BC Pipeline Plans Meet Resistance

First Nations, activist shareholders and environmental groups from British Columbia were in Toronto on May 6 to protest Enbridge’s (ENB-T, ENB-N) plan to build two 1,170-km pipelines that will carry oil and a petroleum and chemical solution between Edmonton and the coast in Kitimat, B. C.

In ceremonial dress, First Nations delegates from three different groups mixed water from their home rivers into a single vessel outside of the Le Meridien King Edward Hotel on King Street East 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 could lead to spills both on traditional territory and along the B. C. coast. He also says Enbridge hasn’t been consulting with First Nations in a meaningful way.

“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 shareholders’ meeting.

Nikki Skuce came from Smithers, B. C., to tell Enbridge that she’s worried the pipeline will encourage more development of the oilsands when Canada should be focusing on renewable energy.

“This project is a step backwards,” said Skuce, who recently joined the group Forest Ethics out of her concern for the environment. “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.”

In an interview after the meeting, Enbridge president and CEO Patrick Daniel said that the development of the oilsands wasn’t dependent on the pipeline to the West Coast. “But I think it’s fair to say the West Coast market might provide the better pricing options for producers.”

Daniel said that Enbridge would take full responsibility for any kind of spill associated with its operations but that the company isn’t financially responsible for spills on the ocean, as Enbridge’s business ends where the pipeline ends. However, he added that Enbridge’s name would be attached to any spill on the B. C. coast. “It’s fair to say that people are going to consider it an Enbridge problem if there is any kind of incident, but there’s an international fund that’s been established to provide financial support in the event of an oil spill.”

That fund is the International Oil Pollution Fund, which has 103 member states, and is financed by levies on certain types of oil carried by sea. Entities that receive oil after sea transport pay the levies, not the countries. When there is a spill, ship owners pay a certain amount depending on the size of the tanker and the fund covers the rest, up to a limit. In Canada, there is also an independent government agency called the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.

The pipelines have not yet been approved by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency — this process could take two years — and getting the green light would mean the end of an unofficial 1972 federal moratorium on oil tankers on the West Coast coast, a voluntary tanker exclusion zone that keeps tankers moving between Alaska and Washington state, away from the B. C. coastline.

During the meeting, shareholders voted on two proposals put forth by proxy shareholders that were related to the pipeline. And many others, including those who were protesting outside the hotel, took the opportunity address Enbridge with their concerns as proxy shareholders.

The first proposal was by the Dogwood Initiative, an environmental group based in Victoria, 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 Gateway pipeline project. Dissenters brought up the major spill by the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in 1989 in Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska, which devastated the marine and coastal environment.

Shareholders voted 11% in favour of the proposal.

Following the meeting, Eric Swanson, a corporate campaigner with Dogwood, said that for the last 30 years people living in coastal B. C. have believed that oil tankers weren’t allowed on the coast. “This new project threatens to break that understanding,” Swanson says. “Over 70 per cent of British Columbians oppose oil tankers, so that’s something that Enbridge has to worry about.”

Later during the question and answer period, Amos asked Enbridge’s Daniel how he would guarantee no spills on First Nations traditional territory. Enbridge 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 B. C. for those Steelhead you referred to. . . I can guarantee you that I will be doing everything I can.”

The second proposal asked Enbridge 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, made by Jennifer Coulson of Vancouver-based shareholder activists Ethical Funds, also asked management to disclose to investors the status of those negotiations with First Nations along the proposed pipeline, including reference to specific opposition.

Coulson said 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 support. However, chairman David Arledge said 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.

Arledge said this requires a balancing of the cost and benefits of the project between all segments of society, and that no one group should have a veto. The company also believes that its disclosure about the Gateway project is already adequate.

Later, during the question and answer period, Alphonse Gagnon, a hereditary chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation described a protest a day earlier. He said 150 people had gathered outside an Enbridge office in Terrace, B. C., adding 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 their concerns, but asked them to consider the broader context, “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 on-side with the project.

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

The pipeline, which would cost an estimated $4.5 billion, would employ 4,000 people during construction and 200
once it’s complete. Enbridge says it will try to hire as many local people as possible. Most of the pipeline will be buried up to a metre underground except at certain water crossings, where the company says it will be safer to run the pipeline above the water crossing.