Opposition growing to Enbridge's Gateway pipeline

Enbridge, one of North America’s largest energy companies, proposes to build a 1,123 kilometre pipeline to carry between 400,000 and 1,000,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta’s tar sands to a new sea port in Kitimat. A “condensate import” pipeline parallel to the crude pipe would transport 150,000 barrels per day of condensate—a natural gas byproduct used in pipelines—back to Alberta. Tankers leaving Kitimat would then ship the crude oil through 90 kilometres of BC’s fragile inside passage to California, China, and India.

Opposition Growing

Enbridge’s attempt to fast-track the twin Gateway pipelines and open the inside passage to tankers is generating opposition from environmental groups, local communities and First Nations. A growing number of First Nations are opposed to the project and have launched an autonomous First Nations-led review process. This review will operate independently, or parallel to, the federal government’s National Energy Board hearings.

Enbridge’s proposal is one of four export pipeline proposals vying to ship tar sands crude to foreign markets. Not all these pipelines will be built. Despite the projected growth in tar sands production over the next several decades, the four competing export pipelines would create a large surplus in capacity flowing out of Alberta. If all pipelines being proposed were to become operational by 2010 pipeline capacity could exceed oilproduction by 250%.

Enbridge’s pipeline has received more media coverage than its competition, but faces the most obstacles. The Haida, Carrier Sekani and Treaty 8 First Nations’ support for an independent, aboriginal review panel will likely delay Enbridge’s ambitious timelines. Growing public opposition to tankers in BC’s inside passage could cause further delays. And any delay hampers Enbridge’s prospects in the competitive race with the other proposed pipelines for financing and regulatory approval.

Environmental impacts

The pipeline will increase Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by between 12 and 30 megatonnes, which is equivalent to the emissions of almost six million passenger cars.

The pipeline also poses severe local risks to BC. Data from other countries shows that oil spills along the pipeline and at the marine terminal are unavoidable.

But it is tankers in BC’s inside passage from Kitimat through Douglas Channel that pose the biggest environmental risk. A 1977 federal inquiry to investigate environmental, social, and navigational consequences of oil ports and tanker operations on BC’s west coast concluded that if a marine terminal were developed at Kitimat, “oil spills off the coast of B.C. would inevitably occur."

Approval of the Gateway project would also require a loophole in (or the lifting of) the 34-year-old federal moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along BC’s inside passage. Data from tankers elsewhere suggests a major spill of over 10,000 barrels could occur every 6.37 years.

Polls commissioned by Dogwood Initiative show that a majority of British Columbians oppose lifting the moratorium on tanker traffic. The recent sinking of the Queen of the North ferry, coincidentally along Enbridge’s proposed tanker route, has broadened public awareness of the risks of tankers in these treacherous waters. The ferry’s oil slick threatens to become the worst marine spill disaster on the BC coast in almost 20 years. Imagine the damage if it had been an oil tanker.

The politics in Canada

Neither level of government has taken a public position on the Gateway pipelines, but both are perceived to be supporters. However, it remains to be seen how much political capital each government is prepared to expend on backing the project.

Doing so is politically risky. Polls commissioned by Dogwood Initiative show the tanker issue is so politically volatile that it is unlikely a minority government will risk moving forward aggressively. Support for a tanker ban is strong across all political parties. More than 72% of voters for all federal parties oppose oil tankers in northern waters.

If Mr. Harper’s Conservatives held a majority, there is little doubt that they would try to move quickly to withdraw the existing ban on offshore oil and gas development and tanker traffic. But it looks like their minority position has softened their approach. One day after being sworn in as the new federal Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn, MP for Saanich and the Islands, told reporters that the offshore oil and gas moratorium is “not a top priority” for his fledgling government. Nonetheless, vigilance is necessary.

The international struggle for oil

The proposed pipeline injects BC into the growing geopolitical struggle over oil between the U.S. and the emerging Asian economic powers of China and India. If built, the pipeline threatens the U.S. monopoly over tar sands oil.

Over the past decade, Canada has become the largest foreign supplier of fossil fuels to the U.S. The United States is increasingly counting on Canada, especially the tar sands, to fill its gas tanks. A recent Knight Ridder newspaper story noted, the tar sands are a “vital part of America’s energy future” that will “help keep American SUVs running in the years to come.”

China recently passed Japan as the second-largest consumer of energy. By 2010, India is expected to displace South Korea as the world’s fourth-largest consumer. Both China and India are becoming increasingly aggressive in their pursuit of fossil fuel supplies, even if this brings them in conflict with the U.S.

The pipeline to Kitimat will bring this international competition for tar sands crude to a head here in BC

The backlash

The good news is that the Gateway project is vulnerable. The growing opposition from environmental groups and First Nations will complicate regulatory hearings. Delays will put Enbridge behind in the race to secure financing, oil supply commitments, and permits ahead of competing pipeline proponents like TransCanada.

The Gateway project also faces stiffer regulatory hurdles than its competitors because of the need for oil tankers. First Nations have a number of legal options to scuttle or delay the project. Dogwood Initiative and other environmental groups are co-ordinating legal, political, and financial approaches to engage Enbridge, the governments, and the public about the project.

Stay tuned—Dogwood Initiative will keep you informed as the story unfolds.

Please make a donation towards our work.