It might be a coincidence that the announcement of the positive assessment of an independent panel of National Energy Board on the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline was made on the same day as the Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared his intention to seek a fourth term of office in the general elections in 2015, but then again it might not.
As a native of Alberta and his political power base in Calgary, where most of Canada’s oil companies have their headquarters, Mr. Harper’s re-election chances will probably get a huge boost and possibly additional substantial campaign contributions once the federal government uses the conditional positive assessment to make a decision to go ahead with the almost $8 billion project.
As for the some 200 conditions attached to the positive assessment of the review panel for the project to go ahead, one can be sure that at least some of them, probably the costlier ones, could and probably will be diluted as the construction of the 1,177-kilometre pipeline extending from Bruderheim, Alta. to Kitimat, B.C. progresses.
The expectation is that the project, capable of carrying just over half a million barrels of heavy crude per day, will generate more than $2,6 billion in tax revenues for provincial and federal governments in the course of its minimum 30-year lifetime.
Whether we (meaning the people of Alberta, and Canada, regardless of our approval of or opposition to the development of oil sands and expanding production there) like it or not, the economy of Alberta, and Canada at large, has greatly benefited from the windfall of royalties from the bitumen extracted there and we are enjoying the outcome in the form of economic growth.
The question is how complacent we have been so far with regard to this literally vital issue and how complacent we are going to remain as the bitumen production grows and grows in the years to come.
It is no secret that some environmental damage has already been done and regardless of the fines imposed and court verdicts issued ordering the responsible parties to clean up the pollution, some of the damage will never be undone.
As more investments are certain to come in with the proposed pipeline, there will be heightened probability of more extensive environmental damage and, as importantly, more First Nations will have their lifestyle and culture come under threat from the expansion of the bitumen production.
What can be done to prevent it?
Would the option of having the heavy crude of northern Alberta processed and refined immediately as it is produced bring some benefits?
Certainly, this alternative, widely supported by the labor unions, would not only bring additional employment but also enhance the added value of the product to be exported, and consequently, boost the revenues generated by the sector. Also, that would reduce the danger of environmental pollution through leaks from the pipeline extending to the coast. Unfortunately, the realities of the international oil markets make it difficult to market refined oil products instead of the crude.
That puts the onus the federal government and the provincial governments of Alberta and B.C. to ensure that oil sands are responsibly developed without intensifying the footprint of the corporate oil interests on the pristine environment of the country.
The Pembina Institute, respected for their research on environmental issues, commented on the Northern Gateway by saying “Without a credible plan to address greenhouse gas pollution and to ensure the oil sands are being developed in an environmentally responsible manner, building the infrastructure that enables rapid oil sands expansion cannot be in the public interest.”
It added “…our analysis shows the greenhouse gas pollution generated by filling the Northern Gateway pipeline would be equivalent to adding over three million cars a year to Canada’s roads.”
We are well aware of the level of indifference on the part Mr. Harper to the environmental concerns and to the privileges of First Nations to have a say in resource development in territories on which they have treaty rights.
With Alison Redford and her government pressing hard to get the bitumen out to the international markets regardless of the environmental cost, the only hope for safeguards to be kept in place in the pipeline project is the well-founded sensitivity of the B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s government.
If the electorate, both at federal and provincial levels, could, in support of Ms. Clark, force Stephen Harper and Alison Redford to think twice before moving on with the project, we could maybe feel a little safer for the second or third generations to follow us with the thought that they might still have a healthy environment to live in western Canada.