Enbridge pipeline review – Just who is getting hijacked?
Monday, January 9, 2012 @ 3:46 AM
By Peter Ewart
Prime Minister Harper has recently made comments that the Enbridge pipeline review process is being "hijacked" by "outside interests". By this he means that certain environmental groups and other organizations have accepted funding from U.S. sources to oppose the pipeline.
But looking at the Enbridge issue from a BC perspective, just who is an "outside interest"? This is an important issue because, when the inevitable oil spills happen, whether on land or ocean, it will be British Columbians who ultimately will have to live with the toxic mess and the damage to the environment. It will not be Eastern Canadians, Americans, or Chinese. It will be us, pure and simple.
So let’s first take a look at the Review panel that the Harper government has appointed to conduct hearings and make recommendations on whether the pipeline should go ahead. Are there any British Columbians on that panel? Well no, all three panel members just so happen to come from Alberta or Ontario. Given the risk to British Columbia because of its mountainous terrain and extensive waterways, and given the strong opposition in the province, why wasn’t someone from BC put on that panel? Was there no qualified person from the four million people who live in British Columbia? One thing for sure – it is a telling omission on Harper’s part.
What about the Enbridge Corporation itself that will be responsible for the hundreds of kilometres of pipeline across Northern BC? Surely Enbridge must have someone from BC on its Board of Directors, even for the sake of tokenism?
Well no, it doesn’t. In fact, six of the twelve Directors of Enbridge are based in the U.S., including David A. Artledge, who is a resident of Naples, Florida; and James J. Blanchard, who is a former governor of the U.S. state of Michigan. The other six directors live in either Alberta or Ontario. Many of these twelve directors, whether Canadian or American, are connected, in one way or another, to various foreign multinationals through former positions or current directorships.
What about major shareholders in Enbridge? Are any British Columbian? Again, no. According to the fund tracking site Stockzoa, the largest shareholder is "Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec", which is based in Quebec City, thousands of kilometres away on the other side of the country. The next largest is FMR (Fidelity Investments) which is a U.S. financial services multinational. Third largest is Sumitomo Trust and Banking Company, which is tied to the giant Japanese Conglomerate "Sumitomo Group". Fourth in size is Bank of America, one of the largest banks in the U.S.
There are, of course, numerous smaller investors, some of whom may be from British Columbia. But the principal investors who control the bulk of Enbridge shares are based a long way from the province.
Some, like Prime Minister Stephen Harper, imply that Enbridge is a "Canadian" company. According to Enbridge’s own site, its publicly traded shares are 48% "Canadian institutional" and 23% foreign and U.S. But, if it is so "Canadian", why are 50% of its directors based in the U.S.? According to Stephen Harper’s own definition, doesn’t that amount to "outside influence"?
In fact, Enbridge is one of those hybrid creatures that has emerged over the decades that, despite the Calgary location of its head office, cannot really be classified as "Canadian" but rather "North American" or "global". It has extensive operations in various U.S. states, including Michigan where, in 2010, an Enbridge pipeline leaked 840,000 gallons of of crude oil into the Kalamazoo river. Indeed the company boasts that its vision "is to become the leading energy delivery company in North America" and "our assets connect North Americans with energy they need". No mention of "Canada" in these statements. One thing for sure – not a chance in hell that anyone could call it a "British Columbian" company.
Which brings us to the principal financial backers of the Enbridge pipeline project. Indeed, the names of five of these backers were released recently. One of them is "Total EP" which is a French-owned global energy monopoly with head offices in Paris, France. Another is Sinopec, which is a state-owned energy corporation based in China. Nexen is an energy multinational with operations in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico and Africa. Suncor is mainly based in Canada, but has operations in the U.S. Even MEG Energy, which is probably the most "Canadian-based" company of the five, is 16.9% owned by the giant Chinese company CNOO. None of these companies have their head offices in British Columbia. To them, the province is just a "moose pasture" on a map to build a pipeline across.
Don’t at least some of these companies count as "foreign interests" in Stephen Harper’s calculation? By his definition, doesn’t their substantial financial backing of Enbridge amount to "outside interference" and "highjacking" of the pipeline review process?
And then there is the pitiful case of "Ethical Oil", which is running ads in Northern BC claiming that foreign billionaires are financing the opposition to Enbridge. But "Ethical Oil" itself, based in Calgary, is a well-known lobbyist for the billionaire oil companies (many of which are owned or controlled by foreign interests). Interestingly enough, when pressed to reveal just who is paying for the radio ads, a spokesperson for "Ethical Oil" declined to comment.
So, if by some chance the Enbridge pipeline is built across Northern BC, where will the above players be when there is the inevitable major oil spill on the land, river or ocean waters of our beautiful BC? The answer is simple. All of these "outside interests" will be far away in another province or in a foreign country as they watch the disaster unfold on CNN. Even Stephen Harper will be thousands of kilometres off in Ottawa.
If the spill is catastrophic enough, Enbridge might just declare bankruptcy. Then what? Will the federal government step up to the plate with taxpayer’s dollars?
To answer that question, why don’t we look at the Harper government’s response to the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia in the last few years? This epidemic is considered by many to be the worst natural disaster of its kind in North American recorded history. Amid much fanfare back in 2006, the federal government announced that it would be providing $1 billion in aid over ten years (i.e. $100 million a year) to mitigate the effects of the pine beetle to BC land and communities. It was a piddling amount compared to the taxes and other revenues that BC forests have generated for governments over the past hundred years. Nor was it much relative to the long term cost of the catastrophe to BC. But at least it was something.
So where is this $100 million a year payment that was promised? We don’t here anything about it these days. It has disappeared into the murk and fog of other federal government funding programs such as the "economic stimulus plan" (this is a favourite tactic of federal governments – make a big hoopla about providing funding for some issue, then, after a couple of years, "lose" the funding in other budgetary envelopes).
In any case, so much for the federal government’s commitment to environmental disasters. Will a catastrophic Enbridge spill be any different? What do the federal government mandarins back in Ottawa care about a sparsely-populated part of the country way out by the Pacific Ocean that has only 3 seats in a 308 seat parliament?
That being said, Stephen Harper is right about one thing: There is a "highjacking" going on here, but not the one he is claiming. Rather it is our province that is being highjacked in the interests of big oil. They get most of the benefit, we get most of the risk.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Well said and great research.
I would really like them to answer if we will also be paying more for our oil than the Chinese if this pipeline goes through.
They say its going through to take advantage of market pricing that can get them 20% more… so we know our energy costs will go up by minimum that amount… but if we are also paying the carbon tax and the exports to China are not themselves paying the carbon tax (as the Chinese government has already made clear)… then how will they account for this? IMO that should be nine red flags going off for everyone. We’re being had on many levels on the economic competitive level of our own national resources.
If we produce 3 million barrels of oil in Canada, use 2 million barrels, and export 2 million barrels to the USA… then my math says we still import a million barrels of oil a day. Its a national tragedy and a national energy security risk to Canada to rely on Iranian controlled oil for large parts of Eastern Canada… why are we not talking about building a pipeline east where the oil is needed… building refining capabilities in Ontario where the jobs are needed, and keeping 100% of each dollar value of economic activity here in Canada… as opposed to 50% at best with a Gateway pipeline that threatens so much for so little in return just to make a few rich.
I think it comes down to a political system that is corrupt and losing credibility daily.
IMHO
Actually we use 3 million barrels a day, produce 4 million a day and export 2 million….
ah forget the last post… lol the original post was right.
And all the King Harper trolls went “oinkoinkoink!”
I dont even know where to start.
So you propose what exactly? Enbridge needs to give a significant portion of the shares to BC residents? To call your statements related to ownership ignorant would be an understatement.
How can “the worst natural disaster in North American history” not be responsible for one human death? Victims of Katrina may object.
That being said to I believe BC and the West needs to be free from under the thumb of the east? Absolutely. But these arguments arent going to help.
Good investigative journalism Peter. We have a huge uphill fight to stop this project. They have big oil and big government forcing this on us with huge risk and no gain.
Does anyone disagree that jet setting celebrities from Hollywood carry to much weight? Who are these people anyway?
But the real issue is this:
Right now US midwestern and gulf coast refineries get our oil at WTI, which is currently $101.68. China buys its crude at Brent which is currently $113.40. That means by not exporting to the US we are loosing $12 per barrel. Do you not think that big US oil companies wouldnt pay to keep it this way? This is the REAL concern about US big oil INTERFERENCE.
So if the Northern Gateway is able to carry 500,000 b/day and it nets Canadian companies $2.2 billion extra per year (500,000 x $12 x 365) then at 25% tax rate that over $500 million more per year for Canadians.
Dont get me wrong there are risks. I am just saying there is also a reward. Mr Ewarts one sided argument lacks credibility for so many reasons but not presenting a balanced argument is the most obvious.
So Peter you are comfortable with unelected super rich NGO’s and hollywood types running the country? You and others go on and on about the evil big oil, I am not saying there are not issues but the rants all seem one sided.
Some talk about the huge oil profits, well sure Exxon made a profit of 9 billion, what a horror. But wait a minute operating costs where 100 billion, ever hear or report that side. The profit does not look so big now does it.
Here is some information about how much green, these green groups have, talk about multinationals.http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/green_groups_have_plenty_of_green/
Gee all those green groups seem to all have outside interests just like big oil.
Now having said all that we in the north are hyjacked by both sides. We need a province of Northern BC so we can at least try and run our own affairs and get the best deal possible on anything that affects the north.
Oh by the way Peter, why don’t you look into the climate scams, that is where the real big money and corruption hang out. Much bigger than any previous article you have written, and you don’t need science to see the scam.
While the hurricane, Katrina, was the single natural event which precipitated the disaster that happened in New Orleans, the thing was not what I would call a natural disaster.
The Mississippi has become an engineered waterway over time which has constricted the flow of water to the extent that water levels are higher than is natural along much of its length. This effective canalization culminates in what are essentially dike systems which lead through New Orleans. It is those dikes holding back not the sea, but the river, which failed.
It is a disaster resulting from human error brought on by decades of mismanagement.
“but the rants all seem one sided”
Of course they do. That is what it looks like from your side of the valley. From the other side of the valley it looks like the pressure is all from your side.
So what is so strange about that?
Remember Bridget Bardot and the Seals?
The way I see it, this is a geopolitical cause that goes beyond a simple pipeline meandering through the landscape of central BC. It deals with the source of the oil and how it is extracted. It deals with tanker traffic on the other end. It deals with who should get the oil.
Yes, the USA way is to get famous people to send the message. PR at its finest that has been going on for a long time. The managers of these people are always on the lookout for causes. This one happens to fit the bill because it is controversial and when one is far removed from it and dealing with big city people, it is a great cause.
Have you ever wondered whether we would get the same reaction from Mr. Harper and the Canadian population in general if the oil was to go east instead of west? If it was going to see the St. Lawrence seaway locks get a Panama Canal type of widening fix so that supertankers could take the oil on in Thunder Bay and ship it through Central Canada?
From the transportation corridor point of view, this is getting little air time because of its location …. in the hinterlands in a province that Harper has just seen he has a tough time sending his message to.
How much resistance to putting a pipeline in to the coast do you think there would be if the oil was coming from the Nechako Basin as may be the case sometime in the not too distant future?
Wait till they start to re-open the offshore drilling question.
When people get desperate, they tend to make more stupid decisions than normal. It is human nature. ;-)
“Mr Ewarts one sided argument lacks credibility for so many reasons but not presenting a balanced argument is the most obvious.”
Hardly that obvious at all. Mr. Ewart does not have to present a balanced argument. His is an opinion piece, just as the articles by Ben and others placing articles under VIEWS are opinion pieces.
Do you think if one were debating the issue that both sides of the issue being debated would be presenting balanced arguments? Of course not!!
It is up to the reader to assemble all the information from all interests and make a decision.
It is too bad that we do not have another person or persons willing to write on here so that we could have such a balance ….
from the left, this is Peter ….
from the right, this is John …..
;-)
I say keep it in the Ground for now and use it for ourself later, it’s not running away so what’s hurry ?
Peter, I want to thank you for writing such a well-written and well-researched article. Some of us who are VERY much opposed to the project aren’t able to do research such as you have done. You have obviously touched a nerve and have brought out Enbridge’s paid lackeys. By the way, I donate to Canadian environmental groups, but I have donated to those dreaded US environmental groups such as NRDC, and I would EXPECT them to help us protect the environment which knows no man-made boundaries.
“unelected super rich NGO’s and hollywood types running the country?”
I did not think that providing an opinion on the world stage is running a country. Can you explain please?
Oh, btw, if you think that the oilsands are just the talkk in North America, you are badly mistaken.
Here is an article in German as an example.
http://klausgauger.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/to-the-last-drop-canadas-dirty-oil-sands-2011/
Canada is not getting the best reputation around much of the world for its “dirty oil”. People actually expect better of us. But who cares, right?
From Cabaret ….
Money makes the world go around
…the world go around
…the world go around.
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go ’round.
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound
…a buck or a pound
…a buck or a pound.
Is all that makes the world go around
That clinking, clanking sound…
Can make the world go ’round
Money money money money
Money money money money
Money money money…
;-)
Born in BC wrote:
“Right now US midwestern and gulf coast refineries get our oil at WTI, which is currently $101.68. China buys its crude at Brent which is currently $113.40. That means by not exporting to the US we are loosing $12 per barrel.”
The operative words are RIGHT NOW.
This project will be pumping oil many moons from now. The price differential could remain as is, widen even more, or become one. In fact, based on the notion of supply and demand, both could drop in the short and even midterm, especially if more supply is made available. I think that they are simply gearing up for greater capacity. Get rid of the oil at source as quickly as possbile.
These companies make their money by operating, not by sitting and waiting for the value to go higher.
http://altex-energy.com/our_model.html
I found the information from Altex Energy on their site about the logistics and costs of transporting bitumen/oil to refneries to be very informative. In other words, I actually learned something.
I am passing it on to others who might not be in the oil business or have not explored some of the issues yet. Interesting to read that CN rail can actually compete effectively with a pipeline going to Texas.
I did not think that providing an opinion on the world stage is running a country. Can you explain please?
HUH!
Oh, the rants are one sided. Its big oil, big business, big green, big government and I got to get a new popcorn maker, just wore out my last one.
Its predicted that china will outspend the US in military spending by 2020. Should be interesting. They need the oil.
Harper and his troupe make the final decisions on “running” the country called Canada. If they want to listen to people here or there, they are the ones calling the shots. It is their decsion. Not a lobby group inside or outside the country. Not even the citizens of this country.
The only influence we have is at the polls after the fact as well as which party/candidate to fund if that is what we provide money for (with a substantial percentage coming back at tax time which is funded by all taxpayers).
The only influence NGOs from inside or outside the country have is to fund campaigns and to lobby voters.
So, pretty weak manadate for those not sitting in a seat in Parliament.
What’s your take on the effectiveness of ANY kind of lobbyist other than corporate lobbyists in this country, this province and this city?
I’m siding with the Texas and Louisiana refinery facilities rather than China, S. Korea and Japan.
Once North American oil is secured (Canada, USA, Mexico), the others can buy from North Africa and Venezuela.
I am all for continentalism. Keep it close to home.
It’s a fine line between continentalism and protectionism, gus. I’m sure the US would love to have this project stalled ad infinitum or squashed entirely.
I’m actually ashamed, frustrated and disgusted as a human being that our entire fate is essentially dictated by the toxic sludge that sits beneath the surface of the plant and the greedy individuals who cause so much harm to the world in their pursuit of the riches it can offer.
Has our collective society gone insane? The more one thinks about what we’re doing, you have to wonder if we are actually regressing instead of progressing.
And yes I know that is a naive thought but what the heck, this is an opinion website :)
Thank you again Peter for your OpEd. You do “opinion250” proud.
Your critics suggest you need to work on “balance”. To them I suggest that their expressed opinion will provide the balance they miss. I am enjoying the lively discussion.
I really do wish that people would include their real names so that we can measure the integrity of their spirits.
“It’s a fine line between continentalism and protectionism”
I do not think it is that fine at all.
As a result of 9/11, the so-called longest undefended border in the world became much more solid.
The longest undefended border in the world is now the cummulative borders sitting among the countries of the EU.
Going from the Netherlands to Germany to Belgium to France to Spain to Portugal is no different than going from state to state or province to province. If you miss the sign you do not even realize you are in a different country until you see some of the place names. And the money is even the same.
“I really do wish that people would include their real names so that we can measure the integrity of their spirits.”
Geez you’re an old fashioned dude, aren’t you? You have to measure someones integrity by their name/title rather than by their words. I find that sad.
Why don’t we look and see who is white, black, Sikh, Muslim, native, male, female, blue collar, white collar, pink collar, etc. etc.
Blogs such as this afford the opportunity for people to converse who would not normally be seen in public together with some of the characters.
Great equalizer.
Gus, I couldn’t agree more. I would not want to have to deal with an unbalanced individual threatening me or my family because of an opinion I might have.
If the last few days have proven anything, those unbalanced people do exist.
This Oil sands development is a really big deal to Canada both short term but more importantly the long term. The pipelines that facilitate its removal from Canada are what in fact will determine the life of the resource and for how long it will be available to Canadians. So the biggest question is how long will that resource last if it is fully developed and exported? What will Canada have for options once it is gone?
To me there is a question that is prevalent worldwide in that how will the world adapt to life after oil and what economies are possible without it. Will new technoligies allow efficient trading and shipping any kind of products worldwide as currently happens? The vast country of Canada is more vulnerable to energy supply and costs than almost any other country on earth with the exception to Russia. Our natural resource based economy is likely to be the most impacted as a result of transportation fuels shortage or cost increases. When that happens will agriculture, forestry,mining, fishing be economically possible in Canada? Will we have to replace natural gas with wood heat?
Will natural gas replace oil? Will there be enough or affordable natural gas to replace oil knowing that by exhausting the tar sands we also will likely deplete our natural gas reserves as well? Does it make sense to deplete both of these precious natural resources as quickly as possible for some temporary employment and little else? Can we slow the depletion of both of these national assets now that we have sold the rights to most of them to foreign interests? Is is now that the only option we have is to charge more for extraction and exporting it from our soil? Is that the way to put Canada in a position to afford the necesary adaptions to our national interests after oil? after natural gas?
Our provincial government put a carbon tax on our domestic energy consumption and the theory was that these funds were to be used to pay for energy efficency and energy savings and lower carbon emmissions. Why is it that a charge for extraction, transmission and exporting doesn’t apply to this energy which is to be consumed by other countries?
I think this issue is all about money, china happens to have there own oil. They don’t need to be Greedy! What happens if a spill happens, building this pipe line at the bottom of the ocean, u might as well just pour the oil in the ocean China, since you have already pollutions in the air, this is just adding to there rich industry that is already doing the world damage. No support for the pipe line!
“china happens to have there own oil”
Yes ….. but very little according to the stats. In fact, China has less than a 10th of the proven reserves Canada has. If all the oil sands are considered it is more like a 1/100th.
China has about half as much oil as the USA has.
Gus, you picked out only one of several pieces of mis-information in Xm’s post.
I’m not sure if he was intentionally or unintentionally ignorant, but it doesn’t really matter.
We can now see that the big conglomerates control the oil. It has always been that way. Ask Mexico, Iraq, Iran, to name but a few that have lost their oil to big oil. (Iran got it back) (Mexico got some back)
In simplistic terms it has been stated that **he who controls the oil, controls the world**. Dont for one minute think that this is not true.
If the oil from Alberta does not go to the Pacific Coast then it will go to Eastern Canada, or South to the USA. Its just that simple. We here in BC may be able to stop it from coming through BC, but we will never be able to stop it from being shipped out of Canada.
As I stated before, the coastlines of Canada are a Federal Government responsiblity, as are pipelines once they cross a border. The Government of the day will make the decision how this oil will be shipped.
Insofar as the Federal Government making a payment of $100 Million per year to BC because of the pine beetle kill. I suspect that this was a grandiose gesture at the time, however the Government probably came to realize that the Forests of BC are a Provincial responsibility and the Federal Government doesnt get a red cent, from stumpage, etc; So why pay millions to a Government that has been collecting millions for many years??
In any event the Federal Government returns all the money it collects on the export tax on lumber. This amounts to approx $250 Million per year. So this is a good thing.
Maybe Falcon can tell the Federal Government that because they never paid us for the beetle kill, they can let us off the hook for the $1.6 Billion for the HST implementation.
JohnnyBelt …. the one I picked was a simple, apparently factual statement which sound rational. Lest someone mistook it as fact, I thought I should correct it.
I viewed the rest of the post as disjointed gibberish which simply has to stand on its own for everyone to judge for themseleves.
Maybe you want to decipher what was intended to be said … :-)
Comments for this article are closed.