Enbridge yet to include scathing report on oil spill as evidence in Northern Gateway hearings

A scathing report by the U.S. National Transportation Board into the 2010 Enbridge oil spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan has not been included as evidence in the company's assessment of the risks associated with the pipeline.

In an interview with CBC Radio B.C. economist Robyn Allan claimed that even though the negative report was published back in July Enbridge the company seeking approval for the Northern Gateway project has not tabled any information about the spill. The Northern Gateway project is to build a pipeline that would carry oil from the oil sands of Alberta to a port in northern BC. The oil would then be shipped to Asian markets. Allan argues that by excluding the Kalamazoo spill in its risk assessment Enbridge's calculations underestimate the risks posed by the pipeline. Allan said:
"So far, it's as if Kalamazoo never happened."

The Kalamazoo spill leaked an estimated 877,000 gallons (3.3 million liters) of oil into the Kalamazoo river in July 2010. The NTSB said that there was a complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge. The company failed to realize the pipeline was leaking and continued pumping oil for some time. The cleanup costs are estimated to run at about 800 million U.S. Joe Oliver the Canadian Natural Resources minister said that it was an issue that should be learned from.

 Oliver said:There obviously also has to be a management culture of safety and it has to permeate the organization...We feel that the company [Enbridge] has to focus on some of these management issues and the NEB which has direct oversight responsibility is very much attuned to that and is going to pursue it in an objective, independent, and scientific way. "

When however Oliver was asked if the U.S. report should be tabled as evidence before the group looking into hearings on the project Oliver refused to confirm that the report would be put forth as evidence. He said:
"I don't want to in any way get into the specifics of what the panel is looking at. First of all, it's inappropriate and it's also a slippery slope. I think it's up to the NEB, to the chair who oversees it, and to the panel to make these decisions."Given the importance and relevance of the report one would think that it would definitely be included. You would think that the government might at least suggest that. However, this is the Harper government and it is most anxious to have the project approved.

Stephen Harper the prime minister earlier claimed that the pipeline was in the national interest. Oliver himself however said that he had not ever said the pipeline should go through. But Oliver then went on to praise all the economic benefits of the pipeline although he insisted that safety came first. Oliver went on:"
On the assumption that the project is safe for Canadians, safe for the environment, we think it's very important to proceed because there are enormous economic benefits for the country from coast to coast to coast,"
Enbridge has been running a number of ads touting the positive safety records of oil pipelines. Enbridge took out full page ads in major newspapers in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario.
Enbridge noted the company's 99.999% safety record and stressed its commitments to preventing any oil spills.
Allan the economist said that Enbridge should table the findings of the NTSB report rather than carrying out a public relations campaign with expensive ads. Allan remarks.
"You'd think that for a company that continuously claims to meet or exceed standards of practice or legislation that the polite and responsible thing to do would be to table all of the NTSB findings... that they would actually take action and make sure all of that documentation was on the table instead of spending time writing ads."No doubt Enbridge sees the situation as a battle for public opinion and is simply using money to paint a positive picture of its safety record rather than publicizing a report that makes them look foolish as well as showing little concern about safety.
I have included a TV ad by Enbridge that stresses the value of the pipeline. There is a spoof of the ad here.

NWT Premier Bob McLeod proposes oil pipeline to Beaufort Sea from Alberta

Bob McLeod who is premier of Canada's Northwest Territories argues that the province of Alberta should consider promoting a pipeline north through the territories to the Beaufort Sea. The pipeline would move oil north from the Alberta Tar Sands and then it could be shipped through the Beaufort Sea and Bering Strait to Asian markets.

There is already a proposed pipeliine through British Columbia to a Pacific port in British Columbia that would then ship oil by tanker to Asian markets. However that pipeline called the Northern Gateway faces strong opposition from environmentalists and aboriginal people who occupy land along the proposed route.'The premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has also demanded that certain conditions be met before her government would approve the project.

McCleod hoped that the Northwest Territories would benefit from a proposed McKenzie Valley pipeline that would carry natural gas from the Beaufort Sea into Alberta where it would join with an existing natural gas line. However that project has been beset by difficulties. Several investors recently pulled out of the project and it is now on hold. The proposed oil pipeline would compensate for the failure of this project to go ahead.

There have been no direct talks between the government of Alberta and the Northwest Territories on a possible oil pipeline to the north. However Cal Dallas the minister of internatioanl and governmental affairs for Alberta told the CBC that he would be more than pleased to talk to Premier McCleod to explore potential projects. Dallas thought that McCleod's remarks could very well encourage the private sector to study the viabillity of other pipeline projects of the sort McCleod suggests.

The Arctic environment might be devastated by any oil spills especially any spill in the icy waters of the Beaufort Sea. Environmentalists and aboriginal groups would probably object to a northern route just as vehemently as they do to the Northern Gateway Project. For more see this article.

Canada: Aboriginal groups claim their consent needed for Northern Gateway pipeline

  The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would run from the Tar Sands in Alberta to the Pacific Coast where oil would be shipped to mostly Asian markets. The pipeline planned by Enbridge Inc. would cost 5.5 billion dollars.
    The route of the pipeline would take it through land that belongs to several aboriginal groups. Shawn Atleo, who is national chief of the Assembly of First Nations said that the bands involved had "the right to free, prior and informed consent" over any projects that affected their territory.
    The federal Conservative government is a strong backer of the pipeline and claims it would provide jobs for natives. But a number of bands oppose the project because of the risk of a spill. The concern is not only about leaks along the route but accidents involving oil tankers along the B.C. coast. Some of the bands threaten to block the pipeline construction even if it is approved. However other bands made be able to negotiate a deal with Enbridge.
    Aboriginal groups are not on good terms with the Conservative government. They are demanding more control over their resources and over major resource projects a right that they claim treaties gave to them. Chief Atleo noted:"We have continued to lurch from crisis to crisis with deep social ills and deplorable conditions in our communities, very often when these communities are adjacent to major natural resources projects,"  For more see this article.

Conservative Government calls opponents of Northern Gateway Pipeline radicals

   The minister of natural resources Joe Oliver claims that what he calls radical environmentalist are trying to delay Alberta oil sands developments and thereby also derail the Canadian economy. This warning comes just a day before hearings begin into the projected Northern Gateway pipeline.
    The prime minister Stephen Harper joined the chorus by noting that the hearings could be hijacked. The proposed pipeline would deliver oil from the Alberta oil sands to Kitimat on the west coast of Canada.  From there the oil would be shipped to overseas markets.
     Over 4,3000 people are slated to speak on the pipeline over a period of 18 months. The project is naturally supported by big oil companies. The Conservative government is very much favorable to Big Oil and would like to make the process of approval of projects much quicker. In Oliver's letter there is virtually no recognition that there might be serious environmental problems that could trump development. The letter is filled with scare tactics and ad hominem arguments. He mentions in particular foreign  money funding these radical environmentalists. No mention that oil lobbyists might be at work on the Conservative government and indirectly assuring that Conservative coffers are overflowing.
    Here is a sample of Oliver's language:"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."  Stephen Harper told an audience in Edmonton Alberta home province of the oil sands that he has heard that there is a growing concern that  foreign money is financing attempts to overload the public hearing aspects of regulatory hearings.
   Harper no doubt is looking for political support for legislation that would make it easier for big oil interests to get their way. Of course this is all presented as attempting to foil nefarious environmental radicals and advance the interests of  the average Canadian through development of the oil sands projects. Not mentioned is that this would be great for the one per cent as well. The environmental health of the planet doesn't even figure in these calculations. For more see this article.

First Nations form united front against pipeline but there is no unity

  A total of 55 First Nations groups have formed a united front against a proposed pipeline that would bring oil from the province of Alberta's oil sands to the west coast port of Kitimat for export. However at one native group has signed an agreement with Enbridge the company who would build the proposed line.
    In a statement the First Nations group said:  "These First Nations form an unbroken wall of opposition from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean," The group said they would stop the pipeline legally or otherwise even putting themselves in the way of bulldozers.
   The costs of the pipeline is projected at around 5.5 billion. With the delay in the Keystone XL pipeline to the Texas coast there is more pressure to approve the Enbridge pipe line to the west coast. Completion of the line would make it much easier to export Canadian oil to Asian markets.
    Although the Northern Gateway project as it is called has been heavily criticized by environmentalists and many native groups at least one aboriginal nation has signed on to the project. The Gitxsan First Nation has taken an ownership stake in the project. The band hopes to make millions through its stake. The chief said:
“Over time we have established a relationship of trust with Enbridge, we have examined and assessed this project, and we believe it can be built and operated safely,” The company says that it is in negotiations with other first nations as well. For more see this article, and also here.