Spokane7
29°
January 29, 2012 in Nation/World
Canadian oil pipeline would be path to China
Alternate route hits familiar obstacles
National Energy Board panelists, back row, stand with Haisla First Nation Hereditary Chiefs during the opening day of hearings for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project in Kitamaat Village, B.C., on Jan. 10. Several hundred people gathered for hearings on whether a pipeline should be laid from the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific.
(Full-size photo)
KITAMAAT VILLAGE, B.C. – The latest chapter in Canada’s quest to become a full-blown oil superpower unfolded this month in a village gym on the British Columbia coast.
Here, several hundred people gathered for hearings on whether a pipeline should be laid from the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific in order to deliver oil to Asia, chiefly energy-hungry China. The stakes are particularly high for the village of Kitamaat, south of Kitimat, because the pipeline would terminate here and a port would be built to handle 220 tankers a year and 525,000 barrels of oil a day.
But the planned Northern Gateway Pipeline is just one aspect of an epic battle over Canada’s oil ambitions – a battle that already has a supporting role in the U.S. presidential election, and which will help to shape North America’s future energy relationship with China.
It actually is a tale of two pipelines – the one that is supposed to end at Kitamaat Village and another that would have gone from Alberta to the Texas coast but was blocked by the Obama administration citing environmental concerns.
Those same environmental issues are certain to haunt Northern Gateway as the Joint Review Panel of energy and environmental officials canvasses opinion along the 731-mile route of the Northern Gateway pipeline to be built by Enbridge, a Canadian company.
Accidents ‘inevitable’
The fear of oil spills is especially acute in this pristine corner of northwest British Columbia, with its snowcapped mountains and deep ocean inlets. People here still remember Alaska’s Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, and oil is still leaking from the Queen of the North, a ferry that sank off nearby Hartley Bay six years ago.
The seas nearby, in the Douglas Channel, “are very treacherous waters,” said David Suzuki, a leading environmentalist. “You take a supertanker that takes miles in order to stop, (and) an accident is absolutely inevitable.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada’s national interest makes the $5.5 billion pipeline essential. He was “profoundly disappointed” that U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the Texas Keystone XL option but also spoke of the need to diversify Canada’s oil industry. Ninety-seven percent of Canadian oil exports now go to the U.S.
“I think what’s happened around the Keystone is a wake-up call, the degree to which we are dependent or possibly held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made for very bad political reasons,” the Conservative prime minister told Canadian TV.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich quickly picked up the theme, saying that Harper, “who, by the way, is conservative and pro-American … has said he’s going to cut a deal with the Chinese. … We’ll get none of the jobs, none of the energy, none of the opportunity.”
But the environmental objections that pushed Obama to block the pipeline to Texas apply equally to the Pacific pipeline, and the review panel said more than 4,000 people have signed up to testify.
The atmosphere has turned acrimonious, with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver claiming in an open letter that “environmental and other radical groups” are out to thwart Canada’s economic ascent.
He said they were bent on bogging down the panel’s work. And in an unusually caustic mention of Canada’s southern neighbor, he added: “If all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: Sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further.”
Environmentalists and First Nations (a Canadian synonym for native tribes) could delay approval all the way to Canada’s Supreme Court, and First Nations still hold title to some of the land the pipeline would cross, meaning the government will have to move with extreme sensitivity.
China’s interest
Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela: more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025, which the oil industry sees as a pressing reason to build the pipelines.
Critics, however, dislike the whole concept of tapping the oil sands, saying it requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases greenhouse gas emissions and threatens rivers and forests. Some projects are massive open-pit mines, and the process of separating oil from sand can generate huge pools of toxic sludge.
Meanwhile, China’s growing economy is hungry for Canadian oil. Chinese state-owned companies have invested more than $16 billion in Canadian energy in the past two years, state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in the pipeline, and if it is built Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands is sure to boom.
“They (the Chinese) wonder why it’s not being built already,” said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert and professor at the University of Alberta.
Harper is set to visit China next month. After Obama first delayed the Keystone pipeline in November, Harper told Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Pacific Rim summit in Hawaii that Canada would like to sell more oil to China, and the Canadian prime minister filled in Obama on what he said.
Jiang reads that to mean “China has become leverage.”
But oil analysts say Alberta has enough oil to meet both countries’ needs, and the pipeline’s capacity of 525,000 barrels a day would amount to less than 6 percent of China’s current needs.
“I don’t think U.S. policymakers view China’s investment in the Canadian oil sands as a threat,” said David Goldwyn, a former energy official in the Obama administration.
“In the short term it provides additional investment to increase Canadian supply; that’s a good thing. Longer-term, if Canadian oil goes to China, that means China’s demand is being met by a non-OPEC country, and that’s a good thing for global oil supply. Right now we are spending an awful lot of time finding ways for China to meet its demand from someplace other than Iran. Canada would be a great candidate.”
Shifting support
Pipelines are rarely rejected in Canada, but Murray Minchin, an environmentalist who lives near Kitamaat Village, said this time he and other opponents are determined to block construction. “They are ready to put themselves in front of something to stop the equipment,” Minchin said. “Even if it gets the green light it doesn’t mean it’s getting done.”
Enbridge is confident the pipeline will be built and claims about 40 percent of First Nation communities living along the route have entered into a long-term equity partnership with Enbridge. The communities together are being offered 10 percent ownership of the pipeline, meaning those which sign on will share an expected $400 million over 30 years.
But of the 43 eligible communities, only one went public with its acceptance and it has since reneged after fierce protests from its members.
Janet Holder, the Enbridge executive overseeing the project, said pipeline leaks are not inevitable, new technologies make monitoring more reliable, and tugboats will guide tankers through the Douglas Channel.
At the Kitamaat hearings, speakers ranged from Ellis Ross, chief of the Haisla First Nation in British Columbia, to Dieter Wagner, a German-born Canadian, retired scientist and veteran sailor who called the Douglas Channel “an insane route to take.”
Ross used to work on whale-watching boats, and refers to himself as a First Nation, a term applicable to individuals as well as groups. He testified that the tanker port would go up just as marine life decimated by industrial pollution was making a comeback in his territory.
“You can’t imagine what that means to a First Nation that’s watched his territory get destroyed over 60 years. You can’t imagine the feeling.”
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
9 die in Afghan protests 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Adopt A Pet- Help save lives of creatures, large and small. 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
greenlibertarian on January 29 at 1:55 a.m.
Jiang reads that to mean “China has become leverage.”
But oil analysts say Alberta has enough oil to meet both countries’ needs, and the pipeline’s capacity of 525,000 barrels a day would amount to less than 6 percent of China’s current needs.
China needs the energy to mass produce consumer products on a scale the US can only imagine.
They have factories with a single shift population of 100,000 workers, not all of them slaves and/or children.
That’s who make “our” (US) Apple products, and everything else. They live on site, which is rather convenient.
Good luck competing with that.
rosehips on January 29 at 6:40 a.m.
May the First Nations NEVER cave in to bribery at the expense of the Earth and its inhabitants. The Northern Gateway should not be built. The Keystone XL should not be built. Enbridge should never have built the pipeline that leaked millions of gallons of toxic oil (and cost millions to clean up) into the Kalamazoo River.
Canada needs to STOP extracting oil from the tars sands of Alberta.
I just read that Stephen Harper said that tar sands oil is more important than democracy. What?
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/nature/2012/01/29/2807.html
greyhound2 on January 29 at 7:06 a.m.
The Keystone project is not dead, it is just under review to avoid the same enviromental disaster as the BP spill in the Gulf. Prior to that disaster, officials were told that everything was under control and perfectly safe. Obviously not.
rosehips on January 29 at 8:06 a.m.
The Keystone might not be dead, but it will lead to no good if it is built. It’s like an unwanted fetus that can either be aborted or brought into this world to face a life of suffering. Poor thing. Mama fought to bring you into the world (for selfish reasons) but couldn’t guarantee your well being. Daddy never wanted you and will continue to fight to make your life miserable because he doesn’t like paying child support.
Some pregnancies should never be brought to term.
Young couples should think about the long term costs of having kids, as we should think about the long term impacts of extracting tar sands oil.
Sorry if the analogy bothers anyone. :/
RedCedar on January 29 at 10:02 a.m.
Yes, well… It’s almost racist the way white liberal intellectuals still expect the noble savages to be the defenders of Mother Earth. To begin with, “they” aren’t any more of a unified body of people who all think the same way than “we” are. For another, I’ve never seen an environmental or development dispute with the “natives”, anywhere in the world, that couldn’t be solved with money. For the most part, what they want is to be paid for the resources on or under their land or for the right to cross it. Look at the Alaska native land claims act. Look at almost every hydroelectric and tar sands project in Canada. Once huge areas of federal timber land in coastal Alaska were deeded to the native corporations, the Indians set to work clear-cutting it far faster than even the notorious Tongass National Forest was doing.
One could always argue that the native leaders who sign development deals have sold out and are corrupt, don’t respect their heritage, are ignoring the voices of those natives who don’t want the development, and so on, but that’s how it always is in a democracy — there are always some people who don’t support what the leadership decided to do. Native people basically have three choices. They can have nothing in the way of modern material goods and live in poverty, squalor, and poor health. They can be wards of the State, if the State is sufficiently generous and they feel like being kept like a museum diorama in their “traditional” lifestyle on “unspoiled” land. Or they can try to make a good modern living off of what they have, which is usually legal title to a fairly large amount of land per person. Like all of us, they can decide how much land to preserve and how much to exploit in which way in order to make money, but if selling an easement across one’s property is “bribery” then so is working at McDonald’s.
johnclarke on January 29 at 10:20 a.m.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich quickly picked up the theme, saying that Harper, “who, by the way, is conservative and pro-American … has said he’s going to cut a deal with the Chinese. … We’ll get none of the jobs, none of the energy, none of the opportunity.”
Fine by me. The product takes nearly a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of fuel. Let the Chinese have it.
rosehips on January 29 at 10:44 a.m.
redcedar said: “Yes, well… It’s almost racist the way white liberal intellectuals still expect the noble savages to be the defenders of Mother Earth.”
What is racist is how the first nations people who live near the tar sands are so disregarded by the Canadian gov’t.
And Stephen Harper denies that Canada ever practiced colonialism. huh
rosehips on January 29 at 10:46 a.m.
“I’ve never seen an environmental or development dispute with the “natives”, anywhere in the world, that couldn’t be solved with money. ”
wow, how very racist of you.
Shadedmuse on January 29 at 10:50 a.m.
The Only reason why TransCanada wants to build this pipeline to the gulf so they can sell the oil on the open market while people in both U.S and Canada continue to pay high prices for Petrol.
if the oil is realy for the U.S market then the pipeline should be built to the oil refineries in Edmonton and Billings Montana, and not any further. the finshed product should then be shipped by rail to tank farms across the country.
If Steve W Harper wants a pipeline to the gulf of mexico, then I can tell him where he can stick his Pipe.
Steve W harper is nothing but a Bush clone and lacky and he is an embarrasment to Canada, why he calls him self a Canadian is beyond me he isnt a real Canadian. jack Layton and Jean Chretien Tommy Douglas and his grandson jack bauer are real canadians,
Shadedmuse on January 29 at 11:33 a.m.
one and done I will be fagging you because your comment is racist.
rosehips on January 29 at 11:36 a.m.
no I don’t find killing any children acceptable, oneanddone. I do find removing fetuses from the womb to be a compassionate act. I consider abortion a favor to a fetus.
rosehips on January 29 at 11:38 a.m.
My parents missed many chances to abort their 8 fetuses. Instead 7 of us survived the pregnancy. That’s 7 more people populating the planet. They should have given it a bit more thought, I think.
mikeln on January 29 at 11:40 a.m.
Why would we want to sell energy we will need in the future for our own security to a communist (dictatorship) nation. It is well known that china has the fastest growing military in the history of the modern world. The united states is shipping tons of scrap to this country that is being used to make this huge war machine. Can anyone smell greed mixed with selling out the american people? Many of the wealthy in this country are nothing more then traitors protected by thier wealth and illegal control of the peoples government. We had better wake up to this or we will be the ones living at the job site with orders not to talk to each other or face jail. This pipeling was born of greed and must be killed by the true patriots of this country.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 29 at 11:54 a.m.
What are you righties going to do when the oil runs out?
Oh yeah, it wont happen in your lifetime, so who cares, right?
woamike on January 29 at 12:24 p.m.
Rosehips,
You are one sick puppy.
spokanimal66 on January 29 at 12:26 p.m.
I would imagine that most, if not all of the comments are from Americans….more than likely liberal minded folks….I just love the one about the aborted fetus…wow.
Leave it to Americans to speak ‘on authority’ about OTHER COUNTRIES’ issues. This is a Canadian issue. If the Canadians and included First Nations wish to dance, it ain’t for the US and/or its citizens to dictate what they do. Also, just as a reminder, Canada’s public safety and financial status are head and shoulders above the US. The tar sands have been operating for decades without US help and/or intrusion….LEAVE IT THAT WAY! BTW…I am a dual (US/Canadian) citizen…so THERE!
johnclarke on January 29 at 12:38 p.m.
mikeln on January 29 at 11:40 a.m.
Why would we want to sell energy we will need in the future for our own security to a communist (dictatorship) nation. It is well known that china has the fastest growing military in the history of the modern world
It’s not ours to sell, and the China spends WAY less than us on their military. They are not morons, they are happily sitting by and watching us spend trillions on war while they swoop in, build schools and get the mineral rights. China is not a military threat to anyone. Every year there is story about China’s one used Russian aircraft carrier, that is barely (if at all) operational and their huge quantity of submarines. That’s all a bunch of crap to create an enemy that does not exist. Why would they go to war with us? That is like a landlord that decides he is tired collecting rent and shoots his tenant.
Shadedmuse on January 29 at 12:40 p.m.
How does an oil pipeline turn to aborted fetus? you people are crazier then the guy in Oklahoma that thinks aborted fetus is being used in Food.
reminds me of the old joke whats grosser then gross ten dead babies in a garbage can, whats grossier then that one live one eating his way up to the top.
RedCedar on January 29 at 12:54 p.m.
The same thing everyone will do — go back to muscle power and a little bit of hydro. Nobody can keep the oil from running out. The force of law can postpone the inevitable for a little while, but that’s it. You could no more keep the people of the earth from using up all the available oil than you could keep a group of starving people in a supermarket from eating the food. Talking about alternatives and conservation is a parlor game that we can indulge in while life is still pretty comfy, but there is no “crash program” to make some new energy source appear nor any draconian carbon tax that will make what oil we have last forever.
There is no “steady state” in nature, and we delude ourselves if we think we can engineer or legislate some sort of sustainable future in which life will go on nice and steady forever at the level of comfort we have today. The total duration of human civilization on the Earth will be a blink of an eye in geological terms. Fossil fuels will be gone in somewhere between 100 and 1000 years, no matter what we do with technology and legislation. Human civilization has existed for perhaps 10,000 years. It would be hard to imagine it existing for more than another 10,000, now that we’ve stripped the Earth of most important natural resources. Within 100,000 years there will have been several ice ages, grinding most northern cities to dust. Within 1,000,000 years many new species of animals and plants will have appeared, along with entirely new mountains. Within 100,000,000 years, almost all the animals will be different from what we know today, only the rarest traces of anything man-made will remain, the continents will be in completely different places, and new ore deposits will have formed, though if a species exists that’s smart enough to exploit them, it won’t be human. Even at that point, the Earth still has 90% of its biologically useful life remaining.
We are mortal, individually and as a species. Even our planet is mortal. The oil will run out, civilization will collapse, humans will disappear (both lefties and righties), and the Earth will barely notice. Some would say I’m a pessimist. I’ve just noticed that everything runs in cycles and that in nature, the only constant is change. Is it pessimistic to say that tonight it will get dark? That next summer it will get hot? That a useful non-renewable resource will get used up?
bdr on January 29 at 12:55 p.m.
When are we going to realize opposition to this pipeline started in Canada with films such as H2oil. When are we as a people going to yell shine baby shine or yell blow baby blow at our nation political conventions? Why is the GOP stuck yelling drill baby drill when drilling can only scrape out 2% of what you need!
Why is it only Big O is the one pushing green power ,a lasting power a fix it FOREVER power.
RedCedar on January 29 at 1:00 p.m.
Actually, most of them have signed on to tar sands deals. There is one band that hasn’t signed on that has gotten a lot of press because of a doctor who says they are suffering health problems from the developments. You probably know the details better than I. First Nations title and sovereignty are recognized by the Crown and supersede Canadian federal authority. Not only is it not the Canadian government’s job to protect First Nations land, but that government is not allowed to do so even if it wanted to. If an oil company strikes a deal with First Nations people in Nunavut, for example, it’s dealing directly with the natives. Even if the Great White Father wanted to protect his naive Red Children from being exploited by the evil capitalists, he could not do so. Do you think natives are still too stupid to make good decisions about what to do with their own land? If so we should forget about sovereignty and go back to having Indian Agents (or the Canadian equivalent) looking after his helpless little charges, like a glorified baby-sitter.
The bottom line is if you want to stop tar sands mining, you have to criticize the First Nations as well as the provincial and federal governments and the oil companies. In fact, when the tar mining is being done on First Nations land, which it often is, partly because they have the oil and partly because they’re easier to deal with, that’s the place to start lobbying. Business in Indian Country is different now from how was 100 years ago, or even 40 years ago. The old theme of the noble savages being victimized by the white capitalists no longer applies. Most of those noble savages are now capitalists themselves. Yes, there is serious disagreement within some bands, just as there is within “our” society, and there are some who are opposed to all development, usually because they aren’t getting in on the deal, but for the most part a generous royalty check tends to outweigh quit a lot of concern about Mother Earth.
RedCedar on January 29 at 1:04 p.m.
Oh, that’s rich. No details about what this “power” might be, how much real fossil fuel power it might take to build it, or anything else. Just the word “green”, and it will fix everything forever. If only we could vote to elect a new set of laws of physics, everything would be perfect.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 29 at 1:15 p.m.
John,
Actually, the Chinese carrier (ex-Soviet Navy’s Varyag, potentially to be named Shi Lang after a Tang Dynasty admiral who conquered what is present day Taiwan) has in fact put to sea to conduct initial sea trials. However, she was observed to be operating without a crucial component; arrestor wires. So while apparently seaworthy, she can not currently conduct air operations. (You can’t recover most modern fixed-wing aircraft w/o arrestor wires.) She also seems to be missing the P-700 GRANIT SSM missile system originally intended for the Admiral Kuznetzov-class, which significantly degrades her integral (other-than-aircraft) surface strike capability. Last but not least, the Chinese surface vessels that would form her escort are relatively mediocre.
Military analysts are mostly in agreement that even should Shi Lang become operational in the anticipated next four to six years, she would not by herself pose a particularly potent threat. She is at least a full generation behind current U.S. and proposed British Fleet Carriers. Her main purpose at this time seems to be to bolster Chinese prestige and to act as a test-bed, training platform for future generations of Chinese carriers.
Shadedmuse on January 29 at 1:30 p.m.
the future in energy is solar and wind and hydro power or as I like to call earth wind and Fire.
the presdient needs to invest in companies that produce power from Solar wind and Hydro, Southeast washington produces all three with Damns wind turbines and solar panels because its the sunniest place in the state.
johnclarke on January 29 at 1:38 p.m.
Jeff;
Actually, sounds like we are saying the same thing. It’s not a threat to anyone, except maybe the pilots trying to land on it.
rosehips on January 29 at 2:26 p.m.
@ spokanimal. Sorry but global warming is a world issue. Canada chose to reneg on their Kyoto agreement but it will not come without consequences.
Canada will one day be forced to stop extracting tar sands unless they want to be owned by China.
I am preparing for the day when our northern border will be checkered with Chinese military bases.
Who thinks that is an impossible scenario?
rosehips on January 29 at 2:31 p.m.
What is racist is the portrayal of First Nations that has been expressed by some on this thread. Shameful.
That some tribal council leaders sell out for money is a fact. That you can characterize First Nations as a whole in this way is despicable.
rosehips on January 29 at 2:35 p.m.
woamike, you may think I’m sick but I think having babies is a very selfish act that shows disregard for human life. I understand the urge to have kids. I understand the blessings of parenthood. But no one can convince me it isn’t a selfish act.
misjustice on January 29 at 2:36 p.m.
Funny, some folks in Canada don’t want the pipeline and terminal on THEIR soil due to environmental concerns but then they get all cranky when WE voice opposition to the pipeline and terminal due to, well, OUR environmental concerns….
bdr on January 29 at 3:05 p.m.
Hey redcedar just type in some 30 year old words into Google search bar. WIND POWER and SOLAR POWER. What was your result?
Then maybe you could put some gas in your car drive west to Seattle or drive 84 to Portland and tell me what those thousands of large propellers do?
Big O is the ONLY candidate pushing green power endless power
solar city is not a ECO-SCAM.
Only brick headed GOP feel that way.
RedCedar on January 29 at 3:43 p.m.
I’m sorry the natives aren’t all the victimized nature-loving innocents that you’d like them to be, and are instead intelligent, self-reliant modern people capable of balancing complex issues and making decisions for themselves. It would be so much simpler if it was all a Hollywood movie and the good people were all one color and the bad people a different color.
rosehips on January 29 at 4:49 p.m.
Well, I guess you just consider all people greedy sell-outs, redcedar. I happen to know plenty of native people who are fighting for the river and the land. You may think it’s about money but some of us truly feel that Mother Earth is sacred.
rosehips on January 29 at 4:52 p.m.
the earth is god’s greatest creation. people were sent here as a test to see if we recognized this. we failed miserably.
RedCedar on January 29 at 5:12 p.m.
It’s you, not me, that’s been using the word “greedy”. I agree with you about the Earth being sacred, though I would question why God would find the need to test His creation or create a people who would fail His test. Humans are, after all, as much a product of nature as any other species.
I just disagree with your characterization of environmental fights a being between greedy exploiters and Earth-loving natives. You may not like the deals that some of the First Nations people have signed, and neither do I in some cases, but they had their reasons for doing so, which I would not characterize as “greed” or “bribery” any more than anyone working at a job, making, or selling something.
More importantly, as long as you think it’s nefarious outsiders forcing the natives to do this or that environmentally-destructive thing, you’re unlikely to be able to stop it. That’s the old model and it’s not true any more in the US and Canada. It’s the band council or the tribal government you need to lobby if you want them not to approve some tar mine or pipeline across their land.