Globe & Mail by Nathan Vanderklippe. Before the end of the year, Husky Energy Inc.(HSE-T25.800.612.42%)will begin preparing 40 kilometres of winter roads through the forests of the western Northwest Territories. Operating just below the Arctic Circle, it will build an ice bridge across the Mackenzie River and clear a landing strip on a frozen lake.
By February, it will begin drilling a pair of exploratory wells.
Press Conference Called on In-State Gas Pipeline
| Speaker Chenault and Others to Address Issue Friday |
(Juneau) – House Speaker Mike Chenault has called a press conference for Friday, Nov. 4, to discuss further efforts to support the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s (AGDC) in-state natural gas pipeline. The event is set for 11:00 a.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the Anchorage Legislative Information Office at 716 West 4th Avenue. A teleconference and live-streaming audio will be available at akl.tv.
The AGDC was created by passage of Speaker Chenault’sHouse Bill 369 during the 26th Alaska Legislature to complete the necessary work to bring a "bullet" line for in-state use of our natural gas resources to a go or no-go decision. To date, the Corporation has completed preliminary reports detailing potential routes, permitting packages, funding sources and other work. Contact Speaker Chenault’s office for more information at 907-283-7223. ____________________________________________________________ Calgary Herald by Deborah Yedlin.
The countdown is on to Jan. 10.
That’s when the joint review panel hearings by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project are set to start, somewhere in British Columbia (the actual locations of where the hearings will be held have yet to be released).
The question – with more than 4,000 individuals, companies and organizations registered to make a 10-minute statement – is whether it will be more of a filibuster than a hearing.
Although the math suggests about 95 days of hearings, assuming everyone shows up and the panel sits for seven hours each day, it’s highly likely it will go on much longer.
For that reason, there is apparently some discussion taking place whether it makes sense to split up the three panel members to hear the submissions simultaneously in separate locations to expedite the process.
That’s because the panel has until the end of the year to submit its findings – and even if the deadline is met, the report will be a year behind where it was expected to have been.
But here is a question: Should all those who have stated their intent to present have the right to do so?
In other words, if the registry is correct, should individuals who do not live along the pipeline route, are not Canadian residents or citizens, be allowed their 10 minutes? Moreover, should environmental organizations with a presence in Canada whose funding apparently comes from foreign sources, be allowed to state their views?
A quick glance at the submissions shows individuals from Germany, the United States and the U.K. intend to appear before the panel. Included on the list are organizations such as ForestEthics, which is apparently bringing in people from Michigan to appear before the panel.
Some will recall ForestEthics launched an antiAlberta ad campaign that included, among other things, the "fact" oilsands development was affecting an area 130,000 square kilometres in size. The truth is it’s closer to 550 square kilometres, with 65 square kilometres reclaimed.
But that’s not where the U.S. involvement ends.
Talk to Vivian Krause, an independent, Vancouverbased investigative blogger who has combed through many a U.S. tax return filed by American foundations – including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Sea Change Foundation and San Francisco Oak Foundation. She will show you how these organizations have heavily funded the opposition to the oilsands in Canada.
To wit: a tax return filed for 2009 by Sea Change indicates $2 million was given to the Tides Foundation to be used for "promoting awareness and opposition to oilsands."
Sea Change was apparently a signatory to a letter signed by 251 environmental organizations and sent to the U.S. State Department asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Also involved, says Krause, is the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation, which, through Tides, has supported the Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative, "to strengthen and enforce a 34-year moratorium on oil tanker traffic in the mid and north coast of British Columbia, and to prevent expansion of oil and gas infrastructure in the Georgia Strait and the lower Fraser Basin."
The most recent information uncovered by Krause is that the Hewlett Foundation (yes, of HewlettPackard fame) has donated $25.7 million US to "tackle various oil and gas projects in Canada. Of that, $22.6 million went to Tides Canada, Tides USA and the Pew Charitable Trusts."
The irony here is it was the Pew family that founded Sun Oil – the same company from which oilsands giant Suncor Inc. was spun off back in 1991.
Sometimes it’s hard not to wonder if some of what is going on vis-a-vis Northern Gateway in particular is a (not so) veiled attempt by the U.S. foundations to ensure there is a wide differential between the continental North American price of oil price and the world price.
After all, low oil prices are better for the U.S. economy than are higher prices and what better way to do this than by cloaking oneself in an environmental cape?
While the review panel has said public commentary is an important part of the process because it might yield information useful to its decision, the 4,000-odd submissions work out to seven times the number that presented to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings – and we know efficiently how that process worked.
Moreover, public hearings are held to raise issues that cannot be easily presented in written form. In other words, the only reason to appear is if your information can only be presented orally. Presumably if there is salient, scientific evidence coming from respondents who live outside Canada, that information could be put forward on paper. That’s the beauty of good science.
Thus, the question arises as to whether those who are planning on being present are truly interested in the public process itself or if their real intent is to overwhelm it.
Two things come to mind on all this; one is that if a national energy strategy were in place, it would be easier for the NEB to decide whether Northern Gateway was in the public interest. Without such a framework the NEB has to use other yardsticks.
The second is whether the involvement, nay, interference, by U.S. foundations in the development of Canada’s natural resources constitutes a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement or of Canadian economic sovereignty.
Were the shoe on the other foot, and Canadian organizations were sending money to U.S. environmental concerns opposing development of, say, shale gas reserves, it’s a good bet steps would be taken in short order to shut it down.
While it’s a tough trail to nail, Krause points out that requiring organizations such as Tides Canada to post their U.S. tax returns on their websites would clarify matters somewhat because the disclosure required by Canada Revenue Agency is less robust than required by U.S. authorities. As the beginning of the hearings looms near, the panel might want to take a closer look at the list of presenters and determine who truly has the right – and the need – to speak. Chances are if they do this, the list will be significantly shorter, and the process will fulfil the mandate that it is meant to do.
At a minimum, Canadians should be outraged there are organizations based outside this country that feel they have the right to interfere in the development of Canada’s natural resources.
|
||||
Leave A Comment