CHARTS: The coming critical minerals trade war is BRICS short of a load
"While a large number of countries around the world continue to talk about securing raw material supply, China is actually doing something about it."
An independent panel appointed by Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) has approved Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, with more than 200 conditions.
The three-member NEB panel will hand over its report and recommendation to the Federal government and Ottawa will issue its decision next year.
“Based on a scientific and precautionary approach to this complex review, the Panel found that the project, if built and operated in compliance with the conditions set out in its report, would be in the public interest,” the NEB wrote in a news release.
Enbridge (NYSE:ENB), Canada’s biggest energy transport company, first proposed the $6.5 billion project in 2004. The company’s plan is to build twin lines across 1,177km from northern Alberta to Kitimat, BC, providing a steady stream of oil to tankers and opening Alberta’s petroleum industry to Asia’s oil-hungry markets.
The westbound portion of the line would carry up to half a million barrels per day, and the eastbound nearly 200,000 barrels of condensate – a product used to thin oil for pipeline transport.
The report
In addition to recommending that the Federal government approved the project – subject to 209 conditions – the NEB has cautioned the government to ensure that the construction and routine operation of the line would “cause no significant adverse environmental effects, with the exception of cumulative effects for certain populations of woodland caribou and grizzly bear.”
The panel concluded that the “environmental burdens” of the pipeline could be “effectively mitigated.”
Meanwhile, the effects of a large oil spill would be “significant,” but “unlikely and not permanent.”
The NEB also praised Enbridge for taking steps to minimize the likelihood of a large spill through its “precautionary design approach.”
As for economic considerations, the panel found that “opening Pacific Basin markets is important to the Canadian economy and society” and that the project would bring significant benefits.
“After weighing all of the oral and written evidence, the Panel found that Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project than without it,” the NEB wrote.
Conditions
The NEB’s blessing has strings attached. In its news release, the panel identified some key conditions which include several requirements related to animal habitats – such as a Caribou habitat restoration plan – and measures to mitigate the risks of a potential oil spill – including a research program on the behaviour and clean-up of heavy oils.
Opponents and proponents
Environmental opposition has been fierce with groups citing concerns over potential oil spills and the difficulty tankers would have navigating the islands of the Douglas Channel.
Enbridge came under fire last year after releasing a video of the tankers’ passage while photo-shopping out about 1,000 square kilometers of islands.
Opponents were quick to respond to Thursday’s news. The Sierra Club issued a statement claiming that the Panel’s decision “flies in the face of overwhelming evidence” and is a “message of disrespect to British Columbians on the eve of the holiday season.”
“The panel’s recommendation is a disappointment, but unsurprising given such a flawed process,” said Sierra Club BC campaigns director Caitlyn Vernon.
Enbridge argues that the project would provide thousands of jobs and boost the revenues of Alberta, BC and Canada. The company also claims that over 200 experts and scientists have conducted a comprehensive environmental assessment and determined that the project is safe.
BC businesses applauded the NEB’s decision through the BC Chamber of Commerce.
“This is great news for B.C.: It means that this pivotal, job-creating project has been examined from every angle and found sound,” CEO of the BC Chamber of Commerce John Winter said in a statement. “With this decision, British Columbians can confidently back this project, knowing that it meets our top-tier environmental and community standards.”
Political support
Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver was quick to respond to the NEB announcement.
“The Panel’s report represents a rigorous, open and comprehensive science-based assessment,” Oliver said. “Now that we have received the report, we will thoroughly review it, consult with affected Aboriginal groups and then make our decision. We also encourage everyone with an interest to take the time and review the report.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already declared his support for the project, saying the government is committed to helping Canada’s energy resources access new markets.
In November the premiers of BC and Alberta surprised the public after reaching a framework agreement on an energy partnership – though BC Premier Christy Clark has identified five conditions relating to environmental, aboriginal and economic issues.
In anticipation of Thursday’s announcement, opponents have argued that even with Federal approval, the pipeline won’t be built.
Speaking with The Province last month, Keith Stewart, campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace, said that although he “fully expect[s]” Ottawa to give its approval but that he thinks the line will “never be built.”
Jessica Clogg, senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law, told The Province that a number of First Nations groups would likely take the project to court.
“The courts have ability to quash or set aside any unconstitutional decisions of government,” she said.
Enbridge’s share price was up just over 1% minutes ahead of the news, trading at $45.33 per share.
See also: BC and Alberta one step closer to moving Alberta’s oil sands to Asian markets
7 Comments
Geojim
The Northern Gateway pipeline is a no brainer which should have already been complete several years ago. The route is along a highway which has already created any significant environmental effect long ago. Without these and similar projects Canada’s standard of living will continue to decline among similar nations. I say get along with it and let the governments already stringent environmental regulations do the job we are already paying dearly for. Any environmental groups who don’t like it should be traveling by horse and wagon and avoiding any petroleum products.
Shaisley
It’s become impossible to avoid by products of the tar sands in this modern day world- and though i try, not using plastic lids on my coffee cups to go, isn’t going to reduce the amount of Mcdonald’s straws the rest of the world continues to fly through. Keep it in mind that lining a highway with a pipeline won’t reduce the stress it will cause to the world. It will only add pollution to the masses that accumulate in our air, only it will add to our seas and our soils a thickness which will be unignorable… Unfortunately it seems maybe that’s what it will take for so many people to see the harm this will cause us. Only then it will be far too late to turn back… Smoke is light enough to float high enough into the atmosphere that so many do not see.. oil leaves a thick, sticky residue not even water can penetrate.
Where some people-like this pour soul here- grew up, i cannot imagine, to have such closed views of the world. Such shame to never feel a connection to an elderly tree that provides us with what we need to live. Standard of living varies.. what is it you really hold dear to your heart? Is it the silver embroidery-threaded throw pillow you payed 22.95$ for at Winners which was made in China by the product of Earth’s Core found remaining here in Canada?
Or maybe, could it just be something more..
Guest
It’s a no brainer because it shouldn’t be built.
Our standard of living won’t decline because of environmental awareness and denying Enbridge, it will decline when our coast is covered in oil and Alberta is toxic wasteland.
Enbridge still hasn’t cleaned up the Kalamazoo River so why should we believe that they will do anything different in BC?
keithkcummings
notice the Panel did not say the pipeline would be safe, just “in the public interest”…isn’t that interesting coming from a panel that was primarily to determine if the pipeline was indeed “safe”. Oliver has said the pipeline would only be built if it were safe, so far, the people that determine these matters have yet to make that declaration.
Ignatious Throckmorton
Pipeline opponents should rethink their position on Northern gateway. Their is nothing stopping Enbridge from using rail to move bitumen, if they choose to do so.
The safer alternative is obvious.
Rick Rock
Wow, Greed kills, we should use a little of our brains, get away from Oil.
Ruining our world for our future peoples. Greedy governments!
Thanks for the cancer too ,
olive oil
Here is a game I made to bring awareness to the real issues at stake: gatewayfacts.net