The Northern Gateway Pipelines Project is a proposal by Canadian oil and gas company Enbridge, to construct 1177 km twin pipelines from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat, British Columbia. The eastbound pipeline would import hydrocarbon natural gas condensate, while the westbound pipeline would export bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands diluted with the condensate. The oil would then be transported from Kitimat to Asia. What could possibly go wrong? Boosting the economy, right? It’s a bit more complicated than that.
First off, Enbridge doesn’t have the most reliable history, with several incidents relating to pipeline installation, spills and non-conformance to government regulations. In June 2013, the Canadian National Energy Board forced Enbridge to disclose safety measures at 125 of its pumping stations. It revealed that 117 of 125 stations did not comply with safety rules set by the board. In 2010, Enbridge was responsible for the Kalamazoo spill where over three million litres were spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.
There is no denying that building such a pipeline is sure to have major environmental consequences. The pipelines would cross nearly 800 streams and rivers including the Fraser and Stikine Rivers, two of the world’s greatest salmon spawning rivers. The BC portion of the pipeline also runs through earthquake and landslide territory, which has obvious risks.
The Gateway is supposed to be built through British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest, one of the world’s largest intact temperate rainforests. The rainforest is home to a variety of wildlife and tree species, some of which are over 1000 years old. The damage done to the rainforest would be devastating and irreversible.
Currently a moratorium, or temporary prohibition of activity, on large tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hectate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound exists because the route is extremely dangerous for large tankers to navigate. This is saying something. If it is clear that these waters are dangerous, why would you plan to have ships in the strait? It makes no sense. This greatly increases the chance of an oil spill during transport in such stormy conditions. If the port at Kitimat is established, the oil is expected to get to Asia via this treacherous passageway on the coast of British Columbia. The large vessels would have to move along narrow channels known for strong winds and tides and dense fog with many sharp turns. All of these aspects make the safe passage of oil from Canada to Asia unlikely.
A recent study from Simon Fraser University, using internationally accepted scenarios, calculated the likelihood of nearly 800 spills over the 50-year lifespan of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Because bitumen can sink in water, major spills would be almost impossible to clean up, putting local and regional economies and water sources at risk.
There is also the concern of the extra carbon dioxide emissions the pipeline will encourage. Six percent of Canada’s greenhouse gases are produced from the refining of Alberta’s tar sands. Doubling the production will double emissions to an annual 90 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2020, which in no way aids Canada’s already diminishing environmental reputation.
Opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline is virtually unanimous among the First Nations. Several alliances have produced formal declaration rejecting the intrusion of oil pipelines on aboriginal lands. A total of 130 First Nations groups, including those along the proposed pipeline route, have signed the Save The Fraser Declaration, declaring opposition to the Enbridge project through their traditional territories.
Enbridge has offered a “10% equity stake in the $5.5 billion proposed project, over the next 30 years, to participating aboriginal groups.” They also say they will put “one per cent of the pipeline’s pre-tax earnings into a trust, which is expected to generate $100 million over 30 years for non-Aboriginal as well as Aboriginal groups.” Is bribing with money enough? Let me answer that for you. No. The damage done by oil spills and leaks is a major threat to their land and water, something that cash incentives cannot repay. The Yinka Dene Alliance, and many other First Nations groups, oppose the project because of the threat it poses to the environment, their ways of life, and their land rights.
These small compensation packages do not compare to the damage done the their lives and the environment around them. The Fraser River and its tributaries are the lifeline for nations living along the area, and a threat to the river is a threat to all those who depend on it. The aboriginals are not only looking out for themselves, but also for future generations and the preservation of the environment.
Finally, the big question of economic impact needs to be addressed. Installing the Northern Gateway Pipeline does not necessarily guarantee it to be an asset to the economy. There are plenty of economic costs related to the project, including the disruption of existing employment, potential job losses due to oil spills, and the economic costs of carbon emissions. Even without any oil spills, the traffic of tankers and the pipeline itself pose a big risk to thousands of existing jobs in the fishing and tourism industry. The small number of jobs created for building and maintaining the pipeline would not compare to the resulting risks.
For the last ten years, the increase in tar sands exports has driven up the Canadian dollar. This results in Canada’s exports becoming more expensive for countries to buy, making manufacturing exports more expensive and less competitive. Known as the “Dutch Disease,” this pattern has contributed to the loss of over 600 000 manufacturing jobs over the last nine years in Canada. The pipeline will only make things worse.
Robyn Allen, a noted Canadian economist, points out that the premium price received for exporting oil to Asia would force the price up in Canada by two to three dollars per barrel, dampening the Canadian economy and negating any benefits accruing from the pipeline. A new study from the University of British Columbia also states that the cost of cleaning up a major spill on the North Coast of B.C. could reach $9.6 billion, eradicating any benefits from the Gateway project.
The choice is simple. On one hand the government works to exploit our natural resources as quickly as possible, maximizing short-term profits while degrading Canada’s environment, killing jobs, eroding our democracy and ensuring climate change. On the other hand, we can work together to use our oil resources to create a renewable energy economy allowing for sustainability for generations to come.
Leave a Reply