Climate Change, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Environment, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Natural Resources, North America

CANADA: Opposition Builds to New “Tar Sands” Pipeline

MONTREAL, Jan 17 2012 (IPS) - As public hearings began earlier this month into a controversial pipeline that would transport crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to tankers along the coast of British Columbia, environmental groups and First Nations communities have raised staunch opposition to the project, which they say puts both the environment and their traditional way of life at risk.

“The consensus is that there really are no benefits to us on the coast, and that the potential negative impacts could be devastating,” said Art Sterritt, the executive director of British Columbia’s Coastal First Nations, a group of 10 First Nations communities whose territory extends almost two-thirds the length of B.C.’s Pacific coast.

“We rely on that ocean area for our sustenance, for our work, for everything. The coast as we know it, with one (oil) spill, would cease to exist. All the clam beds, cockle beds and shellfish beds that we depend on on the coast – that really have been the foundation of our culture – they would be wiped out,” Sterritt told IPS.

The 5.5-billion-dollar “Northern Gateway Pipelines” project, which would be carried out by Canada’s largest natural gas distribution company, Enbridge, aims to transport over 525,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the Albertan tar sands to the B.C. coast.

This oil would then be shipped via large oil tankers off the coast of Kitimat, B.C. to Asian and other international markets.

Traveling over 1,170 kilometres across Canada, the project involves two separate Enbridge pipelines that would cross hundreds of rivers and streams, the Northern Rockie mountains, and the territory of over 50 First Nations communities.

On its website, Enbridge states that the Northern Gateway Pipelines will generate 2.6 billion dollars in tax revenues for local, provincial and federal governments over 30 years, boost Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 270 billion dollars in that same time period, open up important Asian trade markets, and create thousands of jobs for Canadians.

“Safeguarding the quality-of-life enjoyed by communities along the project route is always front-of-mind, and we understand that the best way to do this is to protect the environment. As such, the long- term success of our project depends on our ability to construct and operate the project in an environmentally responsible way. We are confident that the benefits to Canada, B.C. and Alberta outweigh any project risk,” Enbridge’s website reads.

Still, not everyone is convinced of the project’s safety.

“We’ve all seen the images of the Exxon-Valdez spill, from the (British Petroleum) disaster, from the Enbridge pipeline spill in Kalamazoo (Michigan); when we see those images, we know how real the threat of inevitable oil spills are and what they will do,” said Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, a B.C.-based organisation that provides legal aid on environmental issues to individuals and communities.

Clogg told IPS that the major threat of an oil spill along the route of the Enbridge pipelines or from a tanker on the British Columbian coast could endanger large salmon populations and drinking water, and would severely impact Native communities and marine industry workers.

Increasing Albertan tar sands production is also extremely damaging to the environment, she added, and Canada should instead be putting legal limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

“There has been an apparent assumption made by the Canadian federal government that somehow tar sands production or pipelines are in the Canadian national interest. I would caution (against) prematurely making that assumption,” Clogg said.

“There’s no reason that oil company profits should come before the well-being of our coastal communities and really, the well-being of everyone on the planet, which is choking on greenhouse gas pollution.”

According to recent polls commissioned by B.C. environmental groups, up to 80 percent of British Columbians oppose oil tanker traffic along the province’s coast, a major component of the Enbridge pipelines project.

“I don’t see the project going ahead with the opposition that’s in B.C. We really don’t need to have the threat of a disaster hanging over us. British Columbians are not going to be bullied by Ottawa as they try to jam this project down our throats,” said Coastal First Nations’ Art Sterritt.

“This project is really of no benefit to British Columbians, and certainly of no benefit to the coast. And the people who would see no benefit are taking all the risks, while the people who are seeing all the benefits in Ottawa are taking no risks. This is not in the national interest.”

Another 2,753-kilometre, seven-billion-dollar pipeline called Keystone XL, intended to carry 700,000 to 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to refineries in the U.S., also met with fierce grassroots opposition in both countries. U.S. President Barack Obama has since postponed a decision on its approval until next year.