Enbridge Claims Of ‘Sign On’ Disputed
Tuesday, June 5, 2012 @ 12:28 PM
Prince George, B.C.- Enbridge has released information claiming the Northern Gateway twin pipeline project has seen a majority of eligible groups invited to sign up for a 10% stake in the twin pipeline project, have done so.
According to a released issue earlier today, “almost 60 percent of eligible Aboriginal communities along the proposed right of way, representing 60 percent of the First Nations’ population (and 80 percent of the combined First Nations’ and Metis’ population) have agreed to be part owners of the proposed Northern Gateway pipelines” . The release goes on to say “Half of the equity units taken up went to groups in British Columbia, and the other half to groups in Alberta.”
Carrier Sekani Tribal Chief David Luggi says he is not surprised by this information coming from Enbridge “ Last week Enbridge had announced they were launching an aggressive advertising campaign to promote the project, so its no surprise they are coming out with these kinds of numbers.”
Chief Luggi says the numbers have to be broken down further for the real picture “ What are the numbers of directly impacted first Nations who have signed on, what are the numbers of indirectly impacted First Nations who have signed on?”
He believes the aggregate numbers are being distributed to make it appear that on the whole, the project is being accepted by most First Nations.
Manager of Northern Gateway Communications, , Paul Stanway, says there were 45 groups along the route eligible for the equity sharing. Of that number it was “pretty much a 50-50 split between groups located in B.C. and in Alberta.” Stanway would not say how many B.C. groups signed on, “Those first Nations who have signed on have asked that we not disclose their identity, and we are respecting that request.”
Chief Luggi says the question that has to be asked is “What is the percentage of Aboriginal land base that is being effected by the project, and that is where the real challenge will be with any court cases that may happen. Challenges to the Enbridge proposal won’t happen, or are very unlikely to be undertaken, by any First Nation that is indirectly impacted by the project.”
Comments
How come I haven’t been asked to sign up for a 10% stake?
Ah, and the press releases begin. Remember how they were going to start spending money on that advertising campaign? Here it is. I just hope people think critically about what they are told.
On another note, this headline is awful.
The problem with this pipeline is not just the potential for environmental disaster.
It’s the reality of the losses incurred to our economy.
This pipeline is simply the means to suck the natural resource out of this country with the least possible investment. No different than sending raw logs off shore.
Build the refineries in Canada and stop looking for ways to sell out the next generation.
“a majority of eligible groups invited to sign up for a 10% stake in the twin pipeline project”
This means what?
1. 10 groups sign up for a 10% stake and they have a total of 100%??
2. or … whoever signs up gets an equal share of 10% of the project? so 10 sign up and get 1% each … or 100 sign up and each get 0.1% ?
or some other fashion???
“Those First Nations who have signed on have asked that we not disclose their identity”……Why the secrecy ?
This announcement by Enbridge is, in my opinion, simply propaganda and disinformation.
It is intended to cause the citizens and aboriginal groups who are not firm in their resolve to oppose the pipeline to swing their opinion in favour the pipeline.
metalman.
whelen it seems you don’t like the pipelines, do you realize refineries require about five pipelines to get product to market.
Money talks. End of story!
Seamutt, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. My issue is with shipping family-sustaining jobs offshore . . . and that of our children.
middle finger wrote: “Those First Nations who have signed on have asked that we not disclose their identity”……Why the secrecy ?”
If Peter bought 10% of the project, or if Mary was given 5% of the project as a gift, should those names be released? I would think that not diclosing names is the norm.
Now, if Enbridge made an offer, and the offer had conditions attached to it, which included identifying people who were given a part of a private project, that would be another matter. In fact …. it might be considered a bribe in some circles … ;-)
Bang on Furbink ….. Seamutt typically sees things from one side only. He has a hard time looking at things in other than his ways.
His is the truth. He likes it that way. He is secure that way. The last thing seamutt wants is to live in insecurity …… ;-)
Even if Enbridge is telling the truth, I’m not sure that these agreements should be considered endorsements. To be sure, we’d need to see the text, which is not, to my knowledge, available. My guess is that the agreements merely establish the relationship between Enbridge and communities over whose territory the pipeline will run IF the pipeline is built. A pragmatic approach might be to oppose construction of the pipeline but to sign an agreement that doesn’t actually endorse it so that, if opposition fails, the community will have receive benefits from the pipeline that it might otherwise not receive and have greater control over its operation. It may be that Enbridge is telling the truth about the number of signatures but misrepresenting what they mean.
Build the pipeline!
So the 5 million dollar BS campaign is in full swing. And CBC picks up the Enbridge release and runs it as if its gospel, with no checks to see if it is correct or countered by any of the opposing factions. And then the story goes national, that “the majority” of the native communities have signed on. And people will swallow that nonsense without question. Enbridge knows how the game is played, and so should everyone who has the slightest interest. Pay attention folks, and question the bull.
Coastal First Nations are saying that Enbridge’s claim is not true. Here’s their press release:
—–
Vancouver (Tuesday, June 5) â A claim today by Enbridge that the company has signed equity agreements with 60 per cent of the First Nations along the proposed B.C./Alberta route of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project is a complete sham, says Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt.
âWe have checked with all the First Nations on the pipeline route west of Prince George and only two First Nations have signed equity agreements,â says Sterritt, in response to Enbridgeâs announcement earlier today. Sterritt says the numbers being bandied about by Enbridge are flawed.. âEnbridge expanded its pipeline corridor by 80 kilometers to increase its numbers. Many of these communities that have signed on are located outside of the areas that will be most impacted by a spill.â
As well Enbridge is including groups that either arenât located on the pipeline corridor or donât have land in British Columbia, Sterritt said. âWe are absolutely mystified about the inclusion of the Metis in Enbridgeâs 60 per cent. Itâs ridiculous to include groups that donât have Aboriginal Rights and Title to land within the pipeline corridor.â
Despite Enbridgeâs comments to the contrary the Gitksan people have made it clear they donât support the project, Sterritt says . âThey have strongly rejected the agreement.â
The wall of opposition against Enbridgeâs proposed pipeline project still exists, he says. âWe still intend to stop this project.â
The Coastal First Nations is an alliance of First Nations that includes the Wuikinuxv, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xaixais, Nuxalk, Gitgaâat, Haisla, Metlakatla, Old Massett, Skidegate, and Council of the Haida Nation with approximately 20,000 members that are working together to develop a sustainable economy.
For more information:
Art Sterritt
Executive Director
Coastal First Nations
604-868-9110
No doubt the pipeline will be built. There’s enough money behind it to ensure that it is. And that kind of money not only talks, it gets listened to. And it has been already, at the pinnacles of elected political power both Federally and Provincially. Witness the need for an “omnibus Budget” Federally. What its construction will mean for BC is increased inflation ~ as the money to build it begins to be distributed, the prices of everything for sale to us here will rise.
Yes, it will create some jobs. But when the construction is finished most of them will disappear. And the higher prices it engendered? They’ll still be with us. Permanently.
So why don’t we look at negating that, and gaining some real advantage from the pipeline’s construction? It brings US nothing in the way of lower gasoline, heating oil, or other petroleum products’ prices. Those prices, along with all others, will RISE.
So lets Provincially tax every litre of oil that goes through it. On a scale determined by the rise in the general price level of goods and services for sale here in BC between the period when construction commences til when it’s finished.
Only instead of the government taking the funds collected from such a tax for general revenue, use the tax to rebate the price at the pump of all motor fuels sold here in BC to BC residents. And all petroleum products in general sold into the same BC market.
That way we ALL get an offsetting advantage from what it is going to cost US to have this pipeline. Which otherwise is really of little or no advantage to us.
Furbink, think of the thousands of jobs that will be lost without a larger export market.
Enbridge , being a public company can’t release information to the public that is knowingly factually false. US litigators would take them to the wood shed.
Gus, cut the sanctimony.
dow7500@Maybe it isn’t legal for publicly traded companies to lie, but there are plenty of examples of them doing so.
Enbridge is using slight of hand. Easy for them to include none effected native bands in Alberta to claim support. I think it is disappointing to see some native bands sell out as if the whole issue is just another negotiation. For some it just comes down to free money I guess.
I see a number of problems. First of all there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of us that were born in BC and our parents and grand parents were also born in BC… some who even have Metis heritage. I understand that native bands have legitimate land claims rights, but not for one second should Enbridge think they only have to buy off native groups when the vast majority of the citizens in BC oppose this project for the very real costly threat it posses to our environment… regardless if the native bands are our brothers keeper or not. This is our BC too just as much as it is any native bands, and if Gateway think they can ignore that, then the next provincial election will stop them in their tracks.
As for the secret agreement. This is criminal when used as propaganda to influence a public review. It is essentially buying off groups one against another to garner support and that folks is bribery. Any agreement should be global in that it is based on metrics that would see all effected land owners and native treaty holders equitably regardless if they support the project or not. Do divide and conquer with the spoils of public resources insults the intelligence and the dignity of all involved.
I think the only honorable thing to be done now is for Shirley Bond to have her ministry start a bribery investigation into Enbridge. It should be done independent of the Premier (who is bought and paid for) until charges are laid. Minister Bond should represent her constituents and do what is right to stop this project. If the BC liberal party choose to sanction her, than it is nearly a mute point as the next provincial election is less than a year away, and the BC liberals will no longer be in power at that time anyways.
Do the right thing Shirley Bond. Protect the integrity of our democracy and lay charges of bribery against Enbridge for using access deals to revenue from public resources… contingent upon a sort of secret hostage deal for support. If Enbridge is allowed to get away with this then its a nail in the coffin for the democratic process.
The Coastal First Nations press release is now up on their web site: http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/news-release/june-6-2012-244am
Billposer, exactly!! as far as the comment of endorsement goes.
BC Hydro negotiates an easement on my property and provides me with some compensation.
That is hardly an endorsment of BC Hydro.
dow7500 … you would not recognize an objective thought if you were surrounded by them.
So let me get this straight.
http://www.northerngateway.ca/news-and-media/what-s-new-at-northern-gateway/enbridge-signs-majority-of-groups-eligible-to-participate-in-aboriginal-equity-agreements
Enbridge keeps talking about a $5.5billion project. That means that if they give a 10% equity stake to First Nations, they are giving them a $550million part of the investment in the project. The Enbridge press release states: âAggregate equity ownership is expected to generate approximately $280 million in net income to Aboriginal communities over the first 30 yearsâ. That works out to $9.333 million per year on average over the 30 years.
In effect we then have a $9.333 million per year return on a $550million investment which gives us a simple rate of return of 1.70%/year. Does not sound like a good deal to me unless you believe in the adage, âdo not look a gift horse in the mouthâ.
I would really need to look at what the deal actually is. The capital investment is going to be worth very little after 30 years if it is not maintained properly. So, will the 10% shareholders be required to provide 10% of the maintenance costs as well? What about the operations net revenue for transmitting the bitumen? Any shares there?
I think I would like to know a bit more about this âdealâ. :-)
From the link to the Coastal First Nations Press Release ….
“The Coastal First Nations is an alliance of First Nations that includes the Wuikinuxv, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xaixais, Nuxalk, Gitgaâat, Haisla, Metlakatla, Old Massett, Skidegate, and Council of the Haida Nation with approximately 20,000 members that are working together to develop a sustainable economy.”
Assuming that the 20,000 could become part of the 10% equity participants, those 20,000 alone would possibly receive $466 per year (not per month, per year) averaged over 30 years. BUT, they are not the only ones who would have access to the $9.3million a year.
Let’s get some more meaningful figures into the press release so that the benefit to each individual can be seen. Much easier to relate to figures such as that.
———————–
Another sanctimonious post presented to you by gus … LOL
Hey, what’s your opinion about all this Dow7500? Think we need to bring the figure down to what each person can understand?
Of course not … why would you think that … ;-)
Comments for this article are closed.