The Dominion - Trevor Kehoe

Flawed Process, Flawed Project

dawn — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:17:31 +0000

Controversy flows on the Northern Gateway pipeline and Canada’s oil economy

VANCOUVER—Since January, the federal Joint Review Panel (JRP) has been touring Alberta and BC, accepting public statements on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The controversial pipeline would carry tar sands bitumen and chemical condensate from Alberta to the BC coast.

Although some observers are encouraged by the JRP and opportunity for open dialogue on the pipeline, many First Nations, legal experts and environmentalists say the review process and the project itself are deeply flawed.

"We think there's significant problems with the way the federal government has carried out its consultation," said Josh Paterson, legal counsel with West Coast Environmental Law.

"The JRP process itself has no authority to look at the impacts on First Nations rights and title that would be caused by this project. The federal government still has the duty to consult with First Nations regardless of what this panel does, and so far they haven’t shown that they're willing to have very serious discussions about the Enbridge issue or the impacts on rights and title."

If the pipeline is approved, Paterson predicts there will be legal challenges from multiple First Nations, who have already stated they would contest the federal government's failure to carry out constitutionally-required consultations. Paterson also said that those cases will likely go to the Supreme Court of Canada, although it's hard to predict how the court would rule.

There has been a record number of registrants to give oral statements to the JRP, more than 4,000, and a strong negative response against the pipeline in many communities. Nevertheless, the Canadian government has openly, and some say undemocratically, favoured the project during the regulatory process, calling it "in the national interest."

Paterson notes that the Harper government is attempting to give the federal Cabinet the final say on all future pipeline projects, instead of the National Energy Board (NEB). Currently, the JRP is considered an independent body and offers a recommendation to the NEB, which then rules on whether or not the project is in the public interest. The NEB is an independent federal agency; its funding comes from government, but 90% of costs recovered from industry.

Canada's regulatory process is already heavily influenced by industry, critics say, and giving Cabinet members the final say on projects rejected by the NEB puts more power into the hands of industry-friendly politicians, rather than an independent third party.

The proposed pipeline and resulting increase in oil tanker traffic on the west coast, along with a "streamlined" environmental review process, has experts declaring that a broad new discussion is needed on industry's relationship with government.

"Environmental Law is really being gutted and environmental protections... are just being erased in order to accelerate approvals of pipeline projects like Enbridge and we think that's really problematic," said Paterson. "We think that’s going to result in a legacy of poor decisions being made and that's going to affect Canadians well into the future."

Resource exploitation by large corporations on Canadian soil is nothing new and has been around since the country was founded, including the operations of the Hudson's Bay and North West companies. Environmental groups are saying the fight is more important than ever, with politicians pandering to Asian and other markets to sell Canada’s resources, while failing to deal with a number of fundamental issues.

"Obviously this is a pretty large-scale fight," said Ben West, campaigner for the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. "We're talking about some of the wealthiest corporations in the history of industrial civilization. Increasingly we've seen our leaders from Canada... going to Asia and trying to make the case that this is a safe place to invest [in the pipeline and other resource industries] and to a certain extent I really think that's the nature of this conversation."

West says recent attacks from Conservatives against environmental organizations and the labeling of concerned citizens as "radicals" shows the current government feels threatened by those beginning to think beyond the oil economy.

"To me it’s a sign of desperation and a clinging to maintain the status quo," said West. "The big question that I think we're all going to need to deal with is: what does a different type of economy look like? Canada's economy is very much based around oil at the moment but that can't last forever."

West notes that while the Canadian government appears unconcerned about voices against the project, support is growing. Recently, several First Nations participated in theYinka Dene Alliance (YDA) train journey that ended at the Enbridge AGM in Toronto. The trip raised awareness and protested against the pipeline in a number of cities.

The JRP was slated to hear oral statements until March 2013 and make their recommendation in the fall, but the timeline and review process may soon be changed by aspects of the parliamentary budget bill, C-38.

Trevor Kehoe is a journalist from Calgary, now based in Vancouver.

The Yinka Dene Alliance

Development on a LARP

hillarybain — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:41:26 +0000

Coalition speaks out on Northern Alberta land use plan

VANCOUVER—First Nations groups, scientists, lawyers and scholars are speaking out against the government of Alberta’s draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP). Critics say LARP fails to address First Nations rights and the worsening environmental and health concerns for communities impacted by the tar sands.

“There’s very little accommodation to the rights of First Nations [in LARP],” says Monique Passelac-Ross of the Canadian Institute of Resource Law, at the University of Calgary, a vocal critic of LARP's consultation process. “The government basically counts the number of times they communicate, but at the end of the day there’s no real negotiation, no real discussion.”

According to the Alberta government, LARP will identify and set resources and environmental management outcomes for air, land, water and biodiversity and guide future resource decisions while considering social and economic impacts. Some are concerned the LARP consultation is superficial, however, and serves as a formula for the government to increase expansion and development in northern Alberta without dealing with the environmental and social impacts of the tar sands.

“The government takes the information and often doesn’t give any feedback to First Nations on what they’ve submitted, so it’s a very frustrating process,” says Passelac-Ross. “Information just goes into a ‘black box’ and that has led the First Nations to the situation where they may go to court to force the government to listen.”

Local First Nations have had concerns with environmental impacts, land use planning and the future of the largest energy extraction project on earth since the 1990’s.

“I don’t think they even understand the impacts of what’s happening there and what the impacts are going to be in the near future. They haven’t really come up with a good plan on how to address them,” says Mikisew Cree First Nation Chief Roxanne Marcel.

She notes that she is not against development in the area, but wants to see a plan in place for the project to move forward without a negative impact.

“Were not opposing the oilsands, we’re opposing the way the government is implementing policies and proceeding without considering the impacts and what will occur in the future. They’re just doing all these ad hoc policies and the belief is that they will deal with whatever comes at the time.”

But Dave Ealey, who is a spokesperson for the Alberta government's Sustainable Resource Development program, believes the concerns of First Nations are addressed in the plan.

“There have been a number of media stories talking about some of the issues that the public has had about land ownership rights and Aboriginal concerns about access to traditional use areas,” he said. “We think we’ve addressed their concerns and that the final version of the LARP will have addressed a number of their (other) concerns. I think they’re already addressed in the cumulative effects monitoring that’s built into the plan.”

More recently world-renowned scientists have begun speaking out on the impacts of tar sands operations are having on communities and the environment.

In 2007 water ecologist Kevin Timoney published a study with the Treeline Ecological Research institute noting serious water contamination issues adversely effecting populations downstream from tar sands operations. Primary contaminants included arsenic, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with serious risks to those eating from the land and drinking untreated water.

Other chemical contaminants found in water included aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, phosphorus, selenium, titanium, total phenols, herbicides and pesticides as well as traces of ammonia, antimony, manganese, nickel and molybdenum.

Elevated arsenic concentrations have been associated with type two diabetes, cancers of the bile duct, liver, urinary tract, skin and vascular diseases.

With tar sands production expected to double over the next 10 years, provincial changes that take into account the concerns of local communities now could play a huge role in the future outlook of these communities.

Recommendations on environmental issues have been coming from respected scientists and numerous submissions have been made from the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations on land use planning and environmental degradation that for the most part have gone unheard.

As LARP proceeds, over 30 proposed tar sands surface mines, in-situ extraction and refinery upgrades are currently on the table to be approved by Alberta’s National Energy Board.

Although Ealey is confident that the LARP process will handle all concerns on the table Marcel is not so sure.

“We will be looking at challenging the LARP in courts if they don’t change it to reflect some of the recommendations that we have made,” said Marcel. “They have committed to meeting with our consultants and our team to review the recommendations but there’s no commitment that they will incorporate any of them.”

The final plan is expected to be finished, presented to the Alberta legislature, and provided to cabinet for approval sometime in August.

Trevor Kehoe is a journalist and photographer originally from Calgary, Alberta who is now based in Vancouver, B.C. He freelances for a number of online and print publications and blogs at Common Interest.

tarsands_2

tarsands_1

Canadian Delegation Talks Pipeline Impacts in Washington

Tim McSorley — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 05:43:54 +0000

Fears over spills, environmental impact spurr concerns on both sides of border

VANCOUVER—First Nations and environmental representatives from Canada are ratcheting up the pressure against the oil sands by taking their campaigning to the United States. In late May, a delegation headed to Washington, DC, to lobby against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline expansion and future impacts on the environment and their communities.

The controversial project would funnel over a million barrels of oil sands bitumen each day from Northern Alberta down to the Gulf of Mexico and has caused concern over pipeline safety and environmental and land rights issues that have yet to be addressed.

“Many were intrigued that we were there. They don’t get a chance to hear from First Nations on this side of the border too often. There are a number of concerns we have with this project. Firstly there is no cohesive long-term plan on how to proceed with the Alberta oil sands. It’s really the ‘old west’ in Alberta when it comes to natural resources and downstream communities are negatively affected by this development,” said Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief for the North West Territories Bill Erasmus.

“We want to see sustainable development of this resource as well as having the downstream impacts addressed. Canada needs a strong climate change policy and right now there is no plan," he said. "We are not saying no to development, we need to take a step back, see what is truly transpiring and develop a better approach.”

Upon invitation from the US Congress and the Obama administration, Erasmus, Chief Roxanne Marcel from the Mikisew Cree First Nation and representatives from the Pembina Institute, Climate Action Network Canada and Environmental Defense Canada stated where they stood on the project.

The delegation met Assistant Secretary of Ocean and Environment Dr. Karri-Ann Jones, members from the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, members of the media and several congressmen.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline by Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation would build upon existing pipeline infrastructure that transports Alberta oil sands bitumen to refineries in the US.

Keystone pipeline infrastructure currently sends 590,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Hardisty, Alberta to refineries in Illinois, Nebraska and Oklahoma over the 3,467-kilometre trek.

The XL would add another 2,673 kilometres of added pipeline infrastructure that will cross Indigenous lands in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the United States.

Keystone has said the XL pipeline will move 700,000 bpd from Canada and US receipt points through Steele City, NB, to Cushing, OK, and down to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

About 200,000 bpd of the payload will be delivered into Cushing and the remaining 500,000 bpd will be transported to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

Keystone has said their presidential permit application is requesting authority to transport up to 900,000 bpd, up from their initial capacity of 700,000 bpd.

The 6,140 km XL project would be over four times longer than the Trans Alaskan pipeline, and TransCanada has compared the undertaking to the construction of the Pyramids of Giza.

For Obama and other Americans the debate is on safety, energy security and vying for access to Canadian reserves while considering Asian and other international market competition.

Republicans are pressuring the Obama administration to approve the project before the end of 2011.

Only in operation for about a year, the Keystone pipeline has already had numerous reported spills.

Discussions of the XL expansion impacts come as TransCanada continues to clean up two recent spills in Kansas and North Dakota.

Keystone was shut down on May 9, 2011, after a spill in Bismarck, North Dakota where 21,000 gallons of oil leaked from a valve failure at a pumping station, and again May 29 after a small spill in Kansas.

A formal investigation has been set up by the North Dakota Public Service Commission into how the spill occurred and if TransCanada acted appropriately.

First Nations downstream from Albertan oil sands projects have felt the worst of the development, suffering serious health impacts, water, fish and soil contamination as well as massive amounts of water consumption, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Studies from respected scientists have shown increases in harmful contaminants in the area including arsenic, mercury, aluminum, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, phosphorus, selenium, titanium, total phenols, herbicides and pesticides as well as traces of ammonia, antimony, manganese, nickel and molybdenum.

These chemicals have been associated with type 2 diabetes, cancers of the bile duct, liver and urinary tract and skin and vascular diseases.

Industry and government sources suggest tailings pond leakage into soil, groundwater and surface water are insignificant despite reports in 2003 that found leakage rates were at 11 million litres per day.

The Alberta government, industry-funded Regional Aquatics Monitoring System has been widely criticized for using “questionable statistical methods and assumptions,” and for the “lack of details of methods, failure to describe rationales for program changes, examples of inappropriate statistical analysis and unsupported conclusions and inadequate monitoring sites.”

With no clear long term sustainable vision or plan for the oil sands, the Keystone pipeline expansion would allow for unabated increased production in Northern Alberta without considering present issues associated with the development.

Erasmus said he and other First Nations have taken their concerns to provincial and federal governments north of the border, including requesting independent environmental monitoring, but they have been all but ignored.

“To date the federal and provincial governments have not taken the concerns seriously of impacted First Nations,” said Erasmus. “They claim there is no proof the oil sands are adversely effecting communities. The project is seen as being in Canada’s national interest and that it must go ahead.”

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous communities must have free, prior and informed consent before any projects like the Keystone XL get the go-ahead.

The US State Department has opted to hold a new round of public consultation hearings into the XL expansion in six different locations throughout impacted areas, after they release a final environmental impact statement on the project.

A decision is expected near the end of 2011.

Keystone refused to be interviewed for this article.

Trevor Kehoe is a journalist originally from Calgary, now based in Vancouver. You can read more at www.commoninterestcanada.blogspot.com, where this article was originally published.