First Nations ban pipelines to west coast

[jacee]

Aboriginal groups in British Columbia said on Thursday they have formed a united front to oppose all exports of crude oil from the Alberta oil sands through their territories.

The declaration adds to the uncertainty over Enbridge Inc. ’s planned $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline, which would move 525,000 barrels a day of oil 1,177 kilometres to the Pacific port of Kitimat.

It could also affect an expansion of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver. The company is currently seeking commitments from potential shippers for the project.

The First Nations groups say they fear the consequences of a spill from the pipeline, which would pass through some of Canada’s most spectacular and mountainous landscape. They also oppose the idea of shipping oil from British Columbia ports.

“First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning al exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories,” more than 60 aboriginal groups said in a statement.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bc-natives-form-front-to-fight-oil-pipelines/article2256786/?from=sec434&service=mobile

Stay tuned to watch Harper go ballistic.

Edited December 1, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Don't worry... Harper will just send the military in or slash funding for the FNs.

[Topaz]

The Tories new crime bill that they are rushing through, watch how many protesters will fit into that new law. BTW, didn't Jay Hill leave government to work in B.C.'s gas and oil industry? Harper probably has had this planned for years and just waiting for voters to give him a majority.

[jacee]

Don't worry... Harper will just send the military in or slash funding for the FNs.

Well it's certainly going to be interesting.

The Supreme Court says they must be consulted about all developments on their traditional lands, and a written Impact-Benefit Agreement must be negotiated.

Of course this is all heating up quickly because of the delay in the Trans-Canada pipeline through the US.

It doesn't sound to me like they are taking a negotiating' position. It sounds like they are simply opposed to it, period.

Harper will be having coniptions, but he can't just send the military in against .. what ... a meeting?

The oil companies will be scrambling to pay them off, but I don't think it will work.

I can only assume that those bands may have other sources of income as I'm sure they know Harper will try to beat them down any way he can.

Why don't they use container transport for oil?

Wouldn't that address the leaky pipeline, leaky ship issues?

I agree with them. I don't think it's safe.

Edited December 1, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

Well it's certainly going to be interesting.

The Supreme Court says they must be consulted about all developments on their traditional lands, and a written Impact-Benefit Agreement must be negotiated.

Of course this is all heating up quickly because of the delay in the Trans-Canada pipeline through the US.

It doesn't sound to me like they are taking a negotiating' position. It sounds like they are simply opposed to it, period.

Harper will be having coniptions, but he can't just send the military in against .. what ... a meeting?

The oil companies will be scrambling to pay them off, but I don't think it will work.

I can only assume that those bands may have other sources of income as I'm sure they know Harper will try to beat them down any way he can.

Why don't they use container transport for oil?

Wouldn't that address the leaky pipeline, leaky ship issues?

I agree with them. I don't think it's safe.

You'd prefer transporting oil by rail?

[Smallc]

Yeah, anyone opposing this pipeline really isn't thinking. That oil is going to get there one way or another.

[blueblood]

You'd prefer transporting oil by rail?

Nope, she wants the oil in the ground. How dare we westerners become rich

[guyser]

Nope, she wants the oil in the ground. How dare we westerners become rich

What is fueling your animosity today BB ? Normally you are cool, but today.....??

You will be a little less rich once you pay off the FN's and we all know, they are saying now to imrove the offer of cold hard cash.

[blueblood]

What is fueling your animosity today BB ? Normally you are cool, but today.....??

You will be a little less rich once you pay off the FN's and we all know, they are saying now to imrove the offer of cold hard cash.

I don't mind paying off the fn's for land access, the oil companies pay everyone else, but they have to be realistic and take some money or no money. I posted an example of a successful fn in Saskatchewan in another thread hat works with private partners and enjoys an unemployment rate of 4%

And then we have the op who thinks that the oil sands pipeline shouldn't be developed in the first place, I mean really?

[Guest Derek L]

What is fueling your animosity today BB ? Normally you are cool, but today.....??

You will be a little less rich once you pay off the FN's and we all know, they are saying now to imrove the offer of cold hard cash.

That might very well be the case with Northern Gateway pipeline, but the Trans Mountain is an upgrade to an already existing pipeline, on already existing owned and leased land……….Kinder Morgan’s line is already being built……..And I wouldn’t bet against Enbridge’s either…..No mater the number of “masked warriors”, burn barrels and drums…..

[olp1fan]

Unless the pipeline goes through an Indian Reserve I don't see their protest stopping this

and if they begin to arm themselves to defend what they see as their land then I give Harper permission

to bring in the military

[guyser]

Unless the pipeline goes through an Indian Reserve I don't see their protest stopping this

and if they begin to arm themselves to defend what they see as their land then I give Harper permission

to bring in the military

...er....No, Harper cant do that.

The Military cannot be senmt to do domestic policing.

Under the war m,easures act and one other I cant recall, it would have to be the Solicitor General of the Province.

Ya really think he would? Nope!

[Argus]

Don't worry... Harper will just send the military in or slash funding for the FNs.

If that's what it takes...

[Argus]

...er....No, Harper cant do that.

The Military cannot be senmt to do domestic policing.

You must have a very short memory.

Oka

Edited December 2, 2011 by Argus

[fellowtraveller]

I agree with them. I don't think it's safe.

Pipelines are horribly dangerous.

Ontario has tons of them filled with filthy Western Oil and gas, and look at all the spills and cities that have burned to the ground there.

Not safe.

Anyway, I suspect that FNs will be able to do f**k-all about Kinder Morgan since the right of way is already established. They just expanded this line through Jasper National Park a few years ago.

Of course, it means doubling, tripling, quadrupling the number of tankers at Twassassen and in the Starits of Juan de Fuca. Much better than a quiet deep water port at Kitimat or Prince Rupert.......

[cybercoma]

Yeah, anyone opposing this pipeline really isn't thinking. That oil is going to get there one way or another.

Really isn't thinking about what exactly?

If a company wanted to rip up your property and run a pipeline through it that could potentially destroy your home, then you would have every right to deny them access.

Whether I think they should allow the pipe to be laid or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it's their land and if they don't want it on their land they have every right to shoot it down for whatever reason they deem valuable.

[dre]

Really isn't thinking about what exactly?

If a company wanted to rip up your property and run a pipeline through it that could potentially destroy your home, then you would have every right to deny them access.

Whether I think they should allow the pipe to be laid or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it's their land and if they don't want it on their land they have every right to shoot it down for whatever reason they deem valuable.

The problem is the oil companies are their own worst enemy. Theres absolutely no question in my mind that we have the capability to build oil pipelines that dont leak and wreck the environment. But it costs more... and these companies make a value judgement that building leaky pipelines is more profitable than building good ones.

Its no suprise that when you trash the environment as part of your core business model, people get a little suspicious when you want to set up ship on someone elses land. And when there is a spill they drag it out in the courts for decades and avoid paying for most of the damages.

Let them build the pipeline, but force them to build it right, and have them post a few billion dollars as an interest bearing bond to pay for any future spills or damage.

[jacee]

You'd prefer transporting oil by rail?

I'm asking why it isn't moved in containers to avoid leaks and spills.

Or leave it in the ground ...

[blueblood]

I'm asking why it isn't moved in containers to avoid leaks and spills.

Or leave it in the ground ...

Containers leak too, if not more than a pipe.

Leaving oil in the ground is not an option, we out west are not wanting to be poor, and as you constantly remind us being poor isn't a good time.

[blueblood]

Really isn't thinking about what exactly?

If a company wanted to rip up your property and run a pipeline through it that could potentially destroy your home, then you would have every right to deny them access.

Whether I think they should allow the pipe to be laid or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it's their land and if they don't want it on their land they have every right to shoot it down for whatever reason they deem valuable.

I know guys with pump jacks on their land, sometimes 2 to a quarter and the oil company compensates said person 8k per year just to be able to have the pump jacks there. 8k for the landowner doing sweet f all. For 8k a year and only taking up a couple of acres, it's a no brainer.

Cripes you guys have water pipelines in the city, if they break is there not damage to property? Last time I checked water damage can write off a house like oil can.

[jacee]

What is fueling your animosity today BB ? Normally you are cool, but today.....??

You will be a little less rich once you pay off the FN's and we all know, they are saying now to imrove the offer of c

old hard cash.

tThe company has offered native groups equity stakes in the pipeline as well as large sums of money for community development. Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the affair had to be handled by government and regulators rather than by the company. "This is a ban that would have serious implications for the entire province of British Columbia," he said.

But groups such as the Yinka Dene Alliance and Coastal First Nations have said they wil not support the project under any circumstances.

"We have banned oil pipelines and tankers using our laws, and we will defend our decision using all the means at our disposal," said Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik'uz First Nation, a member of the Yinka Dene Alliance

Hearings into the Northern Gateway pipeline are due to start in January 2012 and could drag on for years. Even if Enbridge gets approval, native groups are likely to appeal the case through Canada's sluggish courts system.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7B025I20111201?irpc=932

Looks like they've already turned down the money, so that's not it. They expect the government to do something. That will depend on the courts.

Edited December 2, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I know guys with pump jacks on their land, sometimes 2 to a quarter and the oil company compensates said person 8k per year just to be able to have the pump jacks there. 8k for the landowner doing sweet f all. For 8k a year and only taking up a couple of acres, it's a no brainer.

Cripes you guys have water pipelines in the city, if they break is there not damage to property? Last time I checked water damage can write off a house like oil can.

What's your point?

[Shwa]

What's your point?

That everybody has their price and that the Indian's reasons for not wanting to take the risk to their environment cannot be rational since there will likely be a handsome price offered even IF there is some damage to their environment.

I am inclinded to agree to a certain point. If I was one of those FN Chiefs and such a pipeline was going to be laid across my traditional territory, I would demand half of all the profits the pipeline generated.

[blueblood]

That everybody has their price and that the Indian's reasons for not wanting to take the risk to their environment cannot be rational since there will likely be a handsome price offered even IF there is some damage to their environment.

I am inclinded to agree to a certain point. If I was one of those FN Chiefs and such a pipeline was going to be laid across my traditional territory, I would demand half of all the profits the pipeline generated.

And the oil company tells you to piss up a rope while they find a chief that will be more reasonable, and an alternative route while the chief gets to explain to his people why they missed out on e money. The white cap Dakota reserve in Saskatchewan plays reasonable with private industry and have a 4% unemployment rate, why can't the others?

[cybercoma]

That everybody has their price and that the Indian's reasons for not wanting to take the risk to their environment cannot be rational since there will likely be a handsome price offered even IF there is some damage to their environment.

I am inclinded to agree to a certain point. If I was one of those FN Chiefs and such a pipeline was going to be laid across my traditional territory, I would demand half of all the profits the pipeline generated.

They don't have to have a price and they don't need to fit your definition of reasonable. It's their land and if they don't want to allow pipelines run on it, that's their prerogative.