|
Crunch time for Trudeau Canada less than 3 months from Trans Mountain project verdict as positions harden; prime minister confident he can achieve balance GARY PARK For Petroleum News
The Canadian government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is within weeks of making what shapes up as its toughest domestic decision yet, one that is certain to deepen a national rift, accompanied by the prospect of extreme civil disobedience.
And the pressure on the prime minister is intensifying from all sides, none of whom are likely to be satisfied by the outcome.
Trudeau is faced with two irreconcilable issues: The need to approve a major oil pipeline at a time when the export systems to the United States are running at capacity and his desire to retain environmentalists and First Nations as key elements of the Liberal government’s powerbase.
When questioned on the issue, he routinely says his administration is determined to balance limits on greenhouse gas emissions associated with pipelines while finding a way to deliver Canada’s oil resources to market.
“We have an obligation to the proponents and to those people who are involved in each of these projects (Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion, TransCanada’s Energy East and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway) to assess it on their own merits and to determine the national interest on the basis of what has been proposed and what has been recommended by the (National Energy Board),” he said on Aug. 25.
Ruling due in December The conclusion to be drawn from those remarks is vague, muddled and clear proof that his government is in disarray on the issue.
The common consensus is that sometime before Dec. 19 the Trudeau cabinet is scheduled to rule on the Trans Mountain proposal to triple its volumes of oil sands bitumen to 890,000 barrels per day.
The C$6.8 billion Trans Mountain expansion offers the advantage of closely following an existing pipeline that has been in operation for 63 years, sweetened by Kinder Morgan offers totaling C$8.5 million for various recreational improvements.
Energy East faces a crunch decision before the next federal election in 2019, while Trudeau has indicated he does not support Northern Gateway on its present route, leaving open the possibility of a revised application.
But all of the proponents find themselves in a gathering storm of organized opposition, compounded on Sept. 22 when aboriginal communities in Canada and the northern United States signed a treaty to jointly fight plans to build more pipelines out of the Alberta oil sands, emboldened by the intervention of the U.S. Justice Department to delay construction on sections of the US$3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion was signed by 50 entities, who also oppose crude transportation by tankers or rail.
General opposition If there were any questions about the intentions of the First Nations in Canada, Serge Simon, Grand Chief of the Kanesatake in Quebec, said the treaty will see aboriginal communities from British Columbia to Quebec oppose both the Trans Mountain and Energy East projects.
“We will also work with our tribal allies in Minnesota as they take on Enbridge’s Line 3 expansion and we know they’ll help us do the same (in Canada),” he said.
The resolve is reflected by Daniel T’seleie, a Native activist from the Northwest Territories, who was arrested during the Dakota Access blockades and intends returning to North Dakota to face charges of reckless endangerment (a felony) and three misdemeanors.
He said North Dakota is “trying to scare people from using any type of non-violent direct action tactics that actually stop construction of a pipeline,” taking advantage of the inability of protesters to pay for bail.
But T’seleie, arguing he is a “protector, not a protestor,” said he is continuing to train aboriginals in the use of non-violent direct action.
Even if work stoppages last only one day at a time, they force the pipeline companies to rethink their position, he said.
Mulroney urges approval Brian Mulroney, Canada’s prime minister from 1984 to 1993, brings a different argument to the table, insisting that the best way to shock Canada’s troubled economy back to robust growth is for Trudeau to approve Energy East, designed to ship 1.1 million bpd to Eastern Canadian refineries and export terminal.
He said that if Trudeau can forge a new pipeline strategy embracing the oil industry, First Nations, provincial governments and municipalities he could create “hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments, millions of new jobs ... and be as transformational and beneficial to the country as any major policy initiative undertaken in Canada in the last 70 years.”
Mulroney said Trudeau has the “determination and skill” to engage all of the players and get a major pipeline underway without falling into trap of his predecessor, Stephen Harper, in acting unilaterally.
Goal of road public buy-in At the same time, Trudeau indicated a shift in his stance by declaring that his government is determined to get Canadian oil to global markets through broad public buy-in.
But that will not extend to the current plan for Northern Gateway, which even Enbridge seems to agree has no hope of succeeding.
The pipeline company and Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr said they will not appeal a ruling by Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal to overturn the Harper government’s approval of the project in 2014.
“We believe that meaningful consultation and collaboration and not litigation is the best path forward for everyone involved,” said Northern Gateway President John Carruthers, who has also pointed to success on the negotiating front.
He said 31 First Nations and Métis communities in British Columbia and Alberta - more than 70 percent of those with land along the pipeline right of way - have now agreed to deals that would give them ownership stakes in the project.
But eight First Nations, four environmental groups and a labor union have launched legal challenges against the pipeline approval, which was accompanied by 209 conditions.
Carr said a cabinet decision is imminent on whether or not the proposal should be returned to the National Energy Board for reconsideration.
“We’re not interested in carrying things out longer than what is reasonable or necessary to do,” he said.
| 