BC First Nations, lobby groups, against Enbridge pipeline

First Nations, ethical and environmental groups from British Columbia were in Toronto  on May 6 to protest Enbridge’s (ENB-T) plan to construct two 1,170-km pipelines from the oil sands of northern Alberta to the coast in Kittimat, BC.

In ceremonial dress, First Nations delegates from three different groups mixed water from their home rivers into a single vessel outside of the Meridian King Edward Hotel on King St. E. where Enbridge was holding its annual general meeting. The ceremony was to show their unity against the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Gerald Amos of the Haisla First Nation is afraid the pipeline will have a negative impact on the environment if it’s built, affecting a large number of people.

“We are not opposed to development, just the pace and scale and type of development,” Amos said, arguing that, “The community should have the right to say ‘no.’”

The First Nations groups weren’t alone in opposing the pipeline; representatives from several groups were also there to voice their opinions both outside the hotel and during the AGM.

Nikki Skuce came from Smithers, BC, to tell Enbridge that she’s worried the pipeline will cause an increase in development for the oil sands. Skuce recently joined the group Forest Ethics out of her concern for the environment.

“This project is a step backwards,” Skuce says. “What worries me is that the focus of the industry and the government is just on the pipeline without considering the two ends – the tar sands and the increased traffic on the water.”

Inside during the AGM, shareholders voted on two motions put forth by proxy shareholders that were related to the pipeline. Everyone who was outside took the opportunity address Enbridge with their concerns.

The first motion was by the Dogwood Initiative, a group based in Victoria, BC, which asked the board of directors to prepare a report by September on the frequency, volume and liability to the company of a product spill associated with the Northern Gateway project. Shareholders voted 11% in favour of the proposal, 89% against.

Later during the question and answer period, Amos asked Enbridge president and CEO Patrick Daniel how he would guarantee there would be no spill on First Nations traditional territory. The company averages 60-70 spills per year on all its pipelines, though the company says many of those are small and at their own pumping stations.

“You know we can never guarantee that there would never be an incident but you will find that we are a very responsible operator,” Daniel said. “We obviously do not want to or expect to have a significant spill that would affect any waterway or land. I personally fly fish in BC for those Steelhead you referred to … I can guarantee you that I will be doing everything I can.”

The second motion asked the company to complete a study to assess the costs and benefits of free, prior and informed consent of the impacted aboriginal communities as a necessary condition for proceeding with construction of all Enbridge projects. The proposal also suggested that management disclose to investors the status of those negotiations with First Nations along the proposed pipeline, including reference to specific opposition.

Jennifer Coulson, a member of the Ethical Funds, which presented the motion, pointed out that current corporate disclosure does not provide investors with enough information to adequately assess the risks. “We are uncertain about which First Nations have met with Enbridge, which have signed agreements and how these agreements might relate to consent of the project,” she said.

About one third of shareholders voted in favour of the proposal and the board made special note of the significant number of ‘yes’ votes. However, chairman David Arlege told shareholders that the company does not support the proposal. “The final decision of whether to proceed with a project is made by the regulators and is based on a determination of whether the project is in the Canadian public interest.” He said this requires a balancing of the cost and benefits of the project with all segments of society with none having a veto. The company also believes that its disclosure about the Gateway project is adequate already.

Later during the question and answer period, Alphonse Gagnon, a hereditary chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation, said that he feared the pipeline might have a negative impact on the rivers in the area which all feed the Fraser River. He also described a protest a day earlier where 150 people gathered outside an Enbridge office and said that more and more people were beginning to question the pipeline.

“How do you propose to deal with the growing opposition to the pipeline in the North?” Gagnon asked.

Daniel promised the various groups that he would sit down with them to get an understanding of the issues but asked them to consider the broader context, that is, “the importance of delivering energy to people that need it, whether they are here or Southeast Asia or Africa … energy is critical to our survival and our way of life.”

But he said that it was important to Enbridge to have everybody onside with the project.

One pipeline would carry about 525,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tars sands to the BC coast. The other pipeline would carry 195,000 barrels of condensate, a chemical and petroleum mixture used to dilute crude oil extracted from the tar sands so it can travel in the pipeline.

From Kitimat, BC, tankers would carry oil and condensate to and from the United States, China, India and other markets.

The pipeline has yet to be reviewed by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.