The U.S. oil grab in Venezuela will only pressure the federal government to build a pipeline faster, but caution is advised if the goal is success when working toward Canada’s left coast
The one advantage that Alberta has is a decade of experience with the oil and gas industry. Provincially, approvals for projects are pretty much predetermined. The province knows the methods the oil and gas industry uses and industry can plan based on expected outcomes. I contrast this with federal approaches which are poorly structured and often based on environmental studies and conditional approvals.
The "drop in and we will talk" approach reeks of risk for corporations.
Regardless of the type of mine, from a regulatory perspective they are very much the same. The corporation controls the surface for a period of time, should be required to remediate it to an industry standard, and limit the environmental effects to that area. Compensation and approvals should be formulaic, not negotiated. This requires the province, the RM, and all surface rights holders including FMAs, and First Nations to have thought out ahead of time what is required of a generic mine, pipeline, well, etc.
The first step in any resource development project is assessment of risk. Uncertain regulatory conditions put a high risk premium on it.
Yes…and in NW BC this approach to certainty has been through working with First Nations and stakeholders to build land use plans that show where all parties agree that development is acceptable and under what conditions. For some First Nations, they support development but there are specific places that are sacred where they can’t support development. Predefining those places lets industry know where not to waste time and focussed efforts on the rest of the land base where development t will be welcomed.
That’s not the only way the BC first Nations veto things and you know it. If it was just a matter of avoiding sacred sites, industry would be totally fine with that. What do you do when you have a group (specifically, Wet’suwet’en activists and hereditary chiefs) who are opposed to all fossil fuel development, full stop, and will not only not endorse, but actively protest, blockade, or even vandalize/attack the construction sites.
This is the problem with linear infrastructure: it crosses lots of lands. Even if fifteen of sixteen First Nations along the route have become industrial capitalists and are bought into the project, if all sixteen get an individual veto (either a formal one or a “we won’t clear blockades” policy which is a de facto veto) then the project can’t move quickly.
Well I guess you do what BC did and approve the pipeline and it gets built. It was painful but the record shows the nations were not given a veto and the bc government did a ton of work to get the project built.
I’m sorry, but no, TMX doesn’t count. It came in at three times its initial budget, and took over a decade to get approved and built. If that’s the benchmark for success we’re going to lose the country. We need to be approving and building these much, much faster in the current environment.
Coastal GasLink too had a hugely long pre-construction development period and also had an actual armed attack on the construction (that did $20M of damage and made all the construction crews fear for their own safety). Again, yes it was built in the end, but the timelines were way too long for what we need to do now.
Kindly not add to the size of the coefficient of Canadian collective stupidity by words "The abduction of Nicholas Maduro ".
Replace with far more factual "long overdue arrest of dictator Nicholas Maduro running a murderous narco-regime while supplying passports of convenience to a plethora of terrorist groups."
The United Stated does not have the legal jurisdiction to conduct an "arrest" on sovereign territory it does not possess. You can support the U.S.s actions while acknowledging that, yes, it was an abduction. Or extraordinary rendition, if you prefer. "Arrest" presumes a legal legitimacy that does not exist in this case.
There are plenty of arguments in favour if what Trump did, but I am not playing these kinds of bullshit semantic games. A spade is a spade. JG
Things get murky with terrorists, but the guy had directly attacked the US and killed thousands, so it was not a law enforcement operation. As far as Maduro's supposed arrest goes, outside of David Coresh can you name any other law enforcement actions that result in the death of upwards of a hundred people?
This all I’m sure is accurate for the situation in BC for the last 30 years, maybe longer. But I’m not convinced that just showing up and having a stakeholder office in Terrace is enough to make these kind of projects move quickly.
It feels like, as Matt and Jen have said on the podcast, the federal government may need to (figuratively) shoot someone _pour encourager les autres_, and that person might be David Eby and British Columbia‘s veto on resource development by virtue of controlling the coast.
Interesting perspective that the province vetoed (or vetoes) a pipeline. They didn’t. The only project out of dozens in NW BC that has been opposed by the provincial government was Enbridge, it was Christy Clark’s small c conservative government that originally was opposed. But that is not a veto. The project died after the conservative government of Steven Harper did a poor job of meeting legal requirements for consultation.
Okay so this needs five thousand words to properly discuss, but I’ll try to give my perspective briefly:
Legal requirements for consultation don’t exist in a vacuum. When S.35 was passed it was more symbolic than anything else; nobody including Trudeau Sr. thought that Canada was giving up sovereignty over massive parts of the country. That all came via jurisprudence over the following four decades.
However, legal decisions don’t exist in a vacuum on vague areas like this. This isn’t black-and-white strict “interpret the law”. The SCC is inventing new rights as it goes, legislating on major questions of Canadian sovereignty from the bench. When they do this, they follow signals from the populace and from Parliament.
The BC government has been an incredibly strong advocate for indigenous sovereignty and veto over resource and energy projects throughout all the unceded traditional lands in BC. It’s only recently, with the Cowichan decision in particular, that the BC govt has realized what the courts have unleashed, like Mickey Mouse with all the sentient mops and buckets in the famous cartoon.
So no, they haven’t vetoed things directly, but they’ve helped create the veto points. That’s what I mean.
I know an American Airlines pilot who laughs at BC with the clean cuts of forrest hidden from the view of the roads and highways in the province. Keep BC beautiful but don't go off the beaten path.
It is called management of landscape for visual and aesthetic purposes. There is nothing wrong with a clearcut right to the road. These days are in effect well developed management guidelines created over decades. A clearcut is a temporary thing promptly reforested. Young forest there in 10-15 years, preferred grazing by moose and deer.
Except vast majority of the public refuses to understand that. So the visual management guidelines have been developed to cut down on hysterical phone calls to the forestry offices.
It's easy to see both sides of the story here. There is much to be said for pristine wilderness and there's also much to be said for getting Canada's resources to market. Will that market still exist two decades from now? Korea and Japan are shrinking and China is doing all it can to switch to solar, hydro and wind. And yes, coal too. They don't want to be dependent on us just as we don't want to be dependent on them. And so it seems that it's time to give up on those old dreams and become a people that aren't afraid to deal with the future, together.
Yes, many projects have failed in NW BC at the same time many have succeeded. The reader might not realize that this same place approved and built two of the biggest major projects in Canada in the last decade (Site C and LNG Canada) as well as a handful of new mines (Red Chris, Brucejack, Mt Milligan, Blackwater). And, that the government has approved a ton of projects that never got built. Eg the approval in 2015 of the PRGT pipeline with written support by all First Nations along its route. Tell Newmont that NW BC is a “graveyard” while it operates one of the best quality gold mines in the world (Blackwater) and is expanding another (Red Chris).
So, why did some projects in the past fail? One thing-ECONOMiCS. The global market for asbestos died killing Cassiar. The Dease lake railway extension was partially built at massive taxpayer cost and never had a product to transport. I was part of a system that approved a mine expansion at Endako and within a year of constructing a new mill the whole mine shut down because global moly prices collapsed. PRGT didn’t get built because there was a glut of LNG coming to market.
And a final note, the claim that land use plans in the golden triangle killed mining projects is just wrong. That plan (which I was involved in) opened up development of the Galore creek mine by planning for an access route away from the Stikine river. This was instrumental in securing Tahltan support for Galore, which is owned by Tech. when they are ready (did I say economics?), it will become one of the largest mines in Canada.
In summary, major projects in NW BC get approved by governments (mostly provincial) in numbers far above those that get built. They don’t get built, or get built and then close, because global commodity prices don’t make them viable. Being on the ground does help companies navigate the complex landscape, and ultimately companies can build projects when the ROI is good enough.
How many years did it take to build Site C from approval stage to completion and at what cost? Curious to understand the economics and logic of the project. It is not without both economic and environmental consequences.
Well the planning started decades ago but the demand wasn’t there for the power. However, BC Hydro knew it eventually would need the power so kept planning. The official approval process started in 2013 when BC hydro submitted its application. A joint review panel was concerned (fed and prov combined process) and they issued their recommendation in 2014. Both governments approved the project in October 2014. The province (as the shareholder for BC hydro) approved its construction after that and when governments changed in 2017 the new government reviewed that decision and again decided to proceed. It took about nine years to build and was over budget (like pretty much every major dam ever built…). During all that time there continued to be opposition from some First Nations but eventually (after the province won in court because consultation was adequate) they all signed agreements supporting the project.
Trees are renewable,parts of ON are logging their 3rd growth. As long as we keep planting trees. Oil will be an important commodity for decades more,I’m sure someone will want to buy it. My point is,we do manage our resources responsibly,ethically. Governments need to leave their screens and offices and actually inspect their work,cleanup,remedial work. Abandoned wells is a prime example of incompetence
‘Left Coast’ I love it!! I drove the Alaska Hwy with my family and holiday trailer in tow. The province is immense,one month travel did not do it justice. And,I only made it to Whitehorse,with plans to take the interior route back. Never happened,ran out of time(work). The beauty of the area is beyond mere pictures. The scale of the forests,mountains,lakes and rivers still inspires tales to our friends. That’s before we bring up the wildlife,hot springs ect. I live and worked in Alberta,I don’t agree with oil tankers on our coast,but,they are safer? Washington State seems to want the business
Talk to some BC Pilotage Authority pilots who are required to be on any ship using or coming to the coast - it's not as simple as the Washington coast.
Perhaps building in BC is just too hard and the world should just pass it by?
Why should the people in Northern BC want any change where there are little consequences for rejecting any project? They obviously are okay with staying poor.
It needs to hurt for people to say no. Any and all funding for any program needs to be contingent on supporting projects that pay for that funding. "You want a new hospital? Well you won't even get operational funding for your current one if you say no to a pipeline."
People need to both experience the benefits and the pain points of approving or rejecting a project.
Great article! Lots of tangible practical things in here. One point I will make is that I don’t believe the overarching environment these discussions and actions should be taking place under is IF the pipeline can be built, but simply how and where. Previous Liberal governments have effectively ceded power to parochial provincial and special interests that they do not in fact possess. It’s time to make clear that is in fact the case. The pipeline will be built, now’s let’s work together to figure out how to best do it.
When Alberta finally surpasses B.C. in population in the 2030s, maybe that'll be the moment to jolt enough people out of their stupor to demand action. Maybe.
Again, hardly an argument for Confederation, at a time when federalists should be circling the wagons. The faux patriotism has passed, as predicted, and no hyphenated-citizens give a rat's ass about the future of the post-nation state.
Doomberg is probably right. The Americans will come, just a matter of what they start with.
The one advantage that Alberta has is a decade of experience with the oil and gas industry. Provincially, approvals for projects are pretty much predetermined. The province knows the methods the oil and gas industry uses and industry can plan based on expected outcomes. I contrast this with federal approaches which are poorly structured and often based on environmental studies and conditional approvals.
The "drop in and we will talk" approach reeks of risk for corporations.
Regardless of the type of mine, from a regulatory perspective they are very much the same. The corporation controls the surface for a period of time, should be required to remediate it to an industry standard, and limit the environmental effects to that area. Compensation and approvals should be formulaic, not negotiated. This requires the province, the RM, and all surface rights holders including FMAs, and First Nations to have thought out ahead of time what is required of a generic mine, pipeline, well, etc.
The first step in any resource development project is assessment of risk. Uncertain regulatory conditions put a high risk premium on it.
Well said. Industry needs predictability.
“Build a stakeholder office here and see if that gets you somewhere with our massive number of veto points” isn’t exactly deterministic.
Yes…and in NW BC this approach to certainty has been through working with First Nations and stakeholders to build land use plans that show where all parties agree that development is acceptable and under what conditions. For some First Nations, they support development but there are specific places that are sacred where they can’t support development. Predefining those places lets industry know where not to waste time and focussed efforts on the rest of the land base where development t will be welcomed.
That’s not the only way the BC first Nations veto things and you know it. If it was just a matter of avoiding sacred sites, industry would be totally fine with that. What do you do when you have a group (specifically, Wet’suwet’en activists and hereditary chiefs) who are opposed to all fossil fuel development, full stop, and will not only not endorse, but actively protest, blockade, or even vandalize/attack the construction sites.
This is the problem with linear infrastructure: it crosses lots of lands. Even if fifteen of sixteen First Nations along the route have become industrial capitalists and are bought into the project, if all sixteen get an individual veto (either a formal one or a “we won’t clear blockades” policy which is a de facto veto) then the project can’t move quickly.
Well I guess you do what BC did and approve the pipeline and it gets built. It was painful but the record shows the nations were not given a veto and the bc government did a ton of work to get the project built.
I’m sorry, but no, TMX doesn’t count. It came in at three times its initial budget, and took over a decade to get approved and built. If that’s the benchmark for success we’re going to lose the country. We need to be approving and building these much, much faster in the current environment.
Coastal GasLink too had a hugely long pre-construction development period and also had an actual armed attack on the construction (that did $20M of damage and made all the construction crews fear for their own safety). Again, yes it was built in the end, but the timelines were way too long for what we need to do now.
So the issue isn’t veto its complexity. Fair enough.
In a perfect world, developers should be able to pull up a mapping app and know where they can and can't go.
Heck of a good read.
Forget City Government, lad; you are a writer!!
Want to build a pipeline?
Move your pipeline business to the United States.
Only a fool would invest money in this Country, at this time, given the regulatory, cultural, economic, and political climate.
Kindly not add to the size of the coefficient of Canadian collective stupidity by words "The abduction of Nicholas Maduro ".
Replace with far more factual "long overdue arrest of dictator Nicholas Maduro running a murderous narco-regime while supplying passports of convenience to a plethora of terrorist groups."
The United Stated does not have the legal jurisdiction to conduct an "arrest" on sovereign territory it does not possess. You can support the U.S.s actions while acknowledging that, yes, it was an abduction. Or extraordinary rendition, if you prefer. "Arrest" presumes a legal legitimacy that does not exist in this case.
There are plenty of arguments in favour if what Trump did, but I am not playing these kinds of bullshit semantic games. A spade is a spade. JG
Also for the record, Trump himself has said he doesn't object to the word "kidnapping," in this context. Don't be more precious than Trump. JG
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-bans-journalists-saying-us-160449544.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADFM_HlLLk_ANsAIvR7SP0Rikyy28VqCZ4WEaXI5x03uDNp8SlC93bZgWCzBI5mYzEBU8ELUDrtUP6LmXo3qB838xJIAF5R35_6lMS1xacI4ITAr9s7-5suTzwPeO0-oO3GH8e5n5-og2DwaSZNCozcDY_p6VeTTgAl6gCUnRobF
And Osama bin Laden's abduction and execution? Carried out under President Obama's orders. Legitimate?
Things get murky with terrorists, but the guy had directly attacked the US and killed thousands, so it was not a law enforcement operation. As far as Maduro's supposed arrest goes, outside of David Coresh can you name any other law enforcement actions that result in the death of upwards of a hundred people?
Waco was on US territory, these are extraterritorial. The question posed related to the legitimacy of the actions, and if legitimate, whose rules?
I just let that crap pass without acknowledgment.
Without snark, malice, or ill-will, I recommend that Mr. McKay take a moment and read the indictment.
This all I’m sure is accurate for the situation in BC for the last 30 years, maybe longer. But I’m not convinced that just showing up and having a stakeholder office in Terrace is enough to make these kind of projects move quickly.
It feels like, as Matt and Jen have said on the podcast, the federal government may need to (figuratively) shoot someone _pour encourager les autres_, and that person might be David Eby and British Columbia‘s veto on resource development by virtue of controlling the coast.
Interesting perspective that the province vetoed (or vetoes) a pipeline. They didn’t. The only project out of dozens in NW BC that has been opposed by the provincial government was Enbridge, it was Christy Clark’s small c conservative government that originally was opposed. But that is not a veto. The project died after the conservative government of Steven Harper did a poor job of meeting legal requirements for consultation.
Okay so this needs five thousand words to properly discuss, but I’ll try to give my perspective briefly:
Legal requirements for consultation don’t exist in a vacuum. When S.35 was passed it was more symbolic than anything else; nobody including Trudeau Sr. thought that Canada was giving up sovereignty over massive parts of the country. That all came via jurisprudence over the following four decades.
However, legal decisions don’t exist in a vacuum on vague areas like this. This isn’t black-and-white strict “interpret the law”. The SCC is inventing new rights as it goes, legislating on major questions of Canadian sovereignty from the bench. When they do this, they follow signals from the populace and from Parliament.
The BC government has been an incredibly strong advocate for indigenous sovereignty and veto over resource and energy projects throughout all the unceded traditional lands in BC. It’s only recently, with the Cowichan decision in particular, that the BC govt has realized what the courts have unleashed, like Mickey Mouse with all the sentient mops and buckets in the famous cartoon.
So no, they haven’t vetoed things directly, but they’ve helped create the veto points. That’s what I mean.
So, why "figuratively" I ask?
I know an American Airlines pilot who laughs at BC with the clean cuts of forrest hidden from the view of the roads and highways in the province. Keep BC beautiful but don't go off the beaten path.
It is called management of landscape for visual and aesthetic purposes. There is nothing wrong with a clearcut right to the road. These days are in effect well developed management guidelines created over decades. A clearcut is a temporary thing promptly reforested. Young forest there in 10-15 years, preferred grazing by moose and deer.
Except vast majority of the public refuses to understand that. So the visual management guidelines have been developed to cut down on hysterical phone calls to the forestry offices.
Yes it is too easy to pontificate on what needs to be done from afar but boots on the ground are what moves things forward.
Hopefully the proposal that is put forward is robust, practical and speaks to specifics to the greatest degree possible.
It's easy to see both sides of the story here. There is much to be said for pristine wilderness and there's also much to be said for getting Canada's resources to market. Will that market still exist two decades from now? Korea and Japan are shrinking and China is doing all it can to switch to solar, hydro and wind. And yes, coal too. They don't want to be dependent on us just as we don't want to be dependent on them. And so it seems that it's time to give up on those old dreams and become a people that aren't afraid to deal with the future, together.
Yes, many projects have failed in NW BC at the same time many have succeeded. The reader might not realize that this same place approved and built two of the biggest major projects in Canada in the last decade (Site C and LNG Canada) as well as a handful of new mines (Red Chris, Brucejack, Mt Milligan, Blackwater). And, that the government has approved a ton of projects that never got built. Eg the approval in 2015 of the PRGT pipeline with written support by all First Nations along its route. Tell Newmont that NW BC is a “graveyard” while it operates one of the best quality gold mines in the world (Blackwater) and is expanding another (Red Chris).
So, why did some projects in the past fail? One thing-ECONOMiCS. The global market for asbestos died killing Cassiar. The Dease lake railway extension was partially built at massive taxpayer cost and never had a product to transport. I was part of a system that approved a mine expansion at Endako and within a year of constructing a new mill the whole mine shut down because global moly prices collapsed. PRGT didn’t get built because there was a glut of LNG coming to market.
And a final note, the claim that land use plans in the golden triangle killed mining projects is just wrong. That plan (which I was involved in) opened up development of the Galore creek mine by planning for an access route away from the Stikine river. This was instrumental in securing Tahltan support for Galore, which is owned by Tech. when they are ready (did I say economics?), it will become one of the largest mines in Canada.
In summary, major projects in NW BC get approved by governments (mostly provincial) in numbers far above those that get built. They don’t get built, or get built and then close, because global commodity prices don’t make them viable. Being on the ground does help companies navigate the complex landscape, and ultimately companies can build projects when the ROI is good enough.
How many years did it take to build Site C from approval stage to completion and at what cost? Curious to understand the economics and logic of the project. It is not without both economic and environmental consequences.
Well the planning started decades ago but the demand wasn’t there for the power. However, BC Hydro knew it eventually would need the power so kept planning. The official approval process started in 2013 when BC hydro submitted its application. A joint review panel was concerned (fed and prov combined process) and they issued their recommendation in 2014. Both governments approved the project in October 2014. The province (as the shareholder for BC hydro) approved its construction after that and when governments changed in 2017 the new government reviewed that decision and again decided to proceed. It took about nine years to build and was over budget (like pretty much every major dam ever built…). During all that time there continued to be opposition from some First Nations but eventually (after the province won in court because consultation was adequate) they all signed agreements supporting the project.
I read all of this. Definitely food for thought
Trees are renewable,parts of ON are logging their 3rd growth. As long as we keep planting trees. Oil will be an important commodity for decades more,I’m sure someone will want to buy it. My point is,we do manage our resources responsibly,ethically. Governments need to leave their screens and offices and actually inspect their work,cleanup,remedial work. Abandoned wells is a prime example of incompetence
Great read.
‘Left Coast’ I love it!! I drove the Alaska Hwy with my family and holiday trailer in tow. The province is immense,one month travel did not do it justice. And,I only made it to Whitehorse,with plans to take the interior route back. Never happened,ran out of time(work). The beauty of the area is beyond mere pictures. The scale of the forests,mountains,lakes and rivers still inspires tales to our friends. That’s before we bring up the wildlife,hot springs ect. I live and worked in Alberta,I don’t agree with oil tankers on our coast,but,they are safer? Washington State seems to want the business
Talk to some BC Pilotage Authority pilots who are required to be on any ship using or coming to the coast - it's not as simple as the Washington coast.
Perhaps building in BC is just too hard and the world should just pass it by?
Why should the people in Northern BC want any change where there are little consequences for rejecting any project? They obviously are okay with staying poor.
It needs to hurt for people to say no. Any and all funding for any program needs to be contingent on supporting projects that pay for that funding. "You want a new hospital? Well you won't even get operational funding for your current one if you say no to a pipeline."
People need to both experience the benefits and the pain points of approving or rejecting a project.
Great article! Lots of tangible practical things in here. One point I will make is that I don’t believe the overarching environment these discussions and actions should be taking place under is IF the pipeline can be built, but simply how and where. Previous Liberal governments have effectively ceded power to parochial provincial and special interests that they do not in fact possess. It’s time to make clear that is in fact the case. The pipeline will be built, now’s let’s work together to figure out how to best do it.
When Alberta finally surpasses B.C. in population in the 2030s, maybe that'll be the moment to jolt enough people out of their stupor to demand action. Maybe.
Again, hardly an argument for Confederation, at a time when federalists should be circling the wagons. The faux patriotism has passed, as predicted, and no hyphenated-citizens give a rat's ass about the future of the post-nation state.
Doomberg is probably right. The Americans will come, just a matter of what they start with.