Media headlines are trumpeting this week’s agreement between Premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford regarding tar sands infrastructure in BC. In our opinion, however, this agreement brings the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipeline proposals no closer to reality.
BC has agreed to sign on to the Alberta Energy Strategy, and in return Alberta has accepted, in principle, BC’s five pre-conditions for supporting tar sands tankers and pipelines. The framework provides no assurance that any pipeline proposals will be approved, rather it lays the groundwork for future talks between BC and Alberta. The underlying issues that have led to such staunch opposition to tar sands tankers and pipelines BC, however, remain as unresolved as ever, as does the fact that neither the Enbridge or Kinder Morgan proposals have actually met the BC’s five pre-conditions.
Let’s take for instance the pre-conditions of providing “world-leading” oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems on both land and water: A Nuka Research report commissioned by the BC government and released last month confirms that the technology does not exist to ensure effective marine oil spill response in all conditions. As for inland spills, BC itself had this to say in its written argument at the Northern Gateway hearings:
[T]here are serious concerns about the ability of NG to respond adequately to spills from the pipeline, particularly spills into watercourses. The challenges of terrain, access, remoteness and weather are compounded by the possibility that, as occurred in Michigan, dilbit [diluted tar sands bitumen] can sink. Enbridge’s Michigan spill, and the apparent inability of that company to institute continuous improvement increases this concern.
The Michigan spill referenced by BC is the worst inland spill in US history, Enbridge’s 2010 tar sands pipeline spill near Marshall, Michigan, which contaminated over 60 kilometres of the Kalamazoo River and demonstrates the very real risks and consequences of land-based oil spills.
And then there is BC’s pre-condition of addressing and respecting the constitutionally protected the title and rights of First Nations: First Nations opposition to tar sands tankers and pipeline projects in BC is widespread and unwavering. Representatives of over 160 First Nations have supported the Save the Fraser Declaration and the Coastal First Nations Declaration that ban the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project and similar tar sands projects as a matter of Indigenous law.
In any event, in the context of the Enbridge proposal, BC is an awkward position, having already taken the clear position that federal regulatory approval for the project should be denied. The Joint Review Panel hearing process on Enbridge is now closed, with a final report pending by the end of 2013. In its written argument at the close of the hearings, BC forcefully rejected the proposed pipeline because Enbridge did not credibly demonstrate an ability to effectively respond to marine and terrestrial oil spills.
The Enbridge pipeline proposal has not changed since BC rejected it. In fact, BC notes in its written argument that it is too late for Enbridge to make major changes: “The Province submits that requiring NG [Northern Gateway] to show now that it will in fact have the ability to respond effectively to a spill is particularly important because there will be no subsequent public process in which that ability can be probed and tested”. At this late stage of the review process, with opportunities for public involvement closed, it would be inappropriate in the extreme for BC to flip-flop on its Enbridge position.
Indeed, one of the only things that appears to have changed is Alberta’s go-ahead that BC may negotiate with industry for additional economic benefits from pipeline projects, triggering skepticism once again that BC’s five conditions amount to nothing more than a price tag on BC’s support for destructive pipeline and tanker proposals.
But now, as in July last year when the conditions were first announced, Premier Clark needs to understand that our magnificent natural heritage and the rights of First Nations are not for sale.
By Gavin Smith, Staff Lawyer and Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel