Welcome to the new Independent website. We hope you enjoy it and we value your feedback. Please contact us here.

Canada’s pipeline through paradise: Concerns about an oil spill drive huge opposition against planned exports to China

First Nations, environmentalists and political rivals are arraying against Prime Minister Stephen Harper – but he insists the $7bn project is necessary for national security

No nation is more thirsty for Canadian oil than China. But until now, the oil from Alberta has only flowed one way: south – to the United States.

Now the Canadian government has approved a proposal for a major pipeline to transport the country’s oil to Asia, despite powerful resistance from environmental groups, the First Nations and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s political rivals in parliament.

Canada’s Alberta province has some 170 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, a resource surpassed only by Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The Calgary-based energy company, Enbridge, now plans to build a 730-mile pipeline from the tar sands town of Brudherheim across British Columbia to the Pacific coast, where it would generate some 525,000 barrels of oil per day for export to Asia.

China, whose state-owned companies have recently invested more than $40bn (£24bn) in Canadian energy, is in line to benefit from the pipeline. Its supporters claim it will boost the Canadian economy, creating jobs and adding an estimated $300bn to Canada’s GDP over the next 30 years.

As much as 97 per cent of the Canada’s oil exports are to the US, and many consider the proposed $7bn project a crucial diversification.

However, the so-called Northern Gateway pipeline would pass through large swathes of land owned by native tribes, not to mention the pristine Great Bear Rainforest. And, when it arrives at the port of Kitimat, environmental activists fear the possibility of pipeline leaks or, worse, a tanker spill. More than 200 large oil tankers per year would sail in and out of Kitimat to meet the expected demand; the region still remembers the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, which continues to affect local ecosystems 25 years later.

The Northern Gateway project was first proposed in 2006 and has been delayed several times due to heated opposition. Mr Harper claims the pipeline is essential to Canada’s national interest, especially since April, when US President Barack Obama’s administration indefinitely postponed approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta oil through the US to the Gulf Coast in Texas. Mr Harper has said he was “profoundly disappointed” by the decision.


Douglas Channel at dusk in Kitimat, BC (AP)

Canadian regulators have drafted a list of 209 conditions, which the government says Enbridge must satisfy before construction can begin. “In addition, consultations with aboriginal communities are required,” Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said. “[Enbridge] clearly has more work to do in order to fulfil the public commitment it has made to engage with aboriginal groups and local communities along the route.”

Enbridge has suggested it may take as long as 16 months to meet the regulator’s conditions. The company’s president, Al Monaco, said he was pleased with the government’s decision, but acknowledged: “We still have some more work to do.” Mr Monaco told reporters that while the economic arguments for the pipeline are clear, the public still wants reassurance that the project is environmentally sound. “If we can’t prove our safety and environmental protection, the economic benefits won’t matter,” he said. “In other words, the economic benefits alone are not enough to sustain public support.”

The opposition to Northern Gateway is fiercest in British Columbia, where premier Christy Clark has set five conditions for the support of the provincial government, including “world-leading” infrastructure for preventing and responding to either land or marine oil spills, and an assurance that British Columbia will receive a “fair share” of the economic benefits from the project. Ms Clark, whose administration can deny construction permits, says those conditions are yet to be met.



The pipeline’s opponents come from across the political spectrum, and on Tuesday hundreds poured onto the streets of Vancouver, BC, to protest the government’s decision. Environmental groups have insisted the Ottawa government’s approval does not guarantee the project will go ahead, while more than 130 First Nations have now signed a declaration banning the Northern Gateway pipeline from crossing their territories. “I never want to dip my paddle in oil,” Bryan Joe, a member of the Comeakin Nation, told a hearing last year.

Though Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled in the past that native groups must be consulted on any construction project that encroaches on their land, legal experts say their powers do not include a veto. Nevertheless, Stewart Phillip, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Grand Chief Steward, said the region’s indigenous tribes would block any attempts by Enbridge to begin building. In a statement, a coalition of the region’s native groups promised to “defend our territories whatever the costs may be.”

Mr Harper’s Conservative government also faced criticism from rivals in parliament. Tom Mulcair, the leader of the opposition New Democratic Party, said the approval of Northern Gateway presented a “severe threat to social order, social peace”, adding that the idea of sailing oil tankers to Kitimat through the narrow Douglas Channel was “folly”.

Mr Mulcair and the leader of the Liberal party, Justin Trudeau, both said they would reverse the decision to approve the pipeline were they to take power at the next Canadian general election in October 2015.