Group in Houston, confirmed the deal has been signed but cautioned “Prince Rupert is one of the areas we are looking at, and we are in the very early feasibility study stage.”

“The west coast of Canada is certainly advantageous for LNG export, and there is a lot of natural gas in BC as well.”

Prince Rupert port spokesperson Michael Gurney says it will be 12 to 24 months before there’s a clear commitment on the project.

A spokesman with Itochu declined comment when contacted by The Globe and Mail. Kitsault, near Alice Arm, in the traditional territory of the Nisga’a nation, was the site of  a short lived molybedenum venture by the Phelps Dodge company. After the mine was abandoned, the town was bought by Indo-American businessman Krishnan Suthanthiran and is now promoted as a nature and wilderness retreat, called Heaven on Earth.

Exxon MobileThe Globe and Mail also quotes sources as saying that Exxon Mobil Corp., which has substantial natural gas reserves in northeastern B.C., has also been examining LNG options. Pius Rolheiser, a spokesman with Canada’s Imperial Oil Ltd., which is majority-owned by Exxon, said in a statement to the Globe and Mail: “Imperial continuously reviews a variety of opportunities to increase value to our shareholders. As a matter of practice, and for competitive reasons, we do not discuss specific strategies.”

Apache, Shell mark LNG progress at District of Kitimat council

Eurocan site at Kitimat
Apache will build the work camp for the Kitimat LNG project at the old Eurocan site. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

As the financial and energy markets speculated Monday, Feb. 6, 2012 that Apache Corporation would make an official announcement during its quarterly webcast next week that the Kitimat LNG project will go ahead, a company report to the District of Kitimat Council, released this evening, is a strong indication that the project is a go.

Mayor Joanne Monaghan told the council that Apache has reported to the district that work at the site for the LNG terminal at Bish Cove has been “progressing well” through the winter and was now “progressing toward the construction phase.” Work so far at Bish Cove includes site preparation, building an access road and a temporary dock for the crew boat.

Monaghan said that Apache will begin work on a work camp for the Kitimat LNG project at the old Eurocan site “shortly.”

Monaghan also that the province of British Columbia told her that it estimates that there will be 800 permanent,  long term jobs in British Columbia over the life of the projects  9,000 construction jobs over the 10 to 15 year multi-train (phase) plans from the KM LNG, BC LNG and Shell projects.  Premier Christy Clark estimated that LNG projects will bring the province $1 billion in revenue. (For Premier Christy Clark’s statement see Vancouver Province Liberals shift strategy to LNG)

The mayor said that Apache plans to work closely with local contractors in general contracting, supplies, concrete supply, logging and land clearing and other supporting jobs.

Apache will be in competition with Rio Tinto Alcan for the local workforce and contractors. Last Thursday, RTA, which is working on a $3 billion modernization project at the Kitimat aluminum smelter, stole a march on Apache, by holding a day long conference for contractors and suppliers across British Columbia, including a tour of the plant, so they could bid on work during that project.

At the same meeting, district council was told that Shell has begun the official transition in its takeover the old Methanex site, which it recently purchased from Cenovus by applying for a licence of occupation at the site, which included asking for permission under district of bylaws to put a  Shell Canada sign at the entrance to the site, replacing the current Methanex sign.  The old Methanex site will be the base for Shell’s plans for its LNG project.

 (This story has been updated and corrected after checking Christy Clark’s statement on LNG which at the council meeting was attributed, in part, to Apache)

CIBC analyst speculates on one big natural gas pipeline to Kitimat as rumours persist that Apache decision on KM LNG will come next week

Apache CorporationThere is increasing speculation in the financial and energy markets that Apache Corporation, the lead investor in KM LNG partners, who propose to build the Kitimat LNG project will announce the investment decision next week. If the decision is positive, and it is expected to be positive, that means the work underway at the Bish Cove site will ramp up to full construction.

Related: Apache, Shell mark LNG progress at District of Kitimat council

The speculation is heightened by the fact that the two other partners in KM LNG, Encana and EOG, report the following morning.  Rumours on the Kitimat announcement began after Encana delayed its announcement by a week from its normal time in early February.  (At that time one energy market analyst who follows NWCEN on Twitter contacted this site to ask if there were rumours here. At that time, there were none)

Apache has scheduled a fourth quarter report conference call  and webcast from its headquarters in Houston, Texas, Feb. 16, 2012, at 1 pm Central Time.

Apache has always said that the go/no-go decision on the Kitimat project would come in the first quarter of 2012.

CIBC World MarketsThe market speculation, however, may not be entirely good news.  That’s because this morning, Andrew Potter, of CIBC World Markets, told a conference call that the rush to export liquified natural gas from northeastern BC and Alberta to Kitimat would mean building one or two large natural gas pipelines, instead of several small ones, to reach the terminal projects.

Reuters quoted Potter as saying: “There is no logic at all to seeing three to five facilities built with three to five independent pipelines,” he said.

At the moment, the just approved BC LNG project, a cooperative of 13 energy companies, plans  to utilize the existing Pacific Northern Gas facilities which already serve northwestern British Columbia. The PNG pipeline roughly follows the communities it serves along Highway 16.  KM LNG is in partnership with the Pacific Trails Pipeline project, which would take that pipeline across country.

The third LNG project, by Shell, is still in the planning stages, but it, too, would need pipeline capacity.

Although there is general support for the LNG projects in northwestern BC, and less controversy over natural gas pipelines, last fall, members of one Wet’suwet’en First Nation house blocked a survey crew for Apache and Pacific Trail Pipelines who were working near Smithers on that house’s traditional territory.  The survey project was then stood down for the winter.

The fear among some First Nations leaders and environmentalists is that the Pacific Trails Pipeline could, intentionally or unintentionally, open the door to much more controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline, since the PTP and Northern Gateway could follow the same cross country route.

Whether or not Potter intended to stir up a hornet’s nest, he likely has. What appears to be logical and economic for a CIBC analyst in a glass and steel tower, one or two giant natural gas pipelines, is now likely going to be fed in to, so to speak, and amplify the controversy over the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Potter also told the conference call that together the natural gas projects do not have enough gas in the ground to support the export plans. That means, Potter said, more acquisitions and joint venture deals in the natural gas  export sector. Bob Brackett of Bernstein Research, quoted by Alberta Oil magazine, also says there will likely be consolidation of Kitimat LNG projects, since there was similar consolidation in Australia.

 Apache Corp. Fourth quarter reporter webcast page.

 

PNG System map
The existing Pacific Northern Gas Pipeline follows Highway 16 (PNG)

 

 

Pacific Trails Pipeline
The Pacific Trails Pipeline (yellow and black) would go cross country to Kitimat. The existing PNG pipeline, seen in the above map, is marked in red on this map. (PTP)

 

Northern Gateway Pipeline
The Northern Gateway Pipeline also goes cross country, on a similar route to the proposed Pacific Trails Pipeline. (Enbridge)

PetroChina looks to Kitimat as it spends $1 billion for Shell shale gas in northeastern BC

PetroChina has bought a 20 per cent stake in Shell Canada’s Groundbirch shale-gas project in north eastern BC, leading to media reports that PetroChina is also investing in Shell’s planned Kitimat liquified natural gas export terminal in Kitimat.

The Groundbirch  “play”  in the northeastern BC shale gas fields produces 180 million cubic feet of gas a day form 250 wells.

A Hong Kong website, FinanceAsia, reported that PetroChina is paying $1 billion for the stake in the northeast BC shale gas operation.

China Daily confirmed the story, quoting Mao Zefeng, the Beijing-based spokesman of PetroChina, who declined to give the value of the transaction.

China Daily said Shell and PetroChina’s parent agreed in June to increase cooperation in energy exploration in China, estimated to hold the world’s largest reserves of shale gas. The semi-official newspaper says Petro China is looking to Canada to obtain drilling technology and expertise.

“It’s a continuation of our cooperation in China, and we can learn about shale-gas exploration and production by being a partner in the Canadian shale-gas project,” Mao said. “The project will also bring us good investment returns.”

Barron’s also reported that China is looking to get more experience shale gas, quoting Benchmark analyst Mark Gilman who told Dow Jones Newswires. “They are trying to learn about this business, on the basis of their belief that it will better position them to assess and develop similar resources within China,” he said. In fact, Shell and PetroChina are exploring for shale together in China, so the Canadian deal may be a “quid pro quo” gesture to Shell, he added.

Shell executives said at a meeting in London on Thursday that the company has invested $400 million in shale gas exploration in China, funding 15 wells with more in the future.

Last fall, Shell purchased the old Methanex site and the Methanex marine terminal in Kitimat.

Both The Globe and Mail and Postmedia News are tying the investment directly to Shell’s Kitimat LNG export project.

The Globe and Mail says that PetroChina as well as Japan’s Mitsubishi and Korean Gas are stakeholders in the Shell Kitimat LNG project.

PetroChina’s had agreed with Encana, a partner in the KM LNG project to invest $5.4-billion in the company’s shale gas operations in British Columbia. That deal collapsed last fall after the two companies could not agree on finances.

PetroChina is also a heavy investor in the Alberta bitumen sands.

The deal between PetroChina and Shell came on the same day that National Energy Board approved the BC LNG project, the second one to be proposed for Kitimat. The first, approved in October, is the Kitimat LNG project owned by the KM LNG partnership.

It also comes a few days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper begins an official visit to China.

RTA returns lands to Cheslatta Carrier Nation

Rio Tinto Alcan transfered  sixty three district lots totalling just over 11,000 acres or 4,4500 hectares  of land to the Cheslatta Carrier Nation in British Columbia on Monday, Jan. 30. 2012.

The transfer took place at a ceremony at the community hall at Grassy Plains, BC, near Burns Lake.

A news release from Rio Tinto Alcan quotes  Jean Simon, president and chief executive officer, Primary Metal, Rio Tinto Alcan, as saying.  “This important event is the culmination of over ten years of discussions between us and the community to return these traditional lands to the Cheslatta Carrier Nation. Today is an important milestone and represents how we can move forward cooperatively,”

“I am honoured to be the one, on behalf of our company, to bring this long standing issue to conclusion for the benefit of the Cheslatta Carrier  Nation people.”

The release quotes Cheslatta Chief Richard Peters: “Today we get back what we lost 60 years ago. Land is the backbone of any community and this land is truly the foundation for our future.  We are most grateful for the hard work and dedication of former Cheslatta leaders and we also thank Rio Tinto Alcan for being a modern and progressive corporation that understands the significance of the land to the Cheslatta people. We are fully committed to continue working together.”

The RTA release also quotes  Paul Henning, vice president, Strategic Projects, Western Canada for Rio Tinto Alcan a saying: “I am proud of the respectful and effective relationship that we have developed with the Cheslatta Carrier Nation. I am also proud that both parties demonstrated great patience, support and commitment to this process that allows us to recognize the past while opening a new door to a brighter future.”

The Cheslatta Nation says the land will be held as fee simple, private property. It will not be an Indian reservation, and not subject to the Indian Act. The Cheslatta have no immediate plans for the 64 lots sitting on the Cheslatta and Ootsa Lakes. The Cheslatta also presented a 40-acre, 17 hectare, parcel of shoreline property on Ootsa Lake to several non-native residents of the area, with hopes that a recreation complex might be established there one day.

How Alcan obtained the traditional Cheslatta territory when the company was building the Kenney Dam in preparation for the Kitimat project has been controversial ever since the events began 60 years ago in 1952.

According to John Kendrick’s history, People of the Snow, the History of Kitimat, Alcan worked through the then Department of Indian Affairs at the time the company built a temporary dam on Murray Lake.   Building that dam flooded the then Cheslatta reserve and traditional hunting, fishing and logging lands in the Ootsa Lake area.

According to Kendrick, Indian Affairs gave the Cheslatta Nation just one week to move from the existing reserve to the current location at Grassy Plains.  The history says that while many members of the Cheslatta Nation were out on traplines, those remaining in the settlement were pressured by Indian Affairs to vote in favour of “surrender” of the land. Due to misunderstandings, Kendrick says, what the Cheslatta Nation thought was compensation for just the move was actually the “surrender payment” and the new settlement had to be paid for out of that money. There was no compensation for loss of other traditional lands or traplines.

The Cheslatta did reach a settlement with Alcan in the late 1980s.

 

 

 

Editorial: Calgary Herald calls Northern Gateway opponents “eco-pests”

You can expect a newspaper in Alberta to support the oil-patch, that’s a major part of its audience, its advertising market, its mandate. A newspaper supporting local industry is perfectly fine in a free and democratic society.

The question has to be asked: does that support include juvenile name calling, worthy of a spoiled 13-year-old? In an editorial Friday, The Calgary Herald calls the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline “eco-pests.”

Note I said “spoiled” 13-year-old. There are many 13-year-olds across Canada who are clearly more mature than The Calgary Herald editorial board.

Editorial: Eco-pests force government to streamline hearings

The editorial goes goes over the same old line that environmentalists are “stacking” or “hijacking” the hearings. The Herald, like the rest of the Alberta media, trumpets the expose that two people out of the more than 4,000 who signed up for the hearings are from Brazil.

Those two people from Brazil, who may have signed up inadvertently, are just .005 per cent of the total number who want speak, either as intervenors or present 10-minute comments.

So far no foreign billionaires have appeared before the hearings. Why not? After all, foreign billionaires can afford to hire all the fancy energy lawyers they need from the glass towers in downtown Calgary if they wanted to be real intervenors.

So far everyone who has appeared before what the Joint Review Panel is now calling “Community Hearings” are, to use a shopworn but applicable phrase, “ordinary people,” most of them members of First Nations directly affected by the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The Herald says:

Regulatory reviews must be efficient and credible, and the government must not sacrifice sound environmental review for the sake of haste. But when the process becomes so cumbersome that Canada becomes uncompetitive, the federal government is rightfully forced to act.

That paragraph is typical of the coverage from The Calgary Herald going back years. Up until recently, every story in The Calgary Herald added a mandatory paragraph about “First Nations and environmentalists” opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline, without ever going into details, without ever bothering to send a reporter across the Rockies into British Columbia. Only now that there is widespread opposition to the pipeline across British Columbia is the Herald paying condescending attention. That sentence “must not sacrifice sound environmental review” is just another meaningless example of an obligatory journalistic catch phrase, added to the editorial in a vain attempt to achieve “balance.”

No wonder the media is losing credibility at warp speed.

Do you realize that while Calgary may be the headquarters of the energy industry in Alberta, Calgary itself is no where near the route of the Northern Gateway pipeline? That means that while Calgary gets let’s say 98 per cent of the benefits from the Northern Gateway pipeline, it takes absolutely none of the risk.

So while the Herald says

Warning that lengthy reviews cause investment dollars to leave Canada, [Natural Resources Minister Joe] Oliver properly enunciated a simple goal: “one project, one review in a clearly defined time period.” Imagine a process where each side presents its facts and a decision is rendered.

One has to wonder if the attitude would be any different if a major pipeline breach would mean that the entire city of Calgary would have to exist on bottled water for two or more years, a scenario for Kitimat if there is bitumen pipeline breach along our water supply, the Kitimat River (entirely possible given all the landslides here). If the Calgary water supply was threatened, how many people in Calgary would sign up to speak to a Joint Review Panel?

One has to wonder how quickly the Herald editorial board and its oil-patch loving columnists would change their minds after say just two or three weeks of lining up for those water bottles?

The problem is much deeper than that. The Calgary Herald editorial is only reflecting an attitude that seems to be widespread in the city. Over the past several weeks, there have been numerous posts on Twitter hashtagged #Kitimat, saying that because Kitimat is not within the actual boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest, we apparently don’t live in the rainforest. Some tweets suggest that if you actually say that Kitimat is in the middle of a vast coastal rainforest, you are lying, anti-Conservative (highly likely) and (here quoting the Herald, not the tweet) an “eco-pest.”

The political agenda on the Northern Gateway pipeline is being driven by people in Alberta who live far from the pipeline route itself even in Alberta, are at least 2,000 kilometres from Kitimat, have never been to Kitimat, make up their minds by looking at maps (apparently they don’t even bother to look at Google Earth which would show all the forest around Kitimat) and won’t have to lift a finger to clean up after a pipeline breach or tanker disaster. Given attitude of many in Alberta toward taxes, they certainly wouldn’t want to help pay for the clean up either. They’ll leave it to the taxpayers of British Columbia and the people of northwestern British Columbia to deal with the mess, while again, reaping all the benefits from the energy industry.

This attitude ranges from twits on Twitter to the academic community.

About century ago, there was a similar attitude seen in academia, in the newspapers, and with the “man on the street” (since women didn’t count back then). It was the attitude in Europe toward African colonies, that the colonies existed for the sole benefit of the “mother country.”

Alberta, it seems, increasingly sees northern British Columbia as a colony, existing for the sole benefit of that province. It is likely that if some Calgary academic did some research, that academic could find a nineteenth century editorial referring to revolting colonials or rebelling natives as “pests.”

Ecojustice challenges fairness of JRP, PMO responds with another attack on “foreign radicals”

Just who is interfering with the fairness of the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel hearings?

Almost every day since the hearings began in Kitamaat Village, intervenors have raised questions about the fairness of the hearings, especially after Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver began attacking what they called “foreign radicals,” the government say are “hijacking” the hearings.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the hearings, so far, came in Smithers, on January 16, 2012 (without the national media present) when the leaders of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation brought up the question of political interference in the hearings.

Chief Alphonse Gagnon, of the Laksamshu clan, summed it up this way.

Before this Panel started, we had Prime Minister Harper make a comment about how he agreed with this proposed pipeline and also the Minister in charge agreeing with the pipeline.

The Minister in charge talked about the effects if the pipeline don’t go through, the financial effects on the government and the financial effects on industry itself, on jobs that would be created.

This is the stuff that happened just before we got into this. This is the stuff that was coming onto the news last week.

Now, that’s them talking about the fact that this — what will happen if the pipeline don’t go through. My question is the other way around; what will happen if the pipeline goes through?

The same day, Chief George Williams of the Tsayu clan, said to the Joint Review panel:

Wakoos; somebody should tell Stephen Harper of what wakoos meant.
Wakoos means respect. It is our job, Tsayu, Laksilyu, Gilseyhu, Laksamshu, to
protect our territories. Our language, our culture comes from the territories. Harper should show wakoos, respect, and come to our territory and put on a feast and let us know what his plans are.

The first day of the hearings weren’t as dramatic, but on that day, on the first morning, Haisla chief Henry Amos said:

I have nothing against the Panel but I’m concerned. I’m concerned about the decision making of this project; that Ms. [Sheila] Leggett and Mr. [Kenneth] Bateman both work for the National Energy Board, one as a Vice-Chair and the other one as a Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee, I believe — correct me if I’m wrong — and Mr. [Hans] Matthews, First Nation from the Eastern Province of Ontario.

When I think about it — and this is my own personal opinion — we, the Haisla are already at a disadvantage. We have no representation from the Province of British Columbia.

I realize your tasks. I also know that you’re an independent body, which is good in a way, but what bothers me the most is that you’re appointed, I think from your information it was from the Minister of Environment and the National Energy Board. You’re appointed by the Federal Government and it’s the same government
that is telling the world that this project should go ahead. That is my biggest concern.

Chair Sheila Leggett then cut off any discussion of the fairness of the hearings, as she would from then on, by saying:

Chief Amos, we’re here today to listen to your oral evidence that wouldn’t be able to be put in writing, and the example we’ve been using in the Hearing Order and the information we’ve been publishing is that it would be traditional knowledge.

So I’m hoping that your comments will be along those lines because that
is what we’re here to listen to today.

Just a few hours later, Haisla chief counsellor Ellis Ross wrapped up the first day of hearings by saying: “I came into this meeting today thinking I was going to rant and rave about the comments made by Harper and Oliver and then I found myself basically trusting you guys to assess everything we said here and take it into consideration.”

Ecojustice motion

After three weeks of hearings, on Friday, January 27, the Vancouver environmental umbrella group, Ecojustice, a coalition of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the Living Oceans Society and Forest Ethics, filed a motion with the Joint Review Panel calling into question the fairness of the hearings.

The motion asks the panel to

determine if recent statements by the Prime Minister or by the Minister
of Natural Resources who is responsible for the National Energy Board constitute an
attempt by those Ministers to undermine or have had the effect of undermining the
Panel hearing process or the credibility of any intervenor or any person appearing
before the Panel resulting in unfairness in the hearing process, and if so, that the Panel identify the steps it will take to correct such unfairness.

It also calls on the panel to

determine if recent statements by the Prime Minister or by the Minister
of Natural Resources have contributed to an appearance that the outcome of the Panel’s proceedings has been predetermined, undermining the Parties’ and public confidence in the independence of the Panel.

It wants the panel to issue a statement confirming that is independent of and not influenced by statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources or other Ministers of the Crown.

As well, Ecojustice wants the panel

to confirm that the credibility of Parties and witnesses will be tested only through information requests and cross examination and will not be influenced by statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources or other Ministers of the Crown.

It calls on the panel to confirm

that the Panel will be guided only by the principles of environmental
assessment and the requirements of the National Energy Board Act and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Ecojustice also wants the panel to hold hearings with witnesses to determine whether or not the hearings are fair.

Joint Review Panel spokeswoman Annie Roy told the media that Ecojustice motion will be considered and ruled on “at a later date.” Roy’s e-mail to the media also said:
“The joint review panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is an independent body that was established jointly by the federal minister of the environment and the chairman of the National Energy Board.”

PMO response

Within hours of the Ecojustice filing, the Prime Minister’s Office issued an “InfoAlert,” saying that it was Ecojustice who was interfering with the fairness of the Joint Review Hearings

Foreign radicals threaten further delays

Today, Ecojustice attacked the independence of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel.  ForestEthics, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation joined them in their attack on the Joint Review Panel.

Here are the facts:

The Northern Gateway is currently going through a careful and comprehensive review process to ensure the proposal is safe and environmentally sound.

Radical groups are trying to clog and hijack the process, rather than letting the panel do its job independently, expeditiously, and efficiently.

Our government has asked that the review process be conducted efficiently and without excessive delays.  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.

Our Government’s top priority remains the economy and creating jobs.

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

The one problem with the statement from the Prime Minister’s Office is that it appears to confirm the fears about the fairness of the hearings. That’s because the PMO release pre-judges the hearings, which are will be ongoing for a year or more by saying that the Northern Gateway is one of the “projects that are safe, [will] generate thousands of new jobs and open up new export markets.”

It is the Joint Review Panel’s decision whether or not the pipeline is safe, and will generate thousands of jobs. It is the Joint Review Panel’s task to decide whether or not the Northern Gateway pipeline is in the national interest.

In its news release, Ecojustice says

The proposed pipeline project is one of the most significant, and controversial, public interest issues in recent memory. The decision around whether or not to build this pipeline is going to affect our country — both the people who live here and the environment — for a long time to come…

This review process is rooted in facts and science — not politics — and it is the most comprehensive and transparent way to fairly weigh the project’s environmental consequences against its economic merits. Given the impact this project would have on our country, it’s absolutely critical that this process is objective, representative of all interests and conducted with integrity and fairness.
This isn’t just an ethical issue – it’s about the principles of fairness and due process.
We filed this motion because Ecojustice believes those participating in the process — and all Canadians — need to hear from the JRP that its process has not been compromised by recent political controversy.

This month, the Prime Minister and Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver singled out “environmental and other radical groups” for threatening to “hijack” the regulatory system to achieve a “radical ideological agenda” and undermine Canada’s national economic interest.

Minister Oliver has gone so far as to say that he expects the JRP to rule in favour of the project.

The news release points specifically to documents obtained the Climate Action Network and released by Greenpeace, which includes lists of “supporters” and “adversaries” of the bitumen sands.

Adversaries list

According to Greenpeace, the March 2011 “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy” was prepared by by federal bureaucrats to help undermine support in the European Union for cleaner fuels legislation by targetting national and European level politicians

The strategy documents says the government’s “adversaries” as Canadian NGOs and environmental organizations, Aboriginal groups, competing industries. It also singles out the media in Europe, although identification of the media is blacked out.

Most important the document lists the National Energy Board as a government ally, even though it is supposed to be,under the law, an independent quasi-judicial body.

According to the document, government allies include Shell and BP and European industry associations as well as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, federal government departments, Alberta, business associations and unidentified NGOs.

Controversial ally


The Oil Sands Advocacy document mentions the Royal Bank of Scotland as a supporter of the Canadian oil sands that has faced anti-oilsands protests. The Royal Bank of Scotland is currently the centre of a huge controversy in the United Kingdom over an almost one million pound bonus payment to the company CEO, Stephen Hester. Reuters reports, RBS chief’s £1 million bonus sparks anger. The conservative UK media are coming down as  hard on the bonus, Daily Telegraph, MPs may summon RBS pay chief after Hester bonus as the left-leaning Guardian, which reports Anger grows over RBS chief’s £900,000 bonus. The Guardian also exposes the fact that the Royal Bank of Scotland is spent £2.5 million in UK taxpayer’s bailout money on Washington lobbyists in Bailed-out RBS spends millions on Washington lobbyists. (Again it seems foreign interference by big corporations is different than foreign interference by NGOs and environmental groups).

Despite what the Prime Minister’s Office news release has said, so far, not one foreign radical has appeared before the Joint Review Panel to question the fairness of the hearings, rather it has been intervenors, First Nations leaders or local residents.

On the second day of the hearings at Kitamaat Village, Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch described how the small group at first paid the expenses out of its own pocket.

We paid the expenses from our own pockets and from local donations. We sent out leaflets to make sure that everyone, warning people of the looming deadline. And we sent those out to make sure that everyone in Kitimat was aware of the deadline so they could sign up to speak at the hearings.

At that time, I was very willing to pay for the printing and distribution costs, and I actually had it on my credit card intending to pay it, but I was pleasantly surprised to be reimbursed by Friends of Wild Salmon. We are truly a grass roots organization, and I don’t like the untruths that are being told to discredit groups such as ours.

Personally — personally, not speaking on behalf of Douglas Channel Watch because maybe they wouldn’t want to accept help from the Mafia; I don’t know. But personally, I would welcome any support, financial or otherwise, from any organization, any institution, any country that will help us protect our land and water from oil spills.

Unless polluted by crude oil, our productive, beautiful environment will be around long after the oil has been depleted. The Enbridge project is not worth the
risk. Please do the honourable thing and say no to this dangerous project.

In Burns Lake, on January 17, 2012, on the second day of testimony from the Wet’suwet’en, Chief Ron Austin, Laksilyu Clan, from the House of Ginehglaiyex, the House of Many Eyes,  said.

And to talk a little about the federal and the provincial government, they have to respect our title and rights. Creatures and things of our environment are also involved in our title and rights, how we maintain them.

Government has to live up to the honour of the Crown and deal in good faith. Prime Minister Harper says that it will be a Canadian process that decides whether this project goes through. He should concentrate on respecting our title and rights before any project is slated for our territories.

The Wet’suwet’ens, Nat’oot’ens, Gitxsans of this area all respect our territory, respect living things in our territories, from the smallest creature to the biggest creature.

Another excuse is energy security for Canadians is the reasoning for Harper’s allowing Gateway Project to proceed. Energy security is not enough for destroying the beautiful, pristine environment of northern British Columbia.

 

Respect

Each time in the hearings, when someone brings up the question of fairness, or asks whether or not the outcome has already been predetermined,  wonders if the Joint Review Panel is rigged in favour of the government, chair Sheila Leggett repeats the same words.

In Burns Lake, after the welcoming ceremony, Leggett said:

I was particularly struck with some of the opening comments. This is a tremendous opportunity of learning, certainly for this Panel, of a variety of cultural ways and one of the things that struck me was the explanation, which I appreciated, about the rattle cry and how that signifies straight talk and serious business.

The other thing that I’ve heard over the days that we’ve been in the community hearings to date is the use of the word “respect”. That word “respect” has come up at all of the community hearings that we’ve had.

I wanted to just take a moment before we get into more of the process to
talk about where we’re at at the process at this point. The purpose for the Panel being here at this point is to gather oral evidence. This is the — what we’ve — as cited as examples is the Oral Traditional Knowledge. That’s the information that we’re after at this point.

This process will unfold as we’ve outlined in some of our information and
there will be a point, later on during Final Argument, for all parties to present and bring forward their positions on the Application that’s in front of this Panel.

With the motion from Ecojustice, Leggett’s attempts to put off the continuing question of the fairness of the hearings until the final argument stage more than a year from now are facing a new and formal challenge. At some point soon, the Joint Review Panel will have to rule on whether the hearings themselves are fair and respect Canadians. If the panel doesn’t rule expeditiously, there will likely be a court challenge.

The bigger question is whether or not Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver, as Chief Williams asked, have wakoos, respect, not just respect for the First Nations of British Columbia, but respect for Canadian democracy.

Documents

EcoJustice Motion before JRP on fairness (pdf)

ATIP_Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy (pdf)