NEB | Northwest Coast Energy News

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two of the many reasons for are:

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

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

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

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

Joint Review panel releases list of communities for hearings on Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline

Energy Environment

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has released a list of communities where it will hold hearings on the pipeline project.

In a news release this morning, the panel confirmed that hearings will begin in Kitimat on January 10, 2012.

It then goes on to say

The Panel has determined that due to the large number of registrants, it will be visiting some communities more than once to allow all who have registered an opportunity to address the Panel. The Panel will hear oral evidence first from registered Intervenors so that the information request process can proceed according to the schedule. The Panel will then focus on hearing the oral statements of other participants.

The communities that the panel will visit at least twice, the first session for intervenors, the second session for oral statements are

Bella Bella, BC
Bella Coola, BC
Burns Lake, BC
Courtenay, BC
Edmonton, AB
Fort St. James, BC
Grand Prairie, AB
Hartley Bay, BC
Kitimat, BC
Kitkatla, BC
Klemtu, BC
Massett, BC
Prince George, BC
Prince Rupert, BC
Queen Charlotte, BC
Smithers, BC
Terrace, BC

The panel will also hold single hearings in

Calgary, AB
Hazelton, BC
Kelowna, BC
Port Hardy, BC
Vancouver, BC
Victoria, BC

Earlier, the panel also announced that it will hold more online training sessions for intervenors.

The panel says the workshops are designed to help participants understand aspects of the joint review process. This second online workshop is on the topic of Evidence and Motions. This workshop is designed for registered Intervenors and Government Participants. Additional workshops will be held in the future and will also include topics of interest to other participants.

The online workshop will be held on November 15, 2011 and November 23, 2011 and will consist of a short presentation by the Process Advisory Team followed by questions and answers. It is expected that the workshop will be no longer than one hour. The sessions will be held at the following times:

Tuesday 15 November 2011

– Daytime Session: 9:00 a.m. PT (10:00 a.m. MT)
– Evening Session: 7:00 p.m. PT (8:00 p.m. MT)

Wednesday 23 November 2011

– Daytime Session: 9:00 a.m. PT (10:00 a.m. MT)
– Evening Session: 7:00 p.m. PT (8:00 p.m. MT)

Kinder Morgan aims to expand Trans Mountain pipeline: Globe and Mail

Energy Link

Nathan Vanderklippe writes in The Globe and Mail Kinder Morgan aims to expand Trans Mountain pipeline

A second project has been launched to carry major new volumes of oil-sands crude to Pacific waters, amid mounting industry interest in exporting Canadian oil to Asia.

Kinder Morgan Canada has begun accepting bids from companies prepared to ship oil on a proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain system, which runs 1,150 kilometres from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C.

The Trans Mountain pipeline system, which runs from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., would be twinned to carry more crude.

The process is called an “open season,” and serves as an important kickoff to a project that has ambitions similar to the controversial $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge Inc. It also promises to raise a new front in the battle between industry and environmental critics over building infrastructure to move oil across B.C. and onto tankers.

Both Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain expansion seek to open new access to Pacific tidewater, providing a connection to Asian markets for an industry that is increasingly eager to break its dependence on the United States as virtually its sole export destination…

Thousands to speak on proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

Northern Gateway

John Cotter of Canadian Press reports that at least 4,000 people have signed up to speak at the Northern Gateway Joint Review hearings, even though the panel staff has not yet finished counting the applications for oral arguments.

Thousands to speak on proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

More than 4,000 people and groups have registered to speak at hearings into a proposed pipeline that would ship crude from Alberta’s oil sands to fill supertankers on the British Columbia coast.

Opponents of the $5.5-billion Enbridge Inc. Northern Gateway pipeline hope the surge of public interest will pressure Ottawa not to approve the project.

Cotter also says Enbridge is becoming worried about the delays and is now saying activists are trying to manipulate the hearings:

Calgary-based Enbridge says it welcomes public input, but is concerned the process could bog down.

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the project is already eight months to a year behind. If approved, it’s possible the startup date for the pipeline could be pushed beyond 2017.

He said Enbridge is also concerned people could be manipulated by groups that hope to turn Northern Gateway into an anti-oils ands battleground similar to the Keystone XL pipeline debate in the United States.

“There is no question that the groups internationally who are opposed to the development of oil sands oil are focused on both projects,” Mr. Stanway said.

In a news release, the group Forest Ethics says the 4,000 oral witnesses will far surpass the 558 that spoke before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings in the 1970s.

The news release quotes Jolan Bailey, Canadian Outreach Coordinator with ForestEthics as saying: “It’s clear this project has struck a very public nerve,”. “Enbridge’s plan to punch a pipeline through to the West Coast has hit a wall of opposition that stretches from Kitimat to Kalamazoo.”

ForestEthics says at least three residents from Michigan plan to speak about the damage wrought by Enbridge’s spill into the Kalamazoo River in July of 2010.

Analysis: The NEB and LNG, The environment if necessary, but not necessarily the environment

Analysis

If there are any doubts about the confusing nature of National Energy Board hearings, at least for the public, as opposed to energy lawyers, that can be found in the decision relating to the application for the KM LNG limited partnership to export natural gas. The NEB granted a licence that will allow the partners, Apache, Encana and EOG to export natural gas to Asia for the next 20 years.

One of the questions at the hearings, with many people in the northwest also worried about the upcoming Joint Review Panel hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, was what about the environmental effects of the natural gas pipeline?

It all depends on the legal terms “necessary connection.”

During the briefings in Kitimat months before the actual June hearings, NEB officials said that the environmental implications of the natural gas project would not be part of the consideration because the board’s mandate in this case was whether or not to grant the export licence. The NEB officials said that since the Kitimat LNG project was almost entirely within the province of British Columbia, the environment was the responsibility of the province, not the board nor the federal government.

At the LNG hearings, lawyers for the energy companies made similar arguments, as the NEB decision relates, saying that KM LNG’s lawyers maintained that there was no “necessary connection” between the pipeline and the environment and so “noted that the Board is no longer required to conduct environmental assessment for gas export licence applications because those applications, unlike certain facilities applications do not trigger an environmental assessment under the CEA [Canadian Environmental Assessment ] Act and the only environmental side effects, if any, the board could consider would be those not already studied by the province.”

(The January hearings on the Enbridge pipeline are different because that in terms of the NEB mandate is a “facility” hearing, not a simple licence hearing and therefore portions of the federal Environmental Assessment Act come into play.)

In the decision, the board members rejected those arguments:

First, the board said that even if the application does not trigger a CEA Act assessment, “that does not preclude the Board from considering potential environmental effects and directly related social effects of gas exports when assessing the application.”

The NEB went on to to note that the board has found a “necessary connection” in previous gas export applications, therefore: “The Board will consider environmental and related social effects of a proposed export if those effects are necessarily connected to the exportation….”

So the board found that it did have the jurisdiction to examine the environmental effects of marine shipping activities, the natural gas terminal and the Pacific Trails Pipeline that would lead to the terminal at Kitimat.

On the pipeline and the terminal, the board then says: “that no evidence was placed on the record to suggest that there are any environmental effects directly connected to this proposed export that has not already been addressed by the appropriate regulatory agencies.”

As for the effects of marine activities the NEB says the Transport Canada TERMPOL process (which is also looking at the bitumen tankers that will be on the coast if the Enbridge project goes ahead) was sufficient.

The Board is of the view that potential environmental effects and directly related social effects have been considered ….or will be considered through TERMPOL….Based on the foregoing, the Board is of the view that work conducted under the relevant federal and provincial legislation and process is not warranted and the Board has been able to to adequately consider the environmental and related social effects in making a decision on the export licence.

In other words, the National Energy Board ruled that it can maintain its jurisdiction over the environment, if necessary, but not necessarily do anything about it, if someone else is apparently already doing the job.

As was frequently pointed out in the June hearings, the NEB mandate is what is called “Market-Based Procedure” when it comes to natural gas. That policy came into effect in 1987, and was founded “on the premise that the marketplace will generally operate in such a way that Canadian requirements for natural gas will be met a fair market prices.”

The year 1987, of course, was at the height of the political and economic love affair with the marketplace. Now in October 2011, the “Occupy” demonstrations in almost every major city on this planet and many small towns, show that this love affair has gone sour.

While the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review has a wider mandate, the problem remains.

No image of planet Earth shows national boundaries. Nor does an image of planet Earth show the bureaucratic fault lines between the National Energy Board, Transport Canada, the Environmental Assessment Agency, not mention the provincial agencies.

The mandate for the NEB is more than 25 years out of date. National Energy Board hearings are limited by narrow rules of procedure which the energy company lawyers try again and again to use to their advantage.

These problems aren’t going to go away as the natural gas rush accelerates.

No one is looking at the “big picture.” Who knows what will fall through the cracks? No one ever cares about the unexpected consequences until there is 20/20 hindsight.

The problem, of course, is that there is no recourse for this problem. Stephen Harper’s government is cutting staff at Environment Canada, defunding environmental advocacy and watch dog groups (even those supported by industry) and like all conservatives somehow think that more deregulation will somehow bring back the jobs that the deregulated financial sector destroyed.

The NEB notes that the 1985 Western Accord that set up the current rules for the board is also called the “Halloween Agreement.”

Scarey.

National Energy Board decision on KM LNG

Editorial: Lawyers have a lot to be thankful for this weekend

Editorial

As lawyers from Vancouver Island to Calgary and on to Ottawa sit down for Thanksgiving dinner on Monday, they will be counting their blessings and adding up their billable hours thanks to the surprise announcement by Enbridge that the company is getting into the west coast LNG rush.

On Thursday, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel told Reuters that Enbridge is interested in joining one of the two proposed Canadian LNG projects to ship natural gas to Asia. Reuters reported that “‘Enbridge plans to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the proposed Gateway oil line, which would transport natural gas from Horn River and other natural gas fields to the coast by 2016,’ Daniel said.”

Thursday was also the deadline for public to register for the Joint Review Panel to make oral statements about the Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline.

Now everything has apparently changed.

That brings to mind the quote from Abraham Lincoln who told an audience in the 1864 presidential campaign, “An old Dutch farmer… remarked to a companion once that it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams.”

That has now been generally shortened to “Don’t change horses in midstream.”

Which is sort of ironic, since Enbridge just bought what the energy industry calls a “midstream” natural gas plant in northeastern British Columbia as part of its plans to get into the LNG “play.”

So what happens now, that it appears that one way or another the LNG and Northern Gateway pipeline projects could be combined?

How does this affect the Joint Review Panel on the bitumen pipeline and the hearings that begin in January?

Is is fair that registration for public comment participation is closed now that suddenly the pipeline situation is changing almost daily?

The National Energy
Board hearings on an export licence on the KM LNG project have concluded. If Enbridge buys into the KM LNG project and Kitimat LNG is now connected, one way or another, with the
Northern Gateway, how does that affect the pending National Energy Board decision?

As the hearings here in Kitimat showed, National Energy Board hearings are often mystifying to the public and the rules of procedure narrower than the kind you would find in a full public inquiry.

Environmental activists are determined to stop the bitumen pipeline. First Nations are saying they haven’t been consulted properly on the bitumen pipeline. There are whole new questions arising: if there is a twinned natural gas and bitumen pipeline along the Northern Gateway route, how does that change the environmental and safety studies by government, Enbridge and the environmental groups?

In the lawyers’ homes on Monday as the lawyers say “pass the turkey,” they will be contemplating two words: “Court challenge.”

A window of opportunity opens in Japan for Canadian LNG: Alberta Oil

Energy

Alberta Oil magazine says in A window of opportunity opens in Japan for Canadian LNG

Nuclear outages in Japan continue to stoke demand for delivering Canadian gas to the Far East. Look for oil- and natural gas-fired generation to offset a precipitous drop in atomic capacity as maintenance work at plants, combined with public safety pressures, keeps a fleet of 54 reactors from running at full capacity, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says. Japan’s nuclear reactors normally account for 27 per cent of the country’s electricity demand, but only 16 were online in August, five months after a massive earthquake rocked the coastal city of Sendai and sent officials scrambling in search of alternatives to the atom.

The country is one of several potential sales destinations for a suite of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals taking shape on Canada’s West Coast at Kitimat, British Columbia. Two of the most advanced proposals, including a 10-million-tonne capacity project led by Apache Canada Ltd. and another, smaller co-operative that would ship 1.8 million tonnes abroad annually, are both seeking 20-year export licenses from the National Energy Board….

China biggest customer for Kitimat LNG: Encana

Energy

China is probably the largest long
term customer for liquified natural gas that will be shipped through
the port of Kitimat, executives from Encana, one of the three
partners in the KM LNG project said in an investor conference call
Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011.

India could also be big customer for
LNG shipped from the Horn River in northeastern BC through Kitimat,
Encana said.

Although Japan will be increasing its
purchases of liquified natural gas in the coming years, the immediate
situation with Japan is less certain. While the March 2011
earthquake and tsunami knocked out the Fukishima nuclear plant and
prompted Japan to scale back other nuclear plants and increase LNG
purchases, Encana says the country has still not come up with any
definite policies

Dave Thorn, Encana vice president of
Canadian marketing, who also oversees the Encana’s role in the
Kitimat project, said that China’s overseas imports now account for
eight per cent of its purchases of natural gas. That is expected to
rise to 10 per cent in the next few years. Thorn said there is a big
gap between current LNG contracts and what Encana says is long term
demand from China. He speculated that there could be increasing
demand from China during the 20 years or so the Kitimat LNG project
is exporting LNG. ( As well as projected population and
manufacturing growth, even in a weak economy, China is now heavily
dependent on coal, but is also investing in “green” projects
which means there could eventually be a switch from coal to natural
gas).

The fact that one giant Chinese
customer, PetroChina, pulled out of a deal with Encana earlier this
year doesn’t seem to be a setback. Thorn said that there is strong
interest from at least six unnamed major customers for LNG to be
shipped through Kitimat. “The expression of interest ranged from
simply LNG supply to existing or planned regasification facilities
through to participation all along the value chain from shipping,
equity interest in the Kitimat facility as well as upstream
participation,” Thorn said.

The Kitimat project is currently
undergoing a front end engineering evaluation by KBR. There is a
similar study under way on the Pacific Trails Pipeline that could
carry the natural gas to the terminal. Both studies are expected to
be complete by the end of 2011. Encana expects the National Energy
Board to approve KM LNG’s application for an export licence in
December. Encana and its partners, Apache Corporation and EOG
Resources, expect to make a final investment decision in January
2012.

If all goes as planned the Kitimat
terminal would be shipping 700 million cubic feet of natural gas a
day to Asia when the terminal begins operations in 2015. Encana and
its partners are already optimistic, talking about plans to double
capacity to to 1.5 billion cubic feet a day in the coming years.

What’s driving much of this is the
high price of natural gas in Asia, which is pegged to the price of
oil, compared to North America where natural gas prices are
determined by the marketplace. With shale gas increasingly abundant
the price on this continent has been dropping and that has affected
the bottom lines and stock prices of Encana and other natural gas
producers. Encana is also bolstering its bottom line by tapping
“liquid-rich reserves” (oil and natural gas) that may be found
in the areas where they are currently pumping natural gas.

The Horn River Basin area in
northeastern BC was a surprise discovery by an Encana crew in 2003,
said Kevin Smith, Encana Vice President of New Ventures. The company
then began to quietly acquire assets, either by buying land or by
leasing in the region. “The Horn River resource base is enormous,
highly accessible and will certainly play a large role in North
American and even global gas supply in the years to come,” Smith
told the conference call.

During the June NEB hearings in
Kitimat, witnesses described the Horn River formation as special but
were reluctant to go into detail. Smith said the shale in the Horn River
is “all the attributes for high productivity,” including large
reserves and “overpressured system” which helps extraction. “It
keeps getting better and better.”

As well as going west to Asia, natural
gas from Encana’s Horn River assets will go east to Alberta to fuel
bitumen sands production which Smith said will require an additional
1.3 billion cubic feet a day by 2020, This is likely to be
controversial with the environmental groups and bitumen sands
opponents who have always taken issue with the idea that clean
natural gas would be burned to help get crude of the dirtier bitumen
sands.

Encana says it has developed a “hub”
system in the Horn River where a central well site can use horizontal
drilling to tap areas where once many wells would have been needed.

“Fracking” or fracturing shale gas
requires large amounts of water. As was pointed out in the June
hearings in Kitimat, Encana has tapped an ancient, underground alt
water reservoir called Debolt which allows it to reuse the water from
the formation and minimizing use of local fresh water.

British Columbia is helping the shale
gas industry with favourable royalties in the northeast including
royalty credits for building infrastructure in the region.

Encana, however, is under pressure
from inflation. It faces rising costs from steel, labour and all
kinds of services. While it supplies the bitumen sands with natural
gas, it is also in competition with the Fort MacMurray area for
supplies and labour.

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.