MP John Weston's office responds to Rafe Mair's recent column on the Harper Government's sham environmental "process". "Regrettably, [Rafe] has adopted an extremist position, rejecting a Northern Pipeline in principle, no matter what the cost to the community, to jobs, to our country, or to our economy. When asked at a gathering in North Vancouver where heard him speak, he rejected out of hand that a Northern Pipeline should be built, under any circumstance. For my part, I maintain an open mind..." Read Weston's letter and Rafe's subsequent response here.

Rafe welcomes Postmedia's new publisher for The Sun and Province, Gordon Fisher. For the past decade, Postmedia's coverage of important environmental and economic matters for BC - private power projects, fish farms, pipelines and tankers - has been pathetic and journalistic critique, let alone criticism, has been nonexistent. I invite you to look at your columnists' work over the past 5 years and try to find a discouraging word about private power. There have been the occasional, very occasional, news story but your political columnists are and have been silent. I ask you, are you content to let this continue?’

Read this story from the Kelowna Daily Courier on a recent "People's Forum" dealing with proposed Emnbridge pipeline and other energy issues. The talk featured Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, NDP Environment Critic Rob Flemming and Damien Gillis of the Common Sense Canadian. (Jan. 28, 2013)

Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline has no chance in British Columbia if Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has her way.
May was in Kelowna Saturday to speak to more than 300 people at the First United Church.

"Has Enbridge made a case? No they haven't. They have failed miserably in even putting together the evidence," she said.

May was joined by filmmaker Damien Gillis, NDP opposition environment critic Rob Fleming and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip in arguing the case against the proposed pipeline at The People's Summit.

Organized by the Council of Canadians' Kelowna chapter, the event was created to educate people about the pipeline before the National Energy Board's hearing today in Kelowna.

If approved, the nearly 1,200-kilometre twin pipeline would carry about 525,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Alberta to the B.C. coast for shipment by tankers. The proposed pipeline has caused controversy because of its potential negative effects on B.C.'s environment.

"We're part of this big question that the planet faces - what kind of future do we want to have?" said Gillis. He said the pipeline would tarnish British Columbia's $14-billion tourism industry that prides itself on its natural beauty.

"It's contradictory. We can't be this and that and the new Saudi Arabia of the world," said Gillis.

May focused on environmental concerns surrounding the pipeline during her speech. She said Enbridge hasn't considered what would happen if there was a major spill.

"There is not one piece of evidence what the spill would do from a pipeline or a tanker in Enbridge's submission to the energy panel that deals with the product that they plan to move. They said what would happen if crude would spill, but not diluted bitumen which is a lot harder to clean up and does more damage." But according to Fleming, British Columbians have the power to stop the pipeline in the next provincial election. He said the equivalency agreement that the B.C. Liberals made with the federal government in 2010, which gives them the decision-making power for these projects, can be revoked.

"If you want to make the B.C. election in May a referendum on the Enbridge pipeline, be my guest. We can untie the hands of the province. If British Columbians don't stand up for our coastline, nobody will."

Major concerns about the pipeline have also been felt by First Nations communities.

"We, as people, realize the future of this planet depends on how we treat it," said Phillip.

Read more: http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/front-page-news/may-says-no-way-to-pipeline-12813.html

Read this opinion piece by former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan on TheTyee.ca bursting the "bitumen bubble" argument coming from Tar Sands promoters to push new pipeline infrastructure. (Jan. 29, 2013)

Cenovus CEO Brian Ferguson, speaking at a Whistler investor's forum Jan. 24, 2012, claimed the double discount in crude prices from a lack of pipeline capacity is a "subsidization to the United States consumer by the Canadian economy" which he calculated is "$1,200 per Canadian."

The message he's sending? If each one of us wants to keep that $1,200 a year instead of providing income support for Americans, then get on the pipeline band wagon and become like him -- "in favour of all pipelines, going anywhere."

Ferguson's message is a variation of a theme we've been hearing from big oil for a couple of years -- echoed by the Canadian and Alberta governments. They get away with this tall tale because most of us do not understand how oil is traded and crude prices are set. Nor do we realize that the majority of crude oil produced belongs to integrated operations that own refineries too -- so if they lose on the one hand, they make it up on the other.

The narrative goes like this: resistance to oil pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain's twinning means an ever increasing supply glut in the U.S. Midwest, forcing the price of Western Canadian crude oil downwards as compared to the North American crude oil benchmark West Texas Intermediate -- WTI.

WTI is trading at about $96 US a barrel while key oil sands blended crude called Western Canadian Select -- or WCS -- is currently selling at a deep discount to WTI at $31 US per barrel. If Canadian oil could find its way to new markets it would command higher prices and improve producer revenues. But the problem, according to pipeline advocates, doesn't stop there...

...

Things have changed. Brent priced oil is selling at around $113 US a barrel -- a $17 US per barrel premium to WTI. When the oil sector talks about the double discount, this is what they are referring to -- WTI deeply discounted from Brent and WCS priced against WTI, deeply discounted again. They run the numbers as if western Canadian crude will command world prices once it finds its way onto new pipelines and into new markets -- even though they know this is false.

Oil sands crude takes more energy, and therefore costs more to process into finished products like gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. Even before there was any evidence of a glut in the U.S. due in part to the expansion of U.S. production from the Bakken, there was a natural discount for WCS related to product quality. Between 2005 and 2010 the discount of WCS to WTI ran at an average of $18 US per barrel.

Enbridge CEO Al Monaco told the Toronto Board of Trade last June that pipeline delays on projects like Northern Gateway is costing billions. He said our oil is "selling for $20 to$30 off world prices. If you do the math, that translates to lost value of some $60 million a day. A massive loss of value for Canadians." To get this figure, Monaco took Western Canada's crude oil exports by volume and pretended it captured Brent prices. The discount related to quality was ignored.

CIBC last March estimated the loss at $50 million a day or $18 billion a year. "We consider the current discounting of WTI vs Brent, and the more recent discounting of Canadian crudes vs. WTI (i.e., double discounted vs. global crudes) as a major issue."

Cenovus' Ferguson, in his talk to investors last week, pointed to the CIBC report and claimed "that number, I think is about double that given today's differentials" and raised the CIBC estimate to $36 billion a year.

But if you look at the differentials last March and compare them to today, they are almost the same. Last March Brent traded at about $124 US a barrel, WTI at $106 US and WCS at a discount to WTI of $31 US -- total double discount of $49 US. Awfully close to the current $48 US double discount Ferguson laments.

Not only did Ferguson double the hit, he took the tragedy to new extremes by suggesting this lost opportunity is tantamount to each Canadian handing over a cash subsidy to U.S. consumers.

How is it he could simply double the total, call it $36 billion, divide it by the population of Canada, and claim its costing us each $1,200? Great headlines, but not remotely true.

Read more: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/01/29/Canadian-Oil-Producers/

It’s past time that we began to examine the word “process” as it relates to the environment. It has become, you see, a federal buzz word for sacrificing the environment while making it look all nice and legal. “Process” is a weasel word to disguise the fact that there will be no meaningful process at all...Last week we learned – surprise! – that private river power operations (IPPs) in southwest BC racked up a staggering 749 environmental violations in 2010 alone, with virtually no consequences for the companies responsible.

There is, evidently, a strong aversion in the mainstream media to talk about the environment and I can only guess why. Was the Kalamazoo spill by Enbridge too complicated to deal with? And the 800+ other spills by this wretched despoiler of the outdoors? The NDP have approved of LNG plants for the northern coast. Does this mean they have satisfied themselves that fracking poses no environmental concerns?...Get with it you guys - the environment is a huge issue and you have a duty to get it in all aspects on the table.

While I have no insight into all the considerations of BC First Nations, I do pretend to know something about politics. Let me tell you what I would feel if I was in Grand Chief Phillip’s mind or that of any BC chief’s position. I would refuse any part of a meeting with the Feds until that part of the past budget that took away from protection of fish habitat is repealed. There would be no parley until both the provincial and federal governments stopped approving of fish farms and mandated a removal to land of all existing farms. I would demand an immediate moratorium of all proposed pipelines until all Native claims are settled.

On January 2, 2013, hundreds of First Nations and non-indigenous people converged on Vancouver's Waterfront Station for the latest Idle No More rally. The beating of drums and singing of traditional songs signaled this crowd's solidarity with the movement that is building across the country and beyond its borders.

Read this story from the Financial Post on the 170 aboriginal legal victories which reinforce the rights and title enshrined in the Constitution Act, meaning that corporations and governments who want to  develop resources in Canada today must engage proactively with First Nations or prepare to see their projects fail. (Dec. 14, 2012)

Canada is orchestrating a big push to accelerate development of its natural resources, but behind the hype there is a shifting and tense legal landscape. First Nations are on a big winning streak in the courts that has empowered them to have a say on projects in big parts of the country.

The tension is pushing corporations to spend huge dollars to keep the peace and move projects along in areas First Nations claim as their traditional lands.

But the approach is piecemeal and there have been few consistently successful strategies. Tension, frustration and confrontation abound. Lawyers, consultants and vested interests fuel and feed off the tension, making it hard to come up with solutions.

Many projects worth billions of dollars have been delayed or sunk altogether.

They include scores of mining, forestry and pipeline projects such as the now-shelved Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline in the Northwest Territories. The Northern Gateway pipeline could be next unless accommodation is found with opposed First Nations in the B.C. interior and on the coast.

Bill Gallagher, a former federal government regulator, oil and gas lawyer, treaty negotiator, and author of a new book, Resource Rulers, Fortune And Folly on Canada’s Road to Resources, argues there is a better way.

“The current situation in terms of access to resources, with the overarching tensions, has become unsustainable,” Mr. Gallagher said in an interview. “That is the key to the whole thing. Recognizing that Plan A has not worked; let’s put a Plan B together.”

The good news: Canadian First Nations are not opposed to development.

The wakeup call: Corporate interests need to accept what the courts already have — that First Nations now hold the balance of power in deciding the fate of Canada’s resource projects because they have rights that others don’t.

It’s a power Mr. Gallagher says is backed up by 170 legal victories — the biggest winning streak in Canadian legal history — that give First Nations a say in how resources are accessed and developed in every region of the country.

The wins are underpinned by the Canadian constitution. When it was repatriated in 1981 by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, First Nations won the inclusion of aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as blanket protection in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These key measures today comprise the fundamental law of Canada and form the underpinnings of the ensuing native legal winning streak, Mr. Gallagher writes in his book.

The new landscape means the “minimalist approach” used by many resource companies in dealing with Canada’s aboriginals is inadequate.

The new approach will have to involve revenue sharing, building trust and treating First Nations as full partners, perhaps even invite them to be co-applicants before regulatory boards — that’s what it will take to win backing for pipelines in the future, including Northern Gateway, he said.

“As long as [industry] keeps pushing [projects] in the regulatory process, and lawyers are doing all the speaking, that element of trust never gels,” he said. “The process is seen as stacked in favour of industry, and you have these constant challenges.”

Locking up First Nations support goes a long way to tempering environmental movement opposition, Mr. Gallagher said, because the green groups don’t have the same legal standing without aboriginal co-operation.

It’s a conclusion Mr. Gallagher came to by following the evidence.

A negotiator in many of Canada’s resource projects, including the Voisey’s Bay nickel project in Newfoundland, Mr. Gallagher has kept score of the changing legal landscape in many ways — including by way of a map of Canada he keeps in his Waterloo, Ont., home.

It’s sprinkled with coloured pins: red dots where First Nations won a major court case, blue dots where a project crashed or was reconstructed in response to First Nations’ opposition, green dots for wins by the environmental movement that led to huge environmental reserves, yellow dots for projects that get things right the first time.

Indeed, while Canadians have heard plenty about “negative power” or aboriginal opposition to resource projects, there are also many First Nations that are open for business, such as the Haisla Nation in British Columbia and the Inuvialut in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Gallagher points to the Suncor Energy Inc. and Syncrude Canada Ltd. oil sands projects for doing it right and that today employ thousands of aboriginals and support aboriginal enterprises.

Mr. Gallagher said he is glad there are high-profile national debates over the desirability of oil sands growth and of oil sands export pipelines because they highlight the rise of First Nations and could lead to new approaches.

“The oil sands are essentially encircled with important native legal wins, and pipeline routes extending out from the oil sands are running directly into powerful legal precedents,” he said.

“I think these projects have underestimated the real landscape,” he says. “They may have got the geology right, the geography right and even the marine patterns to some extent right, but they have missed the native empowerment landscape.”

But Mr. Gallagher warns proponents of projects usually get only one chance for a positive relationship — at the beginning — before the various sides are so “lawyered-up” that the conflict feeds on itself.

Read more: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/12/14/170-legal-victories-empower-first-nations-in-fight-over-resource-development/

2012 was a year that began with Conservative Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver dismissing opponents of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines as "radicals" and ends with the Idle No More rallies sweeping the nation. It was a year when two very different visions for the future of Canada and its place in the world collided headlong with each other. One seeking to curb the Tar Sands and new arteries essential to its growth, the other striving to make Canada into a new Saudi Arabia - provider of oil, gas and coal to emerging Asian markets. Each policy piece from the Harper Government was part of a bigger puzzle, designed to bring this new vision to fruition.