Statement of Work For the past several years, British Columbians have been inundated with messages via corporate and government propaganda to construct a northern pipeline. Many citizens feel they lack the clarity of the issues surrounding this pipeline. British Columbians have an innate mistrust of Corporate Oil and Government’s honesty and motives due to past experiences. Purpose of Work The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the construction of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline (NGP) is unnecessary, environmentally damaging and jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty of its petroleum resources. This report will show exporting petroleum to foreign markets with a new pipeline through Northern Alberta and British Columbia takes unnecessary risks to the environment. This risk also includes up to 220 supertankers yearly traveling along the coastal waters of BC. This report will also show that the NGP is not fiscally necessary to the Canadian economy and it weaken Canada’s control of its natural resource. The NGP approval process will also perpetuate the unhealthy and disrespectful relationship between Canada’s First Nations and use of their traditional territories. Sources and Method of Data Collection For the purpose of this report, data will be collected from corporate, government, community and environmental agencies’ websites that have a vested interest for or against the construction of pipelines in North America. The research of data collected will focus on the credibility of information being presented, the method of presentation, by whom the message is being created by and their intentions.. Preliminary Outline The preliminary outline for this report is as follows: 1. Who are the stakeholders in the development of the Northern Gateway pipeline? a) What are the driving forces for the pipeline? b) What are the benefits to the stakeholders? 2. Historical data on the transportation safety of oil pipeline and waterway freighters. a) Report on recent incidents of the safety records of pipelines and ocean tankers. a) Social and environmental impact of oil spills. 3. How is the pipeline being marketed for approval? a) What are the communication tools being used to promote the pipeline? b) Is the target audience being manipulated by advocates for the pipeline? 4. Who are the opponents of the pipeline? b) What are the principle arguments against the pipeline? 5. Provide a thoughtful and intelligent reasoning opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline. a) Deliver a report outlining the strengths against the development of a pipeline through the delicate and sensitive landscape of northern BC and the coastal waters. Since the arrival of colonialism to these lands know as Canada, the rich natural resources are credited in providing financial wealth, prosperity and development of the country, social benefits and rewards. Canada has become leaders in the exploration of oil and other natural resources, including the exportation of these precious commodities. On the expense side of this equation we have devastated many of the non-renewable resources, caused destruction to waterways and harbours. Canada has increased the detrimental effects to the environment by impairing the living conditions of its human inhabitants, wildlife and food sources. It can be argued that the mass destruction and exploitation of Canada’s resources have financially benefited mainly a handful of Canadians. The Irving’s, Macmillan, Southern, Friedland are recognized families with a long history of wealth generated through Canada’s natural resources. Canada has exported natural resources to foreign countries while leaving its citizen to deal with the environmental recovery and aftermath. First Nations have mostly been ignored and treated unfavourably in regards to their traditional territories. FN treaties are disregarded and not upheld by government when it comes to the exploitation of natural resources. This report will show that the development of the Northern Gateway will continue with the following: • Provide financial wealth to an exclusive ownership of Canadian elite and influential; • increase foreign ownership and profits of Canadian resources; • destruction to the environment and • impairment of the general health and welfare of Canadians. The Northern Gateway Pipeline as described by Enbridge Energy on their Northern Gateway website is A twin pipeline will run 1,177 km from Northern Alberta, through Northern British Columbia, to the deep-water port of Kitimat B.C. at the head of the Douglas Channel. The westbound 36 diameter pipeline will carry up to 525,000 barrels of oil per day. The eastbound 20 diameter pipeline will carry 193,000 barrels of condensate per day, which is a product used to thin oil for pipeline transport. 70% of the pipeline route will utilize previously disturbed land. The pipeline will be dug deeper under watercourses for added protection. Ten pump stations will be powered by electric pumps to limit noise and greenhouse gas emissions. The Kitimat Marine Terminal will include two ship berths and 19 tanks for oil and condensate. While docked at the Terminal, tankers loading export oil will be surrounded by a containment boom. The forecast is for the terminal to have the capacity to serve around 220 ship calls per year. Who are the Stakeholders for the Northern Gateway Pipeline? The stakeholders of the NGP are Big Oil Corporations, wealthy investors, the Canadian Government and Asia Countries. Enbridge is the obvious stakeholder of the NGP. Enbridge however acts as an agent for a larger group of outside influences such as, Big Oil corporations, Asia- Pacific, Alberta Oilsands Consortium, the Canadian Federal Government and the Alberta Government . One of the largest consortium is Sunshine Oilsands Ltd. Their corporate website indicates that they control 7% of the total oil-sands in Alberta. The company owns and controls 100% of 467,969 hectares of oil sands. It further indicates that it is a Calgary based public company, listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since March 2012. Like much of the Alberta oil-sands, controlling interests are owned or influenced by foreign corporations or countries. Canada’s oil reserves rank second in the world. Canada has become the largest exported of oil to the United States. As the price for crude oil increases, it allows for large-scale production of Alberta oil-sands to become profitable. New export markets are being sought after to generate further profits for Canada’s excess oil supply. The NGP would provide access to Canadian oil to the developing Asia market. It’s no wonder that majority ownership of oilsands project are from foreign Asia investment. According to the website of Husky Oil, which has deep roots to Western Canada, is now 70% owned and controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing. The oil underneath the surface of Canada’s landscape is no longer a soverign product to Canada. The ownership and profits from Canadian oil are also exported beyond the country. According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s Natural resources wealth was $1 trillion in 2006. Oil contributes 57% of that wealth or $570 billion dollars. Sure many Canadians hold shares in Canadian Oil companies and would benefit from the oil production, however the majority owners are out of country. Employment opportunities have grown in Alberta, specifically in places like Fort McMurray but the high wages are off set by higher cost of living. For average Canadian, there has not been true economic gains from the employment in oil production. The main beneficiary to the Northern Gateway pipeline and sea port is the foreign and mostly Asian controlling ownership of the Alberta Oil-sands.The Asian market has invested heavily into the oil sands and are now wielding their influence over the direction of its exportation. Enbridge anticipates a huge revenue stream from the NGP. Enbridge hopes to maintain dominance as a large-scale Canadian pipeline firm with undoubtedly vast influence within the energy setor. Provincial and federal governments view the project as a pathway of future prosperity for all Canadians and re-election platforms. How the pipeline is being marketed? Based on the NGP Facts Website, The marketing strategy for the NGP began in 1998 with a feasibility study and needs analysis. The marketing strategy was formally launched in 2004. In 2006 the BC Provincial government outlined the frame work of a Joint Review Panel. Between 2006 -2012 public consultation occurred with 17 community meetings that heard “expert testimony” via oral and read written evidence. In 2013, the BC provincial government introduced the five conditions for project approval. It should be noted that the Alberta Government has been a vocal proponent for the pipeline, while the federal conservative government remained mute and neutral in their communications on the pipeline project. These public consultations’ and community meetings were for invited guests, conducted with limited media access, press announcements and behind closed locked doors. Un-invited guests and protesters were not allowed access to these meetings. During one of these meetings held in Victoria, protesters gain access through a receiving door opened by associates of a media outlet. These protesters disrupted the proceedings and gain some notoriety. Early 2010 Enbridge Energy along with other petroleum companies launched television and radio advertisement promoting the benefits of the Alberta Oil sands. The marketing focused solely on the recent colonial history of the strong entrepreneur and innovation spirit that has made Canada what it is today. The marketing portrayed this entrepreneur and innovated spirit continues to play an important part of the economic development of oil resources. The NGP was marketed as a necessity to the Pacific coast for exportation to foreign markets. The early communication and marketing of the NGP by Enbridge was initially based on economic prosperity for the Canadian economy and Canadians. Enbridge focused on its safety records and an environmentally safe alternative than other modes of oil transportation. The oil pipeline industry has lead us to believe that pipelines are a safe and efficient transportation. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board investigates and reports on all pipeline releases. In their 2007 annual report, they provide the data on pipeline releases between 1990 and 2005. The Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) have shown a steady increase of pipeline releases since 1990. In the past few years there have been several pipeline releases in BC, Alberta and Michigan that have raised concerns over the safety of pipelines. The environmental damaged caused by these releases have been highlighted in the media. The marketing of the NGP has changed since these incidences. Radio advertising has changed to the following message: “We’re building a better pipeline not to make other things worse”. The only significant safety difference with the Northern Gateway pipeline is that the steel is to be construct on average 20% thicker. That works out to be 3.2mm thicker. The graph below provides a reference of scale that the 3.2mm makes. Oil and gas pipelines are also at risk from terrorist attacks. The map below is courtesy of the website Desmogblog; desmogblog/pipelines-101-introduction-north-american-oil-gas-pipeline-routes-and-safety-concerns. It should be noted that the American Government does not publish maps of oil and natural gas pipelines like the graph listed below out of fear that the information could lead to terrorist activity. Terrorist attacks on Canadian pipelines is a real concern. A group of Canadian activists against the oil and pipeline industry called “Action Direct” were responsible and convicted in the 80’s for explosions linked to Canadian pipelines and other assets. Their prison sentences ended in 2009 and several currently reside in BC. This is a real potential risk for a disastrous and damaging long term environmental effect on the BC landscape, waterways, wildlife and population. With all the damaging media attention, Enbridge has found it necessary to change its approach in convincing the public to support the NGP. Enbridge has changed from economic benefits focus to building the safest pipeline ever built. Enbridge recently has made considerable changes and direction to its marketing strategy. These changes are apparent in the NGP website and advertising. One of the most significant changes to their website is what no longer appears. The original website depicted a project that had economic benefits and was environmentally safe. Gone from their website is the map outlining the land route of the pipeline that was absent of rivers, lakes, waterways and communities that it crossed. The ocean waterway that the tanker traffic would take appeared to be void of islands and other obstructions. What appears today is a community minded approach. It includes the personal bio of the Project Team Leader, a BC native, Janet Holder. gatewayfacts.ca/about-the-project/meet-janet-holder/. This new approach attempts to convince the BC public that Enbridge has their best interest at heart with a Project Leader that could not possibly want to bring harm to her native birthplace and home. The quote on the website is the following: Janet Holder’s #1 job is to get approval for the Northern Gateway Project — not just from officials — but from her fellow citizens of British Columbia. This is a clear attempt to change the approach to gain public support. Searching the website with the old Northern Gateway Pipeline address will re-direct you to the following information: Marine Protection. Land Safety. Long-term benefits for B.C. and Canada. Click here to visit gatewayfacts.ca. Your new destination for facts, resources and expert opinion on the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project. - See more at: northerngateway.ca/#sthash.XAESOT66.dpuf During the month of November 2013, the federal conservative government launched television and radio advertisement in the promotion of oil and pipeline industries. It is the belief of this author that the conservatives have previously avoided showing support for the NGP for fear of losing the important and necessary support of the BC electorates in a re-election campaign. The BC Provincial government recently securing financial consideration from the Alberta Provincial government in exchange for the construction of the NGP; the federal government may now feel they can continue to rely on the BC vote for their majority government. The big story behind the Northern Gateway communication is what is not being communicated and who truly the beneficiaries are. There is another controversial pipeline project in the news, which is the Keystone XL pipeline project. This brief background of the Keystone XL is to demonstrate the visual and non-visual propaganda being used by the wealthy and elite. The Keystone XL is a pipeline from Alberta to the United States. The U.S. President, Barack Obama is not in support of this project and has repeatedly said that his government would only approve the Keystone XL project if it would not materially alter Americas greenhouse gas emissions. This would appear to be a positive environmental approach from the US administration, however what is not openly reported is a more compelling reason for the Obama Administration. Keystone XL pipeline is in the hands of two extremely wealthy and influential individuals of the US. The Koch Brothers are the major proponents of this pipeline. The Koch brothers have personally and financially supported most of the opposition attacking President Obama. It is report that the Keystone XL pipeline would generate billions of dollars of wealth for the Koch Brothers. Meanwhile Warren Buffet, undoubtedly the wealthiest America lent his support to Obama during the past Presidential election. Buffett decried the coddling of the super-rich. He used himself and his secretary as an example, noting that her tax rate was much higher than his even though her income was just a tiny fraction of what he made. Warren Buffetts secretary became a political meme following that editorial, and the said secretary, Debbie Bosanek, was ultimately a guest of President Barack Obama at this years State of the Union address. Many would argue Buffett’s support help Obama win re-election. Buffett owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad which currently transport the oil from Alberta to American destinations. Opponents of the Northern Gateway Project Creating a definite list of opponents is more challenging than the proponents of the NGP. Generally those that want something are the more vocal group. Also the proponents of this project are the wealthy and influential. Many individuals opposed to the project remain silent and complacent. A recent article in the November 25th Calgary Hearld “Edmonton writer looks for human face of B.C” indicates they could find few BC supporters. Arno Kopecky, Edmonton-born writer and journalist traveled to Kitimat recently and discovered the following: ““What surprised me most was how hard it was to find someone in favour of the project even in Kitimat, an industry town born to service an aluminum factory and subsequently a pulp mill and methanol plant,” Kopecky says. “We literally found one person willing to speak to us who was in favour of the project — an oil facility engineer.” Most of the people he spoke with in Kitimat told him they were initially for the project until they looked closely at the numbers being provided by Enbridge, and realized it would create only 50 jobs, less than the crew of a B.C. ferry. Meanwhile, the route of the pipelines over the Kitimat River and the oil tanker terminal doubled their risk of an oil spill that could affect both their water supply and their fishery.” The following are the government of British Columbia’s five conditions for NGP project approval as laid out by Premier Christy Clark’s government in June 2013. 1. Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of NGP, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project can proceed. 2. World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and cost of heavy oil pipelines and shipments. 3. World-leading practices for land oil-spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines. 4. Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy oil project. 5. British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers. So who are the real opponents of the pipeline? Many individual British Columbians are, however feel their one voice cannot make a difference; a vast collection of environmentally concerned groups who are generally portrayed as “tree huggers” or pseudo scientists, other business opportunists that have alternative solutions for transportation; and the most logically opponents are the many First Nation communities in British Columbia. There are many articles and publications opposing the Northern Gateway published from hundreds of environmental groups. These groups provide detail information of the devastating effects caused by pipelines, not just in Canada and North America but throughout the world. The undeniable and enormous impact to the environment, wildlife and personal health of every citizen living near the Alberta tar sands is well documented. The premier and most respected Canadian environmental organization, the David Suzuki Foundation notes the following on it’s website: davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/01/northern-gateway-is-about-profits-versus-environment/# Its not just about potential damage from an oil spill along the pipeline route or from a supertanker plying the precarious fiords and waterways along our northern coast — as critical as those concerns are. The larger issues are about our continued reliance on polluting fossil fuels and the economic impact of rapidly exploiting and selling our resources and resource industries. Most economic benefits from increased tar sands production would go to the companies and their shareholders, including firms from the U.S., Korea, and China. The ethical oil argument is so absurd as to be hardly worth mentioning, but its one the government has latched onto. Oil cant be ethical or unethical. People, and by extension the companies they own and operate or the governments they represent, can behave in ethical or unethical ways, but a product cant. The Northern Gateway project, and much of the recent and pending tar sands expansion, will help companies owned by the government of China dig up the bitumen and send it there for refining and use The final group of opponents to the project are potentially the First Nation Communities. First Nations have and will likely remain the only true defenders of the natural resources, wildlife and the delicate balance of human interaction with its environmentally sensitive surroundings. First Nations are basically forced to be in the role of opposition. There is legal requirements for First Nations consultation and it is the 4th condition of the BC government’s approval process. This is a very precarious slope and pathway governments have created which could lead the proponents to squarely and publicly blame First Nations for failure to receive approval for the project. Therefore interrupting any lost in economic gains at the hands of First Nations for not permitting the project. From a solely environmental view point, First Nations are absolutely opposed to this project. So why are Frist Nations’ described as a potential opponent when they have been the most visible in actual protests through the “Idle No More” movement and given recognition for their efforts in a healthy relationship with the environment? There has not been proper engagement with First Nations to gather their thoughts and input. Is there a clear understanding of what First Nations communities really want and need? Consultation is not communicating your intentions but rather actively involving them in participating in the process of the project. The proponent, namely Enbridge is attempting similar tactics used by colonialism regime to force First Nations into an agreement. There is an inherent miss-trust and lack of honesty between governments, Big Oil and first nations. The vast majority of Canadians do not understand nor appreciate the devastating history and impact caused upon the indigenous people through the colonial past. First Nations will be viewed negatively either for their blocking and protest of the pipeline or for the financial gains provided to them under the approval. Conclusion The Northern Gateway Pipeline will transport unprocessed oil from the Alberta’s Tar sands oilfields, one of the world’s greatest man-made environmentally disasters. The NGP will cross through the ecologically sensitive land regions and coastal waterways of British Columbia with final destination to China, which the current Canadian government considers a police-state with atrocious human rights and environmental records. This oil, onced used in China and Asia will only cause further irreversible damage to the world’s environment. The proponents of the NGP consist mainly of the Canadian wealthy and elite along with foreign ownership will recognize the majority of the financial rewards. The report recommends not to proceed with the NGPO for the following key reasons: 1. The negative impact to the environment from the Alberta tar sands oilfields 2. risks associated with environmental damage in transporting this hazardous material across BC lands and waterways 3. lack of credible and overwhelming support from the public 4. financial rewards benefit only the wealthy and mostly foreign ownership 5. no long term Canadian employment and economic benefits 6. contributing to further environmental destruction in Asia 7. leading to worsening relationships between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people This report recommends not giving approval to the Northern Gateway Project and finds that the extraction of oil from the Alberta tar sands is creating an environmental disaster, oil pipelines have a poor safety record and a rupture from the Northern Gateway will be devastating to the landscape, waterways and wildlife. Financial proceeds from the Northern Gateway Project mostly benefit the ultra-rich, elite and foreign corporations and countries, while the risk of environmental and social disaster occurs only in Canada. Leon Isaac References JERVEY, B. 2011-07-28. Pipelines 101: An Introduction To North American Oil & Gas Pipeline Routes and Safety Concerns. Retrieved from desmogblog/pipelines-101-introduction-north-american-oil-gas-pipeline-routes-and-safety-concerns Kheraj , S. 2012-06-12. The History of Oil Pipeline Spills in Alberta, 2006-2012. Retrieved from activehistory.ca/2012/06/the-history-of-oil-pipeline-spills-in-alberta-2006-2012/ seankheraj/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pipelinereleases1990-2005.jpg Company History (N.D.) retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husky_Ener JACKSON, L. 2012,-11-26 REUTERS. Warren Buffett calls for a minimum tax on the wealthy. Retrieved from reuters/article/2012/11/26/us-buffett-tax-idUSBRE8AP0LY20121126 Company Prospective (N.D.). retrieved from bnsf/ Company History (N.D.) retrieved from gatewayfacts.ca/about-the-project/meet-janet-holder/ Suzuki, D 2012-01-11. Northern Gateway is about profits versus environment davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/01/northern-gateway-is-about-profits-versus-environment/
Posted on: Sat, 24 May 2014 16:51:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015