Skip to main content

Breaking - Creamer Media, an on-line mining news publication is reporting this morning that the newly-minted liberal Canadian government has rejected authorizing a pipeline from Alberta to British Colombia (B.C.). Apparently it's OK by them for the USA to shoulder any potential risks, but the risks are "unacceptable" up north-a-way:

Quoted text below zee French Canadian croissant:

BC’s new Liberal government rejects Northern Gateway pipeline

By: Henry Lazenby
1st June 2013

TORONTO ( – The recently elected Liberal government of British Columbia (BC), under the leadership of premier Christy Clark, has rejected the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project on environmental concerns.

Energy giant Enbridge’s pipeline project, which aimed to construct two pipelines stretching 1 177 km from the Alberta oilsands to a tanker port on the North Coast of BC, with the capacity to move 525 000 barrels of oil a day, was deemed to hold too great a risk for oil spillages, and its proponents presented too little evidence to mitigate risk factors, provincial Environment Minister Terry Lake said in a statement.

"Northern Gateway has said that they would provide effective spill response in all cases. However, they have presented little evidence as to how they will respond. For that reason, our government cannot support the issuance of a certificate for the pipeline as it was presented to the joint review panel,” he said in the province’s final written submissions to the joint review panel to address BC’s environmental concerns.

Lake noted that the BC government’s position on the Gateway proposal was not a rejection of heavy-oil projects in BC, and that all proposals would be judged on their merits and measured against the province’s five conditions for pipeline projects.

Those conditions included a fair share of fiscal and economic benefits of heavy-oil projects, recognising the treaty and legal rights of First Nations, and the development of “world-leading” marine and land oil-spill prevention and recovery systems.

Environmental activist the Pembina Institute senior policy analyst Nathan Lemphers said Clark had listened to the concerns of British Columbians, considered the evidence presented by Enbridge and found the proposal failed to address the province's environmental concerns.

"This decision is a cautionary tale for the federal government, Alberta and the oilsands industry: if they want to see additional pipelines, they will need to accelerate improvements toward regulating upstream impacts of oilsands development and minimising the risk of oil spills," Lemphers said.

He added BC’s rejection of the pipeline proposal sent an important message to proponents of oilsands pipelines: “it's premature to start building additional pipeline capacity from the oilsands until we have a credible plan in place to responsibly manage and transport oilsands”.

“As the final decision on this pipeline proposal rests in the hands of the federal government, BC’s announcement sends a strong signal to Ottawa that this project is not in the national interest barring significant improvements,” Lemphers said.
Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter

Good old pristine Canada Canadian lawmakers would looove to mine those tax dollars from the oil sands industry, as long as any pollution consequences are borne by US Midwesterners. Well golly-gosh, isn't the US already fairly polluted already, anyway? I mean, what's to worry?

Originally posted to scottsvine on Sat Jun 01, 2013 at 08:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by More and Better Democracies.


Regarding the rejected pipeline through Canada:

60%21 votes
2%1 votes
5%2 votes
25%9 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
5%2 votes

| 35 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  One looks at the Pacific coast and its temperate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eyesbright, chimene

    rainforests, and comes to the conclusion that toxic "dilbit" has no place in that picture.

    Meanwhile, down here in Oregon we are trying to stop the coal trains from sending a different breed of dead dinosaurs to China.

    All for the cheap plastic crap that China sends back . . .

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Sat Jun 01, 2013 at 09:45:37 AM PDT

  •  I was listening to a Victoria radio station (0+ / 0-)

    when the news came out.

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Jun 01, 2013 at 10:31:16 AM PDT

  •  I've said all along (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are 8 existing refineries in Alberta that could either be expanded or converted to handle this crap. They won't do it because they don't want to pollute their own country. They would rather  send that shit to us. Nice.

  •  Feds make the final decision not BC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    While I was pleasantly surprised by the position that the B.C. government took, I think it is not correct to say that "the newly minted liberal Canadian government" decided something.

    The Canadian government--the federal government--has a Conservative majority, and it is not newly minted.

    It has been around long enough to change the law to give the federal government power to make the final decision on pipelines.

    I'm glad that the B.C. government weighed in on the "no" side, and I am glad that the First Nations are opposed to the pipeline, for the most part.

    But I think the Harper Conservative government is going to see a pipeline of some kind go through somewhere, come hell or high water.

    •  Thanks, this borealoblivious Yank stands corrected (0+ / 0-)
    •  It is one thing for a federal parliament to pass (0+ / 0-)

      a law "giving" themselves power.

      It is another thing entirely -- and relatively out of step with Canadian historical practice -- for the federal government to exercise such power in the face of provincial opposition.

      If BC doesn't want a pipeline, I consider it extremely unlikely that one will be built.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jun 01, 2013 at 08:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Likelihood factors (0+ / 0-)

        With Stephen Harper as PM, I wouldn't bet the farm on respect for provincial wishes--at least not in the traditional way.

        On the other hand, the Conservatives need to win some B.C. seats in 2015, so Harper will assess provincial sentiments with the greatest possible care.

        Harper doesn't need to move on this immediately. He might be saved if the eastbound route turns out to be more promising. Or, better yet, if the U.S. federal government is daft enough to say yes to Keystone. (I know: Keystone is TransCanada and northern route is Enbridge, but still, if they get one pipeline route, they have a means of solving Big Oil's big problem.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site