Anthony Swift writes for Switchboard, which is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Here’s what he has to say on clean-up: "Raw tar sands bitumen is nearly solid at room temperature and must be diluted with toxic natural gas liquids to create the thick sludge that travels in high pressure pipelines...When spilled, the light natural gas liquid in the tar sands vaporizes, creating a toxic flammable gas that poses a health hazard to emergency responders and nearby landowners. The bitumen, which is heavier than water, sinks into rivers and mixes with sediments. Bitumen contains significantly more heavy metals than conventional crudes and does not biodegrade."

Read this editorial from Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun on the debate over the risks posed by increased oil tanker traffic on BC's coast (May 16, 2012)

Listen to the rhetoric generated by questions about the risk from supertankers carrying an additional million barrels a day of heavy oil through B.C. waters and one might be persuaded that a conspiracy of Luddite dunces advocates a return to mud huts and riding donkeys to work.

Huh? How does asking for an unbiased evaluation of risk mutate into an assumed automatic veto of the use of oil?

The point is not whether we should or should not use oil - it's whether the risks of using a particular oil resource in a particular way under particular circumstances may or may not out-weigh the claimed benefits.

Proponents of these pipelines naturally minimize the risks. And why wouldn't they present the best possible case for their projects since they want them to proceed? But that doesn't mean that B.C.'s public - which ultimately will pay the costs for cleaning up any major spill while the foreign-owned proponents pocket the bulk of profits and pay them out of the country - should swallow such assertions at face value.

Nor does it mean that subjecting such schemes to rigorous scrutiny is some kind of betrayal of Canadian society.

There is risk. And there is risk. Jaywalking downtown at 3 a.m. carries significantly less risk than jaywalking on the free-way during rush hour. One risk might be acceptable, the other looks like stupidity. Among the issues emerging from the present pipeline debate is the question of whether the risks cited by the proponents are the actual risks and potential liabilities.

Proponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, for example, postulate a worst-case spill of limited size that occurs in sheltered waters during the calmest summer months.

Critics reasonably ask what the consequences - and costs - of a spill would be were a super-tanker to break up during winter on the exposed outer coast, where winds, tides and currents have the capacity to distribute heavy oil over a vast area.

Critics reasonably wonder whether the assessment of risks, both environmental and economic, and who bears the brunt of them, takes place in an unbiased forum given the official demonizing of those expressing doubt.

The principal demonizer - our federal government - has now arbitrarily rewritten the rules to both redefine the criteria for environmental assessment while usurping the final decision-making power from the body intended to do so at arm's length.

The province has not even sub-mitted its position to the Joint Review Panel on this incredibly important subject. Instead, it has surrendered to the federal power its right to hold an independent environmental review in the interests of British Columbians.

Yet the risks could be far greater than those framed in the documents filed by the proponents.

Read this story from Alberta Oil Magazine on BC Premier Christy Clark's idea that BC could share in resource revenues from Alberta Tar Sands to help compensate the province for risks associated with piping and shipping bitumen across BC and down its coast. (May 14, 2012)

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark is becoming a particularly uncomfortable thorn in Alberta’s side.

In a wide-ranging interview with Brian Hutchinson at the National Post, the B.C. Liberal Party leader suggests – without explicitly saying so – that her government will not lend its support to Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline without first seeing a commitment to oil sands royalty sharing.

“Because at the moment, what we know about it is, we’re moving an Alberta product through British Columbia, with no value added in our province, and we’re taking 100 per cent of the risk,” she said.

Clark is understandably reluctant to back the Pacific-bound oil sands pipeline. With a provincial election on the horizon, Hutchinson notes, polls show the B.C. Liberals trailing a resurgent New Democratic party. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader, is blunt about his party’s opposition to the Gateway scheme.

From an April 30 caucus letter submitted to the Gateway Joint Review Panel:

We believe that the NGP will cause significant adverse economic and environmental effects and is not in the public interest. Therefore the NGP should not be permitted to proceed.

Against this backdrop, Clark has wholeheartedly endorsed plans to liquefy and ship tanker-loads of super-cooled natural gas to many of the same markets targeted by Enbridge.

The B.C. premier is so enthusiastic about LNG that she is prepared to alter the western province’s climate-change policies to take credit for greenhouse-gas reductions in countries that import B.C. gas, Justine Hunter reports at the Globe and Mail.

Overlooked in her zeal for natural gas – a jobs plan calls for three LNG terminals to be built by 2020 – is the fact that a good deal of B.C. exports currently pass through Alberta (via the Alliance Pipeline) en route to the Chicago market.

Read more: http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2012/05/b-c-premier-floats-oil-sands-royalty-sharing/

Read this blog from CBC.ca on BC Premier Christy Clark's recent dismissal of Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's concerns about the net economic impacts of unchecked Tar Sands development on Canada's economy is simply "goofy". (May 12, 2012)

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is firing back at federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, calling his stance on the oilsands "goofy."

Clark told CBC Radio's The House that Mulcair's comments about the negative economic impact of Western Canada's resource sector on provinces that rely heavily on manufacturing don't make sense.

"I really thought that type of thinking was discredited and it had been discredited for a long time. It's so backwards," Clark said. "I think that's just goofy."

Clark was responding to an interview with the NDP leader on CBC Radio's The House last week. Mulcair told host Evan Solomon that the resource sector in Western Canada is driving up the dollar artificially and straining the manufacturing sector in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Opposition leader compared Canada's economic realities to "Dutch disease," referring to the collapse of the Dutch manufacturing sector in the 1960s after oil-industry development raised the country's currency.

Clark said that comparison isn't accurate.

"The NDP talk their gobbledygook, but really ... they want less economic development," she said. "We all know it's a recipe for disaster."

Clark said British Columbia is stepping up investment in mining and forestry and that Mulcair's perspective clashes with the province's philosophy on economic development.

"What I hear him saying is 'you know Western Canada, we don't want you to make that big contribution anymore. It distorts our ability to be able to do things in Eastern Canada,'" she said.

"I'm sorry, that is not what this country is built on."

Clark isn't the first premier to criticize Mulcair's comments. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said earlier this week that Mulcair's take on the oilsands is divisive.

"It's a concern for people out West," Wall said. "I think his economics are wrong. And there's a lack of recognition there that the resource strength for Western Canada is a strength for the whole country."

Clark was set to leave for her second trade mission to Asia on Saturday. She has made exporting Canadian resources to Asia a priority and the route for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship crude from the oilsands to the Pacific coast, passes through British Columbia.

Read original post: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/2012/05/12/christy-clark-tom-mulcair-the-house.html

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix's decision to seek legal counsel on stopping the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (May 13, 2012)

B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix is predicting a "businesslike" relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper if the NDP wins next spring's provincial election, even though he's investigating ways to challenge a critical component of Harper's economic plan: Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway pipeline megaproject.

Dix said Friday he's assembling a legal team headed by Vancouver lawyer Murray Rankin, a specialist in aboriginal, natural resource and environment law, to consider his legal options to oppose the controversial $5.5-billion pipeline proposal now before a federal review panel.

Dix said the legal team is looking at various legalities surrounding the issue, including the federal legislation and the Harper government's approach to the joint review of the Enbridge proposal by a panel drawn from the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

One matter they're looking at is a 2010 deal in which the B.C. government said it accepted that a federal environmental review would be equivalent to a B.C. process.

The agreement notes that the federal review will "take into account" the views of the public and first nations. Dix said there may be questions about whether Ottawa has fulfilled that commitment.

The NDP leader had tough words for Ottawa's handling of environmental reviews of two controversial natural resource projects: Calgary-based Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and Vancouver-based Taseko's New Prosperity gold-copper mine.

The Harper government is aggressively championing the pipeline, tabling legislation certain to ease the project through the regulatory review process despite aggressive opposition from many B.C. first nations.

The project is also the centre-piece of Alberta Premier Alison Redford's so-called national energy strategy, which is seeking cross-Canada approval for infrastructure to get natural resources - especially oilsands crude - to key markets like China.

Read this update from the Vancouver Sun on the motion filed today at Enbridge's AGM by NEI Investments regarding First Nations opposition to the company's proposed Northern Gateway pipelines.

The motion filed by Ethical Funds to push Enbridge to address the risks associated with first nations’ opposition to their proposed pipeline has failed.
The vote was 28.5 per cent for, 60.7 per cent against, and 10.7 per cent abstained, said Jamie Bonham, manager, extractives, research and engagement at NEI Investments, the parent company of Ethical Funds.
My story today  explained how NEI Investments filed the motion to be voted on at Enbridge’s annual general meeting today in Toronto.
The $5-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipeline project would transport oil from Alberta’s oilsands to Kitimat, where it would be loaded on tankers and shipped around the world. The legal, operational and reputational risks cited by Ethical Funds include a possible lengthy court battle, delays from protests or blockades and potential damage to Enbridge’s reputation, NEI Investments said in their proxy alert to shareholders.

A coalition of Northern B.C. first nations called the Yinka Dene Alliance and their supporters have taken a train across Canada to the AGM in Toronto to protest the proposed pipeline.

Ethical Funds holds Enbridge shares in their Ethical Balanced Fund. Enbridge is one of the top 10 holdings in the fund with 148,700 shares worth about $6 million, Bonham said, adding that they’ve owned the shares for more than six years.

Read original blog post: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/05/09/ethical-funds-motion-fails-at-enbridge-agm/

Read this story from the Hill Times on Canada's rapidly deteriorating global reputation on the environment following a federal budget that would gut many environmental laws and protections. One internationally renown sustainabile development expert, Maurice Strong, claims, “It has been the most anti-environmental government that we’ve ever had, and one of the most anti-environmental governments in the world.”   (May 9, 2012)

Experts on sustainable development say the majority governing Conservatives made significant strides on conservation and banning toxic substances during their five years of minority rule, but the Tories are now abandoning environmental efforts altogether, and some fear the most recent federal budget’s focus on development over the environment risks further damaging Canada’s international reputation.

“Canada has custody over one of the largest environments in the world. It’s resource rich, and that gives us a special responsibility—one which this government is not exercising,” Maurice Strong told The Hill Times last week. “It’s very discouraging, and we’re going to pay a very heavy price for the policies of this government.”

Mr. Strong has represented Canada internationally in a variety of capacities over the past 50 years, beginning with his tenure as deputy minister for External Aid—now CIDA—in the early 1960s and served as Petro-Canada’s first chair after it was established in 1975. He is credited with convening one of the largest summits of world leaders in history, as secretary general of the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Policy makers from throughout the international community will reconvene to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit and hold talks on developing the green economy next month in Rio. Mr. Strong, who is an honorary professor at Beijing’s Peking University and today advises the Chinese government on sustainable development, was in Ottawa last week to speak at a Rio +20 planning event organized by economic think-tank Sustainable Prosperity.

Mr. Strong, who turned 83 last week, did not mince words in criticizing what is increasingly seen as anti-environmental policies by the federal government.

“It has been the most anti-environmental government that we’ve ever had, and one of the most anti-environmental governments in the world,” Mr. Strong lamented.

The Conservatives have been criticized throughout their six years in government for offloading environmental responsibilities to the provinces and obstructing international efforts to address climate change, but with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.) 2012-2013 budget—the Tories’ first budget drafted as a majority government—experts on sustainable development say that the government has confirmed its intentions to fast-track industrial development at the expense of the environment.

Read more: http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2012/05/07/tories-accused-of-being-%E2%80%98one-of-most-anti-environmental-governments-in--the/30647?page_requested=1

Read this story from the Toronto Star discussing the results of a recent freedom-of-information search which revealed special RCMP units have been spying on First Nations in BC who are organizing against the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline through their "unceded territory". (May 9, 2012)

The RCMP has been spying on a group of British Columbia First Nations whose vocal opposition to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline has taken them to the company’s annual shareholders meeting in Toronto, according to documents obtained through an access-to-information request.

The documents show that a provincial RCMP unit has been closely tracking the potential for “acts of protest and civil disobedience” by the Yinka Dene Alliance, a coalition of northern B.C. First Nations who have been at the centre of resistance to Enbridge’s $5.5 billion pipeline proposal.

Their territory covers a quarter of the route of the pipeline, which would carry more than 500,000 barrels of oilsands crude from Alberta through pristine territory to Kitimat, B.C., for export by supertanker to Asia and other markets.

The revelations add ammunition to critics who have charged that the Harper government is waging a campaign to demonize legitimate opponents of resource developments like the Northern Gateway, by labelling them as radicals or including them in Canada’s “counter-terrorism” strategy.

Saik’uz First Nation Chief Jackie Thomas, a member of the Yinka Dene Alliance who made a cross-country trip on the “Freedom Train” to protest in Toronto against the pipeline on Wednesday, said she has had suspicions for some time about RCMP surveillance.

“We’ve always been peaceful, but this is how they try to paint us as the enemy,” said Thomas, a grandmother and mother of four concerned that an oil spill could destroy the lands she hunts and fishes on with many of her community members.

“The federal government seems to be using all its arms to push through this project against the will of anyone who opposes it, but we won’t be deterred. It is not a crime to defend our land and waters from a tarsands pipeline and to make the future safe for our grandkids.”

According to the documents, the RCMP unit gathered intelligence from unspecified “industry reports,” newspapers and websites, and Facebook and Flickr photo accounts.

They also appear to have monitored private meetings, including one between First Nations and environmental organizations held in Fraser Lake, B.C., at the end of November, which Thomas says was not announced publicly.

The meeting’s purpose was “to strengthen the alliance between First Nations and environmental groups opposing Enbridge,” an intelligence report from December states.

Enbridge declined to comment about whether it has been exchanging information with the RCMP.

The monthly intelligence reports note that the oil company “will experience increasingly intense protest activity due to the environmental sensitivity of the Northern Gateway path, combined with the fact that the territory has never been ceded to the Crown by First Nations in B.C.”

The pipeline would cross more than 700 rivers and streams, whose abundance of fish has spawned an economy integral to the region, and three vital watersheds: the Mackenzie, the Fraser and the Skeena.

More than 100 First Nations have banned an Enbridge pipeline from their territories, declaring “we will not allow our fish, animals, plants, people and ways of life to be placed at risk.”

An intelligence report notes that the Yinka Dene Alliance will show an “increasing propensity and likelihood of utilizing blockades and confrontation to deter industry from accessing disputed territory.”

With opposition growing among the B.C. population, including NDP leader Adrian Dix, likely the next premier, Enbridge will face an uphill battle to build the pipeline.

As previously reported in the Star, a national RCMP surveillance program monitoring First Nations that ran between 2007 and 2010 shared similar intelligence reports about First Nations with the private sector, including energy companies.

Read full article: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1175824--rcmp-spied-on-b-c-natives-protesting-pipeline-plan-documents-show

Read this article from the Vancouver Sun on a motion filed at Enbridge's AGM in Toronto this week demanding the company answer to mounting concerns over First Nations opposition to the company's controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipelines. (May 9, 2012)

NEI Investments' Ethical Funds has filed a motion to be voted on at Enbridge's annual general meeting in Toronto Wednesday, asking the company to address the risks associated with first nations' opposition to their proposed pipeline.

The $5-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipe-line project would transport oil from Alberta's oilsands to Kitimat, where it would be loaded on tankers and shipped around the world. The legal, operational and reputational risks cited by Ethical Funds include a possible lengthy court battle, delays from pro-tests or blockades and potential damage to Enbridge's reputation, NEI Investments said in their proxy alert to shareholders.

" ... [I]f the company cannot provide a compelling rationale that refutes the risks that we've identified, then the prudent course of action would be to put the project on hold," said Jamie Bonham, man-ager, extractives, research and engagement at NEI Investments, the parent company of Ethical Funds.

Enbridge is encouraging shareholders to vote against the motion because they are making good progress in their negotiations with first nations along the proposed pipeline route and think the opposition is overstated, said Todd Nogier, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman.

"We have solid support of first nations for the proposal," Nogier said. "We've been consulting with first nations for years. Nogier said that many of the first nations with land or land claims along the route have agreed to a 10-per-cent stake in the pipeline.

Check out this new cartoon from Gerry Hummel. Christy Clark says she isn't taking a position on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines - but as we revealed this week, this BC Liberal "neutrality" is a myth. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is quite conspicuously throwing everything but the kitchen sink at opponents of the pipeline, causing the mainstream media to begin questioning his tactics.