Pipeline Politics in the West

From Coal Trains to Classrooms WorkshopNorth Seattle Community College

June 27, 2013

David A. Rossiter, Huxley College of the Environment, WWU

Context I – Political Economy

• PM Harper’s stated (2006) aim for Canada to be an “Energy Superpower”

• Reversion to staples dominated economy• Retreat from international climate change

mitigation efforts• Scramble to secure “world price” and get

ahead of “bitumen bubble”

Source: ags.gov.ab.ca

Source: digitaljournal.com

Source: blog.skytruth.org

Source: treehugger.com

Source: eoearth.org

Processing the Sands

Mining the Sands

In-Situ Production The Sands

Source: blogs.nicholas.duke.edu

Enbridge’s Proposal

• Application – May 2010• Route – 1,177 km pipeline

through cordillera + shipping through fjords

• Capacity – 500,000 barrels of “dilbit” / day– Twinned

• Cost - $5.5 billion CADSource: Sierra Club

Context II – “The Land Question”

• BC largely untreatied, unceded• Legal recognition of aboriginal title

– Royal Proclamation 1763– Calder Decision 1973– Constitution Act 1982– Delgamuukw Decision 1997– Haida Decision 2004– Wilson (Tsilhqot’in) Decision 2007

BC’s Disrupted Resource Economy

• Uncertainty = lack of investment– Forests, minerals, energy

• 2002 referendum• 2009 Recognition and Reconciliation Act;

“New Relationship”• Presently – “Unstable Properties”

Contexts Collide

• Joint Review Panel initiated by NEB Jan 2012– Summer 2012: visibility and opposition increase

• First Nations’ near universal opposition– ie. March 2010: Coastal First Nations declaration

banning supertankers• Environmentalists raise alarm• Rising provincial uncertainty

– BC’s search for “better deal” / June 2013… “NO”

Fantastic Topographies: Enbridge

• Pipeline as national project– “(a)lthough the net benefits to the Canadian oil

industry resulting from the Project are very large, total benefits flowing to all Canadians are greater” (Northern Gateway application, 2010).

• “It’s a path” – Hill and Knowlton’s contribution

Constraining Stakeholders

• Northern Gateway is committed to meaningful and open discussion with stakeholders, including communities and private landowners, and participating Aboriginal groups... Public consultation is an integral component of the Project because of NG’s belief that the Project can be improved by gaining local knowledge, insight and recommendations... NG encourages stakeholders and participating Aboriginal groups to share their thoughts and help identify environmental, economic and social opportunities for communities throughout the life of the Project.

• Northern Gateway application, 2010

A Place for First Nations?

• Northern Gateway will set aside scopes of work from major contractor bid packages and provide sole-sourcing opportunities to qualified Aboriginal businesses and joint venture companies who meet the required safety qualifications and offer regionally competitive pricing

• Northern Gateway application, 2010

Fantastic Topographies: Gov’t of Canada

• PM Harper and Minister Oliver:– activist opposition “radical”, “foreign”, “terrorist”

• ie. Tides Foundation• punitive measures through tax code

– support for project as “nation building”• abstracting local place to national space

• Conservative strategist Rick Anderson: – “Would we be able to build Canada’s transcontinental

railroad if it had to go through today’s process? Does anybody today regret that we built it?’’ (2013)

Aboriginal Countertopographies

• Save the Fraser Declaration Nov. 2010:– “We have inhabited and governed our territories within the

Fraser watershed, according to our laws and traditions, since time immemorial. Our relationship with the watershed is ancient and profound, and our inherent Title and rights and legal authority over these lands and waters have never been relinquished through treaty or war.”“This project...and the federal process to approve it, violate our laws, traditions, values and our inherent rights as Indigenous Peoples under international law. We are united to exercise our inherent Title, Rights, and responsibility….”

» St’at’imc Chiefs and Yinka Dene Alliance (Nadleh Whut’en, Saik’uz, Takla Lake, Nak’azdli, Wet’suwet’en and Tlazt’en Nations)

Conclusions

• Reduction of debate to environment vs. economy astonishing given:– Centrality of land claims to BC politics– Consistent, near unanimous voicing of First

Nation’s territorial claims at hearings and beyond• At root, issue is not “environmental” or

“economic” but rather one of relations among people, place, and power

• Hearings (and other forums) as sites of opposing “wills to power”