The Harper government has quietly buried a controversial promise to ban bitumen exports to countries that are environmental laggards, as Alberta and the energy industry formalize plans to ship oilsands product to lucrative Asian markets.

One person familiar with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise announcement during the 2008 federal election campaign said the pledge was simply electioneering at the time and was to be "buried and never seen again."

Alberta's energy minister Ron Liepert also wonders whether the campaign promise is even a government policy any longer, noting the issue has never been discussed with him during his two years in the portfolio.

However, a spokeswoman for federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Wednesday the government policy - designed to halt the flow of raw bitumen and jobs overseas - remains in place but is being regularly examined.

"Our 2008 platform commitment remains in effect. We continue to review on an ongoing basis," said Julie Di Mambro, press secretary to Oliver.

As criticism mounts in the United States over oilsands development - and the potential for additional shipment stateside via the Keystone XL pipeline - Canadian politicians and energy companies have increasingly been eyeing emerging markets such as China, India and Korea.

Space has already been fully booked on Enbridge Inc.'s proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, potentially linking Alberta's oilsands to energyhungry Asia-Pacific countries.

The line would carry raw bitumen or upgraded synthetic crude 1,170 kilometres from northern Alberta to the port of Kitimat, B.C. The project remains under review by the National Energy Board and could be operational by 2016.

Di Mambro noted the federal government has referred the Northern Gateway project to a joint review panel that's consulting with Canadians.

"We await the recommendations of this panel and remain committed to ensuring that any project is environmentally sustainable," she said.

However, plans for the pipeline to ship oilsands product to the West Coast, and then by supertanker to Asia, seemingly conflict with the prime minister's three-year-old promise.

In September 2008, Harper announced during a Calgary campaign stop his government would halt the flow of oilsands products and jobs to countries with greenhouse gas emission standards weaker than Canada's.

"This is the right thing to do for our environment and our economy," Harper said at the time.

The Conservative policy - which was, at the time, to apply to bitumen exports to China - was to take effect in January 2010 and apply to new export deals and not impact existing contracts. But barely a word has been heard of it since, as billions of dollars of Asian investment flood into Canada's petroleum sector and the federal Tories continue to mend what were once threadbare relations with China. At the same time, companies on both sides of the Pacific have com-bined to pledge billions to build the Northern Gateway pipeline and premiers trumpet the need to feed Asia's insatiable energy appetite.

"That may not even be a policy of the federal government any longer," said Liepert, who notes the federal Conservatives have been very supportive of opening up Asia-Pacific markets.

"It's something that, in the two years I've been in the ministry, hasn't been mentioned to me."

Politicians in Canada point to the oilsands protests in the U.S. as more reason to build Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, increase pipeline capacity to the coast and look for new customers.

Officials with Enbridge said they've heard nothing from the Harper government about the promise and don't expect it will impede shipping oilsands product to new markets.

"It's certainly not an issue that has been raised with us," said company spokesman Paul Stanway. "It's not on our radar at the moment."

Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, which has been fighting for the federal and provincial governments to keep oilsands value-added jobs in Canada, said he never expected the federal Tories to hold to their pledge.

"When the promise was made, we thought it had more to do with politics than real policy," McGowan said. "It was a reaction to the climate of the day . . . I'm not surprised to see very little is being done to see that policy becomes reality."

Calgary Herald, Thurs Sept 8 2011 Vancouver Sun, Wed Sept 7 2011 Byline: Jason Fekete

Alberta has the capacity to create over 20,000 jobs in the short run, and tens of thousands more long term by shifting its focus to a green economy, according to a new report from Albertan environmental groups and the Federation of Labour.Greenpeace, Sierra Club Prairie and the Alberta Federation of Labour teamed up to release Green Jobs: It's time to build Alberta's future on April 22. The report suggests three areas where the Alberta government can immediately create jobs while beginning a green economy: retrofitting homes towards greater energy efficiency, building a high-speed light-rail transit corridor between Edmonton and Calgary and encouraging solar and wind power production by providing a feed-in tariff for green energy inputted to the grid."There's a different future for Alberta, one able to diversify and expand the economy while protecting our environment," said Mike Hudema, Greenpeace's tar sands campaigner. "The old ideology, of environment vs. economy, is dead. The ideology of the future says you have to have a strong environment to create a strong economy."The Green Jobs report says a $2 billion government investment in home retrofitting would make 600,000 homes across the province more energy efficient while immediately creating 6,500-14,000 jobs over two years. Those new jobs would be focused on the construction industry, and timely given the fact that unemployment in the Alberta construction industry has increased 14 per cent over the past year, putting 22,000 construction workers out of work. Alberta's Department of Employment and Immigration has not released a specific response to the report, but spokesperson Terry Jordan said the idea of building a green economy fits with Alberta's objectives. "A green economy addresses environmental health and sustainability issues," Jordan said. "With advances in science and technology, a green economy uses cleaner and more renewable resources, decreases reliance on hydrocarbons, reduces energy consumption and increases efficiency. The next generation of environmental careers will help shape Alberta's future opportunities."For the feed-in tariff idea, the report's authors took a cue from Ontario. In March 2009, Ontario became the first North American jurisdiction to attempt a feed-in tariff on renewable energy. Ontario's proposed plan involves implementing a guaranteed price of over 80 cents/kwh for individual rooftop solar production and roughly 44 cents/kwh for large-scale solar production, to encourage the development of renewable energy from a wide range of sources. Although the Green Jobs report did not provide specific numbers about the cost of an Alberta feed-in tariff, Hudema suggested it would be similar to the Ontario rates.Bob McManus, spokesperson for Alberta Energy, said the government does not subsidize any fuel source and has no plans to do so."If you look at what they're paying as a subsidy in Ontario, around 42 cents per kilowatt hour, that's a huge subsidy," he said. "When something's in its infancy, it might work, but if it gets popular there's a huge cost associated with that."Hudema, however, believes an investment in renewable energy would be good for the future of Alberta, especially small northern communities like Fort Chipewyan."If we develop heavily in renewables through a feed-in tariff, there are huge benefits for small communities to control where they're getting energy," Hudema said. "There's tremendous potential for lifting communities off the grid, especially around the Fort McMurray area."

Slave Lake Journal, Tues May 12 2009Byline: Shawn Bell

To mark this year's Earth Day, the Alberta Federation of Labour is announcing a new Environment Policy for Alberta's labour movement. The policy is intended to guide unions in making decisions about Alberta's environment.

The policy was ratified at the AFL's biennial convention in Calgary last week. The policy paper passed with resounding support from delegates.

"The labour movement is looking forward. We know that environmental change must happen, and we need to be a constructive part of the discussion," says Audrey Cormack, AFL President.

The policy outlines a distinctly labour perspective on environmental issues. "We must end the false jobs vs. environment debate and turn it into a jobs and environment discussion," says Cormack.

Among other initiatives, the policy paper calls for a new type of decision-making process for environmental issues, one that includes government, business and labour working as equals. The key, says the policy, is to look at the long term and make decisions well in advance of economic change.

"Working people pay the highest price when the wrong decisions are made. We pay with our jobs and with the environment in our communities," highlights Cormack. "We need to be a part of the decisions that get made to ensure we can create a healthy environment and good jobs."

Over the years, the AFL has done its part in promoting environmental awareness and encouraging members to become more environmentally sensitive in their activities. It will become even more active in the future to ensure the voice of working people is heard.

Other highlights from the policy include calling for a "just transition" fund to help workers displaced by environmental change and demanding increased government enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. It also calls on the AFL to encourage unions to "bargain for the environment".

"The message for Albertans is clear. All of us have to take a leadership role in protecting the environment. The labour movement has heard the message," concludes Cormack.

For more information call:

Audrey Cormack, President      @ 499-6530 (cell) / 428-9367 (hm)

The Alberta labour movement believes that economic issues cannot be properly addressed without considering the impact of development and industry on the environment. With that in mind, the AFL Environment Committee has worked hard to promote a worker-friendly approach to sustainable develop. The Committee disseminates information and organizes events aimed at building an economy that meets the needs of working people while respecting the environment.

Read the Environment Committee pamphlet, Why Protecting the Environment is a Trade Union Issue, linking labour and the environment.

Much of the work of the Environment Committee is driven by Our Children's Future: Fighting for Jobs and the Environment, a key policy paper passed at the 1999 AFL Convention and Climate Change, a policy paper passed at the 2007 AFL Convention.

Mandate

The Environment Committee is a Standing Committee of the AFL. Its membership is reflective of the broad cross-section of unions in Alberta.

The mandate of the Environment Committee includes but is not limited to:

Implementing resolutions with an environmental theme that have been passed by an AFL Convention. Any outstanding resolutions from the Convention are also referred to the Committee for recommendation. Researching, analyzing and assessing environmental issues within Alberta, Canada and the world and making recommendations on actions and response to the AFL Executive Council that ensure consistency with established AFL policy. Coordinating support and activities with affiliate environment committees. Coordinating activities with the CLC Environment Committee. Liaison with environmental groups around the province of Alberta on issues of mutual interest or concern. Coordinating with environmental organizations and participating in environmental networks as it sees fit. Participating in environmental conferences and forums. Organizing educational material on environmental issues for the labour movement in Alberta. Planning and presenting forums, courses and seminars to educate the labour movement and Albertans on environmental issues. Reports Environment Committee Resolutions from 2011 AFL Convention Environment Committee Report to 2011 AFL Convention (powerpoint presentation) Environment Committee Report to 2009 AFL Convention Environment Committee Resolutions from 2009 AFL Convention AFL Environment Committee -  2011-2013 Melissa Field, Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Chair Roxann Dreger, United Nurses of Alberta, Grande Prairie, Secretary Ron Johnston, Public Services Alliance of Canada Local 30117 Karen Kennedy, Canadian Union of Postal Workers - Edmonton Eric Rosendahl, Communications Energy and Paperworkers Local 855

Alternates:

Donna Farquharson, Health Sciences Association of Alberta Jerry Woods, Canadian Union of Postal Workers Local 730-Edmonton Other Unions' Environment Policy Papers Canadian Labour Congress Canadian Union of Public Employees Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada United Steelworkers of America Environmental Groups Alberta Environment Network Carbon Zero Canada David Suzuki Foundation Pembina Institute Our Water Is Not For Sale!

AFL analysis shows Alberta government's real priorities − calls for public investment in environmental monitoring and enforcement

Edmonton - The Alberta government decimated program spending on environmental enforcement, compliance, and monitoring while massively boosting spending on public relations in the Ministry of the Environment (Alberta Environment), a new analysis by the Alberta Federation of Labour showed today.

The analysis found a 26% drop in spending on environmental monitoring, compliance, and enforcement and a 54% increase in spending on public relations since 2003.

The AFL examined actual program spending, contained in annual Budget Estimates documents for Alberta Environment, back to 2003. Alberta spent $27 million on monitoring, enforcement, and compliance programs in 2003. Budget 2010 projects Alberta Environment will spend $20 million this year.

The Communications line for Alberta Environment grew from $717,000 in 2003 to $1.1 million for 2010.

The picture is even worse if one counts spending by the Minister and Deputy Minister on their personal offices. Spending by the Minister, Deputy Minister, and Communications ballooned from a combined total of $1.4 million in 2003 to a projected $2.2 million in 2010, a 57% increase.

The budget for monitoring and enforcement dropped steadily during the 2003-2007 oil-sands boom. As Alberta was approving hundreds of oil-sands-related developments, they quietly chipped away at their own ability to monitor the environmental effects of development.

"As federal environment minister Jim Prentice pointed out last Friday, Alberta has privatized environmental monitoring, leaving most of the work to the industry," says Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour.

"We should not be surprised that the science is now showing that industry is not well-equipped for self-monitoring in the oil sands," continues McGowan.

"Environmental monitoring, compliance, and enforcement belong in the hands of public employees working for Alberta Environment. Public funding for monitoring, inspections, and enforcement is the only way to instill public and international confidence in Alberta's oil sands.

"Yet another expensive PR campaign is not the way to ensure the long-term development of the resource for all Albertans," concludes McGowan.

Graphs and sources for the AFL's Environment Budgets Analysis are contained in the attached backgrounder.

-30-

Media Contact:

Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour @ 780-218-9888 (cell)

Backgrounder

Graphs:

Alberta Environment Spending, Office of the Minister, Deputy Minister and Communications, 2003-2010 Alberta Environment Spending on Monitoring, Compliance & Enforcement, 2003-2010 Alberta Environment Spending on Communications, 2003-2010

 

 Edmonton – The Alberta Federation of Labour applauds the Obama administration’s decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline, saying it will give the Redford government an opportunity to pursue value-added opportunities here at home, rather than shipping unprocessed bitumen south for upgrading.

“There’s been a parade of Alberta government ministers travelling to the States to sell unprocessed bitumen. Now perhaps those same ministers can stay in Alberta and consider our needs and our future ahead of those of our neighbours south of the border,” says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), which represents 145,000 workers.

“Upgrading more bitumen in Alberta will help our province in many ways. Increasing value-added industries will provide quality, long-term jobs for Albertans and Canadians. While good relationships with our neighbours are important, the government of Alberta must promote the long-term health of our province first. Increasing value-added energy industries in Alberta will increase revenues from royalties and taxes,” he says.

“As bitumen is upgraded and moved up the value chain, more funds will flow into the Treasury through higher royalties on finished products. This is money that can be used to pay for important public services like health care and education,” says McGowan.

McGowan took particular exception to the Wildrose Party’s reaction to the delay of the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The Wildrose Party was playing fast and loose with the facts in their media release today. They should avoid fear mongering. The truth is that this pipeline is bad news for quality jobs and bad news for royalties,” says McGowan.

“Danielle Smith is trying to convince us that we’ll lose billions in royalties if the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t approved, but the opposite is true. If we export unprocessed bitumen, we ruin a great competitive advantage,” says McGowan

“The National Energy Board notes that, ‘wide differentials provide refiners with an economic incentive to build heavy oil conversion capacity.’ If we get rid of the prices differential between our bitumen and global crude, we destroy future opportunities to boost our value-added industries,” he says.

“In this context, Albertans should see the Obama administration’s decision as an opportunity, not a disappointment. It is an opportunity for us to move up the value chain and create a more prosperous and stable economic future for Albertans.”

-30-

Media Contact:

 

Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour @ 780-218-9888 (cell)

EDMONTON - A labour group is accusing Alberta of boosting spending on public relations while cutting spending on environmental monitoring. The Alberta Federation of Labour says since 2003 the provincial government has cut the amount it spends on environmental monitoring, compliance and enforcement by 26 per cent. During the same time the federation says spending on public relations went up 54 per cent. AFL President Gil McGowan says the province now leaves most of the monitoring work to industry. He says recent reports by scientists on water quality downstream of the oilsands shows the industry is not well-equipped to keep tabs on itself. Alberta Environment officials were not immediately available for comment.

Metro News (Canadian Press), Thurs Sept 24 2010

EDMONTON - The Alberta Federation of Labour says spending on public-sector monitoring of the environment has dropped precipitously in the years that investment in oilsands developments has rocketed.

Their analysis found a 26-per-cent drop in spending on monitoring, compliance and enforcement, and a 54-per-cent increase in spending on public relations since 2003.

Gil McGowan, the federation's president, said they had been hearing from unionized public-sector workers that resources in Alberta Environment had been cut to the bone

Budget documents show Alberta Environment spent $27 million on monitoring, enforcement and compliance programs in 2003, while this year's budget projects spending of $20 million, McGowan said.

"We're not only concerned about the public-sector jobs that have been lost or which were never created as a result of these spending cuts, but we're also concerned about the message that this sends to Albertans and people in markets that buy our products, especially energy products. If the Alberta government was really serious about monitoring the environmental impacts of oilsands development, they would have been spending more, not less, on monitoring."

The issue of proper monitoring has come up repeatedly in the last few years, particularly during the last nine months, as scientists from the University of Alberta released peer-reviewed research that showed oilsands development is contaminating the surrounding watershed. David Schindler, the foremost scientist associated with the research, has called for Environment Canada to increase its involvement in the monitoring of the Athabasca River and the Peace-Athabasca Delta downstream.

Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said he is responding to these calls.

"From my perspective, we have to have good data, and the only way to make sure we are getting that is to bring in the best scientists we have in this country, get their advice on how we should do the monitoring and then we will go from there," he said Thursday. His department is finalizing the membership of a panel that will look at the monitoring.

Alberta Environment spokeswoman Erin Carrier said it's easy for the AFL to cherry-pick line items from a complex budget to support its agenda.

"It is disingenuous to misrepresent information in this way. In no way has Alberta Environment reduced our commitment to monitoring. And our own numbers show that we spent more than $50 million in 2010 in these areas, so that's up from about $37 million in 2003, according to our numbers."

Carrier said because air, land and water monitoring is performed by staff across Alberta Environment, it isn't restricted to just one division.

"When they say cherry-picking, whenever you look at a budget you cherry-pick the line items that are relevant, right?" McGowan said. "So there has been a particular line item that has been consistent over the period, going back to 2003, which says monitoring, reporting and innovation. That's the main one we've used. But we also threw in the numbers for compliance and enforcement. So we added those two together to come to our total."

McGowan said that while spending on environmental monitoring was going down, the amount spent on public relations was going up dramatically, from $717,000 in 2003 to $1.1 million for 2010.

"What that suggests to us is that the government was more interested in spending money on spin-doctoring than on actually monitoring the impacts of development in the province."

Carrier said the increased budget is largely due to the creation of the ministerial correspondence unit.

Edmonton Journal, Thurs Sept 24 2010 Byline: Hanneke Brooymans

Labour and environmental movements working together to build a new green economy in the United States

Solidarity is defined “as unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards.”

But how is solidarity defined in the face of global economic and climate crises? Labour unions are forging alliances in the United States to confront our biggest challenges. With the Blue Green Alliance, unions are partnering with environmental organizations to build a new green economy that creates good jobs while combating climate change.

This idea of solidarity is what brought labour and environmental movements together in the United States. At the intersection of the economy and global warming, the challenges are stark. But arising from these crises is an opportunity to rebuild the American middle class and protect the environment.

Nowhere are the contrast between these challenges and opportunities more apparent than in the Pacific Northwest and in the state of Pennsylvania.

Before 2000, 40 per cent of the aluminum made in the United States was smelted in the Pacific Northwest, and over 5,000 USW members worked in eight smelters. These smelters relied on low-cost hydroelectricity from the Columbia River. But years of diminished snow fall in the Cascade Mountains resulted in less water flowing through rivers and small reservoirs which reduced the supply of hydroelectricity. This, combined with now infamous energy-market manipulations, meant that they could no longer compete in the global economy. As a result, many of the smelters shuttered and over 4,500 steelworkers lost their jobs.

All the way across the United States in Pennsylvania, a state Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard requires 18 per cent of the state’s electricity be produced by renewable sources. Spanish wind-turbine company, Gamesa, saw opportunity in a new market for wind power and set up U.S. operations in Pennsylvania, bringing about 1,100 jobs to the state.

With the challenge of climate change comes the opportunity to build a clean energy economy that puts people back to work. Union members and environmentalists are working to make sure that the new green economy works for working people.

The Blue Green Alliance was launched in 2006 as a partnership between the United Steel Workers and the Sierra Club to jointly advocate for the development of a green economy that creates good jobs while helping to protect the environment. These goals, the two organizations agreed, were inextricably linked. But this partnership was born long before in the battles for policies at the state and national level that both protected workers and benefited the environment.

Back in the 1970s, labour unions and environmentalists worked together to pass the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. They opposed the succession of unfair trade agreements from the North American Free Trade Agreement to the Free Trade Area of the Americas. They pushed for the democratizing the global economy through protests of the World Trade Organization Ministerial meeting in Seattle in 1999, and since have come together to support workers’ rights in the United States through such legislation as the Employee Free Choice Act.

These joint efforts come with the knowledge that the means to our ends converge. In 1999, the United Steel Workers realized they had something in common with environmentalists who opposed clear cutting by Maxxam’s Pacific Lumber — union members were fighting against job cuts at Maxxam's Kaiser Aluminum facilities.

They also find agreement on this idea of a green economy. Creating jobs and protecting the environment go hand in hand. And it is this mutual goal that has solidified the Blue Green Alliance which since 2006 has grown to include the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). This alliance unites more than six million people in pursuit of good jobs, a clean environment and a green economy.

Environmentalists believe that a clean energy economy will reduce our reliance on volatile, high-priced foreign oil. Labour unions know that many of the jobs created in the green economy will be jobs that already exist today, and many of them are good union jobs.

Electricians, carpenters and roofers will retrofit our buildings to make them more energy efficient. Engineers, machinists and laborers will build a new smart grid transmission system. Iron and steel workers, sheet metal workers and trucks drivers will help to build wind power. And industrial mechanics, equipment operators and construction managers will develop solar power.

Building the green economy begins with investments in the solutions to global warming. And the United States made down payment on this new, clean energy economy with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Recovery Act makes critical investments in efficiency and a new smart grid, includes tax incentives for renewable energy manufacturing and encourages domestic sourcing of the materials used in building and infrastructure improvements, and seeks to double renewable energy-generating capacity in three years.

But this is just the beginning. In order to transform our economy, we need to continue the policies that encourage investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. These policies will help us to put Americans back to work and take a huge step forward in meeting our obligation to mitigate climate change.

We must pass a national renewable energy standard — creating a market for producing renewable energy in the United States, thereby creating good jobs and making America more energy independent.

We have to restore the rights of workers to form a union and bargain collectively by passing the Employee Free Choice Act. When we build this new economy, we have to ensure that the jobs we create are good, family-supporting jobs with benefits and that workers have a greater voice on the job.

Finally, we have to pass climate legislation that puts a price on carbon and funds the long-term transition to a clean energy economy.

Building the green economy will not be easy. In fact, transforming the American economy will require determination. It defies most of the conventional wisdom. But like in movements of the past, vision is the guide and feet on the ground will move us forward.

We are building this new, green economy the bottom up. By talking to our friends and neighbours about the potential of creating millions of new green jobs while protecting the environment and rebuilding the middle class, we are creating the groundswell to transform the economy.

The Blue Green Alliance and its partners are working across the country to organize around the green economy. With the Labor Climate Project, we are working to spread the word among union members about global warming and the opportunity that lies in its solutions.

In February, we coordinated the second national Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference, bringing together more than 2,700 people to forge an agenda and share ideas and strategies for the emerging green economy. Hundreds of conference attendees went to Capitol Hill to advocate clean-energy solutions. More than 4,000 high school students and community members came to the first Green Jobs Expo to find out more about green careers and academic programs.

At the intersection of the economy and global warming, the traditional blue colour of solidarity has taken on a green tone. In 2009, solidarity is about forging alliances with friends, old and new. It’s working together to achieve the common vision that will move our nation and our world forward. And it’s about rebuilding the middle class and making green jobs good jobs.

David Foster is the Executive Director of the Blue Green Alliance, anational partnership of labour unions and environmental organizationsdedicated to building a green economy. Foster was Director of District 11 of the United Steel Workers from 1989-2006.

 

China’s Gas Tank

Three Steps Toward Selling Out Canadian Energy Security December 17, 2012

Chinese-Canadian business relations are being redefined, as we cede decision-making power about our natural resources to state-owned foreign businesses. These businesses are not bound by market pressures and will not act in the best interests of Canadians.

The economic relationship between Canada and China is being redefined.

Over the past year, three major events have dominated the headlines on Canadian business pages. These stories are each part of a larger picture in which Canada’s national interests are being subverted, and the country’s strategic energy assets are being taken over. From exploration and production to transportation and marketing, control of the oil sands is being ceded to state-owned foreign companies.

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) takeover of Nexen gives a Chinese state-owned oil company marketing control over several hundred thousand barrels per day of oil sands bitumen. Marketing control gives CNOOC power over the price – which means we are handing over control of Alberta’s most important source of royalty revenue to a state-owned enterprise.

At the behest of funding partners that are backed by Chinese state-owned oil companies, the Northern Gateway Pipeline locks in a future where Alberta’s resources leave the country in their rawest form possible. This will ship good paying jobs to China.

Harper’s new ownership guidelines won’t stop Chinese from exerting control in Alberta’s oil sands, according to new AFL report

CALGARY – Albertans concerned about the future of the oil sands should not be reassured by new guidelines for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) unveiled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper late Friday afternoon.

A new report prepared by the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled “China’s Gas Tank” shows that the Chinese have a plan for the oil sands – a plan that is not in the long-term best interests of the citizens of Alberta who are the real owners of the resource.

“Now that they own Nexen, the Chinese government will have control over the marketing of about 300,000 barrels of bitumen a day and they will increase their control of Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil sands producer, which will now have representatives from Sinopec and CNOOC on its board wielding veto power,” AFL president Gil McGowan said.

“The Chinese government doesn’t need majority ownership of the oil sands to exert a significant degree of control. It’s already happening. And if more isn’t done to protect the interests of Canadians, we can kiss goodbye to our hopes and dreams about moving up the value ladder.”

The AFL report is based on new documents and testimony about Chinese ownership released as part of the ongoing regulatory hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, as well as documents that CNOOC and Sinopec have been required to file with the U.S. Security Exchange Commission (SEC).

The report makes a number of significant revelations about the Chinese government’s practices and intentions, including the following:

The Chinese are attracted to the oil sands because they want access to cheap feedstock for their refineries. Specifically, they want to lock in an alternative to high-priced oil from Saudi Arabia. As a result, selling to Chinese SOEs won’t result in an “Asia Premium” for Alberta producers: China wants to pay less, not more. Nexen will help China reach its goals because the company’s marketing arm handles about 300,000 barrels of bitumen a day. Nexen’s marketing expertise is currently used to get the best (i.e. highest) prices for shareholders. But it could easily be used to get the lowest prices for Chinese refiners – and that means downward pressure on bitumen prices for Canadian producers and the Alberta public. CNOOC in their own words in their April 2012 filing to the SEC: “We sell a significant proportion of our production to CNOOC-affiliated companies Sinopec and PetroChina.” The Nexen deal means the Chinese will strengthen their influence over Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil sands producer. Sinopec already owns nine per cent of the company and they have used their stake to veto any new Canadian upgrading projects. Nexen owns seven per cent of Syncrude, meaning that the Chinese government’s stake in the company will now increase to 16 per cent.  Rumors continue to swirl that the Chinese intend to buy significant stakes in Canadian Oilsands Ltd., which owns 36 per cent of Syncrude. If this happens, China could move from a position of significant influence to one of outright control at Canada’s largest oil sands producer. The Chinese also have what is likely a controlling interest in the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. The project has ten funding partners, only six of which have been named publicly. The publicly-named partners include: Sinopec; Nexen (now owned by CNOOC); MEG (owned 15 per cent by CNOOC); Total E & P Canada (in joint venture partnership with Sinopec); Suncor (in joint venture partnership with Teck Resources, which is 17 per cent owned by state-owned China Investment Corporation); Cenovus.

“What’s happening here is an elegant plan to gain control of all steps in the oil sands production chain: from extraction to marketing to transportation,” McGowan said. “Once that’s done, the Chinese will be able to keep prices low and keep the raw bitumen flowing to refineries in China. This will mean lower profits for Albertans who own the resource, lower royalties for Canadian governments and the loss of thousands of potential Canadian jobs in upgrading.”

McGowan says that stopping the CNOOC takeover of Nexen would have been one tool to protect the interests of Canadians. But now that the Harper Conservatives have dropped that ball, he says it’s even more important to stop the Canada-China investment treaty (FIPA) and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

“Northern Gateway would provide the plumbing to drain profits and jobs from Alberta and FIPA would tie the hands of future governments who might want to change the rules,” McGowan said.

“At the end of the day it’s clear that China’s interests are at odds with Canada’s interests. It’s also clear that we can’t rely on the so-called free-market companies to save the day, because they’re all in bed with the Chinese. What we need is a government that’s willing to step in and impose a national energy strategy that puts the interests of Canadians ahead of the interests of foreign governments and profit-seeking corporations that focus only on their short-run self interest.”

-30-

MEDIA CONTACT:

Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour at 780-218-9888 (cell)Olav Rokne, AFL Communications Director at 780-289-6528 (cell) or via email orokne@afl.org.

Harper’s new ownership guidelines won’t stop Chinese from exerting control in Alberta’s oil sands, according to new AFL report

CALGARY – Albertans concerned about the future of the oil sands should not be reassured by new guidelines for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) unveiled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper late Friday afternoon.

A new report prepared by the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled “China’s Gas Tank” shows that the Chinese have a plan for the oil sands – a plan that is not in the long-term best interests of the citizens of Alberta who are the real owners of the resource.

“Now that they own Nexen, the Chinese government will have control over the marketing of about 300,000 barrels of bitumen a day and they will increase their control of Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil sands producer, which will now have representatives from Sinopec and CNOOC on its board wielding veto power,” says AFL president Gil McGowan.

AFL president Gil McGowan will be available for media at the Canadian Council of Chief Executives conference in Calgary at the Palliser Hotel.

Where:Outside the Alberta BallroomPalliser Hotel Calgary 133 - 9th Ave. SW, Calgary

When:

Monday, Dec. 10, 12:30 p.m.

Who:Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour (780) 218-9888

-30-

Climate Change Policy Paper (May 2007)

Policy paper adopted at AFl 45th Constitutional Convention, May 10-13, 2007

EDMONTON - A live audience heckled and booed Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith at a leader's debate Thursday after she said she isn't convinced that climate change is real.

Smith, the front-runner in the race to become Alberta's next premier, was poised and unflappable despite the deafening jeers from the crowd.

"We've been watching the debate in the scientific community, and there is still a debate," Smith said. "I will continue to watch the debate in the scientific community, but that's not an excuse not to act."

Smith said she is frustrated by the climate change debate because politicians set impossibly high targets then do nothing to achieve them. She said the Wildrose will take a different approach, putting in place "constructive policies" that reduce overall emissions.

"Having consumer rebates, so people can make home renovations, do energy audits, switch to micro-generation, get a new hybrid vehicle or natural gas, switch to natural gas powered electricity," she said. "All of these things will have a really positive impact on reducing greenhouse gases, reducing overall toxic emissions and also saving Albertans a little bit of money."

She also chastised the Progressive Conservatives for wasting $2 billion on the province's carbon capture and storage program.

Her political opponents piled on.

"Rebates are not going to fix this problem," NDP Leader Brian Mason said. "The science is completely settled. The only people who are disputing it are the phoney scientists funded by the oil industry.

"We need to get serious about it, and we need to have some hard caps on (carbon) emissions. We need to move away from coal-fired electricity generation and we need to fund transit in a big way in this province. ... Denying the science of climate change is just foolish."

Progressive Conservative Leader Alison Redford said denying climate change will undermine Alberta's reputation on the global stage.

"When I go to Washington, and I talk to people in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and I'm trying to talk to them about why we need Keystone, they don't want to hear that I don't believe in climate change.

"They want to know that they have a premier and a leader from our province who understand that this impacts our markets, this impacts our investors, and if we don't take it seriously it's going to impact our economy and our way of life."

Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said the province must put a real price on carbon.

"If we put a real price on carbon, and have the big emitters decrease to 50,000 tonnes a year instead from 100,000, we will generate $1.8 billion a year four years from now," Sherman said. "Half of that goes to industry to green their technology, half of it goes to municipalities on a per-capita basis to green their transportation."

In a statement released Thursday afternoon, the Alberta Party acknowledge that climate change is real and proposed a move away from coal-fired electricity and increased emissions standards and steps to more prudently manage water.

A Pembina Institute study released in December said all of Alberta's climate-change strategies put together will cut emissions by 14 megatonnes by 2020, less than one-third of the goal of 50 megatonnes.

The institute issued six recommendations, including a substantial increase to the price of carbon (to $30 per tonne from $15) and requiring companies to pay tax on all of the carbon they emit — not just the current 12 per cent.

The institute also called on the government to "moderate the rate of approval" for new oilsands facilities and to implement stringent, mandatory greenhouse gas intensity standards for those that are approved.

Edmonton Journal, Fri Apr 20 2012 Byline: Karen Kleiss

As the next round of international climate change talks in Copenhagen approaches, the Canadian and Alberta governments are both doing everything they can to reinforce their long-standing position that doing something meaningful and effective about climate change would be impossible without destroying the economy.

At the same time, many of Canada's environmental and activist organizations are working hard to show Canadians, and Albertans in particular, that we can indeed have it all-we can have a real impact on climate change, create jobs and re-stimulate the economy and secure economic growth and prosperity in perpetuity.

The literature supporting the concepts of "green jobs" or a "green economy" has been around for some time now, but it really took off last year after the bottom fell out of the global economy and governments world-wide began engaging in stimulus spending. The theory was that, by directing their stimulus spending intelligently, governments could accomplish the dual goals of kick-starting the economy and beginning the transition toward a green economy.

In Alberta, for example, the Alberta Federation of Labour, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club collaborated on a report which showed how many Albertans could be put back to work through government support for things like home energy retrofits and public transit. The Parkland Institute followed this up with a report outlining how much more effective government stimulus would be if it was directed toward public services and renewables instead of toward royalty breaks and oil patch incentives.

It wasn't long before the focus of the message became economic growth itself-green policies were soon touted not only as the key to economic recovery, but also long-term economic growth. In the last two months alone, for example, we have seen a major report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation showing how Canada could meet scientific-based emissions targets while continuing to grow our economy at nearly the same rate as if we did nothing. We have also seen a book by an Alberta consultant suggesting that we could continue to grow Alberta's energy-intense economy, and continue exploiting the tar sands, while being entirely carbon-neutral.

There is no question that all of this research is important and valuable-the evidence is now incontrovertible that we can meet short term environmental goals while promoting economic recovery and growth. The danger is that these short-term goals have become confused with the long term picture of what a "green economy" could and should be.

Anyone who has read Dr. Seuss's The Lorax understands fundamentally that a green economy is incompatible with one based on perpetual growth. In fact, it was exactly as the book's Onceler was in the middle of a rant defending his need and right to keep growing that the last Truffula Tree gets cut down, killing the forest forever.

So while it might be true that, in the short term, we can reduce our impact on the environment while continuing to grow the economy, in the long term it is not enough to simply reduce our negative impact-We have to eliminate it. And that is incompatible with economic growth. At some point we will need to come to terms with the reality that capitalism as a system depends on perpetual growth, and that if we want a truly green and sustainable economy, then we need to come up with a different system. "Greening" capitalism may buy us a bit of time, but in the end its growth imperative will still completely consume our limited resources.

We must also keep in mind that neither Alberta's economy nor environment exist in a vacuum. By focusing our energies on finding ways to make capitalism greener, we ignore the many environmental, social and global injustices inherent in capitalism. Where will the factories for solar panels, wind turbines, high-speed trains and buses be built? Whose labour will they exploit and whose rivers will they pollute? Will green capitalism still result in five percent of the population accumulating 95 percent of the wealth? Will those indigenous populations around the world who are currently the victims of uncontrolled economic expansion be victimized any less by "green" economic expansion?

Van Jones, the US based green jobs guru, has suggested that because climate change is putting our very survival in jeopardy, it is necessary for us to focus first on greening our existing economy. Once that has been accomplished, he argues, we can then turn our efforts to building a new economy which will be just and sustainable.

History tells us a different story however. Once we make advances, our energies are turned out of necessity toward protecting those same advances, not making new ones. Consider, for example, the extent to which our social programs and health care have been under attack since the day they were implemented. Have we been able to fight for more justice, or have we been too busy fighting to keep what little we've got?We have an opportunity today to push and fight for the creation of an economy that is truly green, sustainable and just. Yes, it is critical that we take immediate steps to deal with climate change, but if we don't also work to deal with the long-standing social, environmental and global injustices wrought by our economy, then we will truly be no further ahead. We can't bring a green and just economy to be by simply making capitalism greener and kinder. We need a total overhaul. If we lose sight of that, we will never get there.

Vue Weekly, Week of November 19, 2009Byline: Ricardo Acuña

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared this summer the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is "in the vital interest" of Canada, critics could be forgiven for suspecting the fix was in, that the public hearings reviewing the project were nothing more than a formality.

However, based on the hearings so far in Edmonton it would be unfair to dismiss the process as a rubber stamp. Conducted by a joint review panel from the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the sessions have been a thorough, at times painstakingly so, dissection of the $6-billion project that would pump 525,000 barrels a day of Alberta's bitumen to the West Coast port of Kitimat for shipment by tanker to Asia.

The Edmonton portion of the hearings is focused on the economic impact of the project and has so far sat for five days with 10 more days on the agenda beginning next Monday, allowing a list of critics and supporters of the project to cross-examine Enbridge officials in minute detail over company estimates that the pipeline would boost Canada's gross domestic product by $312 billion over 25 years.

The hearings not only present critics with an opportunity to grill Enbridge officials, they also give groups such as the Alberta Federation of Labour a platform to present their own arguments that by shipping raw bitumen offshore, the pipeline represents a loss of refining jobs in Alberta.

The hearings are giving us not just Enbridge's argument for the pipeline but the critics' counter-arguments. The joint review panel is hearing from every conceivable corner in this debate before submitting its final report at the end of 2013, not that any actual debate has broken out on the floor of the hearings. Because the joint review panel is a quasi-judicial body with the power to swear in witnesses, it strives to maintain a decorum more befitting a court.

What the panel and the public are therefore seeing is a cold, bloodless look at the pros and cons of the most contentious energy project in the country.

Emotions might run a little higher in October and November when the hearings move to Prince Rupert and Prince George to examine the much more hot-button issues of pipeline safety, spill response and the effect of a spill on the coastal environment.

If Enbridge officials are feeling frustration with the pressure being applied by pipeline critics, they really have no one to blame but themselves. Enbridge badly tarnished its own reputation by allowing more than three million litres of oil to spill into Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010, opening itself up to condemnation by the U.S. government that likened company officials to the bungling Keystone Kops of silent movie fame.

Given the emotions the 1,200-kilometre project is stirring on both sides of the debate (and both sides of the Alberta-B.C. border), we need to judge this project calmly and coolly. That's what the joint review panel is offering us: a dispassionate examination of whether the Northern Gateway pipeline is indeed in the "vital interest" of Canada.

The Edmonton Journal, Wednesday Sept 12 2012

Enbridge Inc. will face tough questions from intervenors at the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel's hearing in Edmonton this afternoon.

Among them are the Government of BC, the Alberta Federation of Labour, Ecojustice (representing ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation) and various First Nations communities.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline involves constructing two pipelines approximately 1,170 km long carrying up to 525,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Bruderheim, AB to Kitimat, BC. The other pipeline would carry 193,000 barrels of condensate per day east to Bruderheim.

Questions will center around issues such as the economic need for the Project, the potential impacts of the proposed Project on commercial interests and financial and tolling matters, according to a release.

The proceedings are being webcast live from 2 pm to 6 pm Mountain (MT), 1 pm-5 pm Pacific Standard (PST). Note: full transcripts are also available after the hearing at the official Joint Review Panel site hearings page.

17:58: Committee closes; will reconvene tomorrow morning at 09:30 MT.

17:57: Chahley: I can't believe how fast times goes when we're looking at these figures.

17:55: Five minutes remaining-- Chahley is asking detailed questions about figures used in the economic tables.

17:49: Now Chahley is fact-checking year-by-year the export numbers...

17:44: Riffling of pages as Chahley hones in on specific economic numbers on report.

17:38: Chahley confirms that those 17 additional modules are not listed. Mansell confirms.

17:37: Chahley asks where in the report Mansell lists these 17 modules. Mansell points to a brief note on page 37.

17:35: Mansell explains that his unique economic model is a framework that has input/output model at its center. It has 17 modules for oil sands, conventional oil and gas, electrical sources, demographic changes, population aging, migration. He has based his modelling on the Alberta economy, and applied nationally over time.

17:34: Chahley asks what else Mansell adjusted for, in addition to labour productivity. Mansell said loyalties are one factor. He flips through his reports for more factors.

17:34: Mansell says that labour productivity changes over time, otherwise there's an overestimate of employment impact.

17:33: Chahley is asking whether the modelling used is static, Mansell insists it's dynamic. Mansell said that "it's much more than simple application of static framework."

17:31: Now Mansell is talking about "varying impact year by year."

17:30: Chahley and Mansell do not seem to be on the same page on the economic modelling factors used to determine the economic impact of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

17:23: Chahley asks further questions on economic impacts of pipeline year by year.

17:15: Chahley now referring to specific models listed in reports by expert witnesses.

17:11: Chahley: this panel has to look at the best interests of Canadians, and need to look at short, mid and long term impact of pipeline-- that's why she says she's spending so much time focusing on that aspect.

17:10: Pipeline is a long term investment-- 30 years is the approximate timeline for looking at economic modeling. (one of the expert witnesses)

17:06: Chahley gets blunt- says when you spend $5.5 billion on a pipeline, that's a shock to the economy, is it good or bad? Questions directly Mansell's economic modelling which shows the pipeline would be a positive gain for the Canadian economy.

17:02: Chahley still grilling Mansell about oil prices and productivity.

16:53: JRP back in session. Chahley dives right back into specific methodologies used in reports by Mansell.

16:39: Break called.

16:17: Chahley keeps pressing on whether refining crude oil is out of the question. Mansell denies it's out of the question.

16:09: Detailed questions about condensate prices (increase/decrease).

16:06: Confirmed (not clear who by the webcast).

16:05: Chahley asks whether Enbridge knows what Asian countries will do with condensate oil once it arrives.

16:00 Carruthers: Going into details of types of oil that can be used to move it through the pipeline system.

15:57: Chahley: Some of it is dilbit, some of it is synbit, how much of each will go through pipes will be determined by how much can be transported by rail, correct?

15:55: Chahley honing in on what specific types of dilbit and synbit will flow through the pipelines.

15:53: Carruthers: confirms that pipelines carry dilbit and synbit (50/50 blend of bitumen and synthetic crude oil).

15:51: Chahley now looking up shipment figures.

15:49: Priddle: Reminds Chahley that systems built as crude oil pipelines are now carrying several grades of crude oil and refined oil products.

15:48: Chahley: The problem with this pipeline is shipping away unproccessed resources if they were processed in Canada it would keep jobs in Canada.

15:40: Earnest won't answer that question.

15:39: Chahley: Enbridge's interests are for corporate bottom line, not for public interest. Asks whether expert witnesses whether they can agree on that.

15:34: Earnest still not answering clearly. Fischer said Enbridge has committed "substantial" amount of money-- close to $130 million to do an "analysis" of economic benefits.

15:29: Earnest dodges Chahley's questions about the economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

15:24: Chahley is going to question mostly about economic benefits of the pipeline.

15:19: Chahley asks whether Northern Gateway and the expert witnesses will accept that between 89 and 89 per cent of the benefits arrives is due to projected increase in oil prices?

15:17: Leanne Chahley from Alberta Federation of Labour begins presentation.

15:16: JRP back in session.

15:05: Alberta Federation of Labour requests five minute break.

15:04: Witnesses now available for questioning.

15:03: Carruthers: Northern Gateway should get approval, while addressing 'remaining concerns.'

14:59: Carruthers: Northern Gateway recognizes the importance of questions re: the Michigan oil spill.

14:55: Carruthers: "Create a framework that puts reconciliation over division, fact over rhetoric..."

14:55: Curruthers: Has taken note of concerns particularly in British Columbia. Starting today Enbridge will respond. It will through witness panel do their best through Joint Review Panel to demonstrate economic benefits as well as addressing concerns.

14:48: Curruthers confirms he is President of Enbridge Northern Gateway.

14:43: Going now into specifics of changes in reports authored by witnesses. None of the changes have a significant impact on their findings.

16:34: Further detailed questioning prices of crude oil.

14:54: Curruthers: Majority of those who have appeared before the panel have argued that projects should be refused.

14:53: Curruthers: compares Enbridge to Canadian National Railway.

14:52: Panel accepts witnesses as experts in these fields.

14:51: Moderator asks witnesses to be qualified as expert witnesses to the Board:

Mansell: expert on economics

Earnest: expert on petroleum refining and transportaion

Priddle: expert in enegry policy and regulations of pipelines on the National Energy Board

14:38: Now going into specific appendices on reports, going through each witness.

14:32: Continuing to confirm who wrote what report, and to confirm all evidence in reports as accurate.

14:30: Correction of minor errors on report.

14:25: Swearing in of expert witnesses, who wrote reports on Enbridge Northern Gateway: Dr.J. Ruitenbeek, Mr.Mark Anielski, Dr. Robert Mansell, John William Carruthers (president of Enbridge Northern Gateway), Paul William Fischer, Neil Earnest, Roland Priddle. Also present near the panel (not witnesses) Dr.Peter Eglington Mr.Murray Fraser, Drew Armstrong.

14:20: Panel moderator announces that members of the Joint Review Panel are not available for media interviews during breaks or after the hearing.

14:14: Reading of various intervenors and questioners.

14:00: Mountain Time (MT)- The hearing in Edmonton, AB begins.

Vancouver Observer, Tuesday September 4, 2012

Byline: Beth Hong (live blog)

EDMONTON - Enbridge insists estimates of environment damage from construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline have been overestimated, because sections of the line will be built in areas already disturbed by a new natural gas pipeline, the federal review panel heard Thursday.

Enbridge lawyer Bernard Roth also questioned the expertise of economist Matthius Ruth, whose report for the Haisla Nation estimates the cost of environmental damage at between $254 million and $775 million for construction along the 1,700 kilometre route from Bruderheim northeast of Edmonton to Kitimat on the British Columbia coast.

That estimate includes cutting trees on the kilometre-wide corridor, crossing rivers and habitat damage, the Joint Review Panel was told.

The proposed $6-billion pipeline will carry 525,000 barrels of Alberta bitumen a day to Kitimat.

Enbridge proposes to use already disturbed land for about 80 per cent of the route, including areas already logged, old roads and along part of the 463-kilometre Pacific Trail Pipeline route, now under construction from the Prince George area to Kitimat.

"Through the entire Haisla territory, the PT pipeline is in the same corridor as the Northern Gateway," said Roth. Any environment impacts there have already occurred and should not be attributed to Enbridge, he said.

"If a road and power line is already constructed and we use the same right of way," how does Enbridge's pipeline cause additional damage? asked Roth.

But Ruth said the environmental costs might be higher because of the "cumulative effects" of two pipelines running through fragile ecosystems.

"Any new project will put additional stress on the environment," he said.

The Haisla Nation is a partner in a proposed liquefied natural gas facility that will ship natural gas from northeast B.C. to China. But they oppose the Enbridge bitumen pipeline because of fears that spills of the sticky product would pollute the water along the coast.

Roth said it's unfair to attach to a pipeline project the additional cost of greenhouse gases emitted in producing the bitumen, shipping it to Asia and burning the resulting gasoline in cars — a total calculation of $206 million in the Matthius report.

"These are indirect costs," he said.

Earlier in the day, a witness for the provincial government told the panel that building the Northern Gateway is just one way to handle the increased bitumen production underway in the oilsands.

Other solutions include upgrading the bitumen to synthetic crude oil, expanding refining capacity in Alberta or slowing the pace of development, said Harold York, author of the Wood Mackenzie report done for the Alberta government.

Oil producers will need other ways, besides the Gateway pipeline, to handle the increased amount of bitumen, he said.

In response to questions from the Alberta Federation of Labour, York noted that to get the price increase producers want, Alberta bitumen must be sold into "coking" refineries that can first upgrade it.

If it is sold to conventional refineries, it could only be used to make lower value fuel oil. That could lower the selling price of the bitumen, he said.

Montreal Gazette, Thurs Sept 27 2012Byline: Sheila Pratt, The Edmonton Journal

The benefits to the oil industry of Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline may be exaggerated and its costs to the economy and environment underestimated, hearings into the project heard Tuesday.

The $6-billion pipeline has been touted as a way to link burgeoning production from Alberta's oilsands to growing markets in Asia, which would allow Canadian producers to improve profits by reaping higher prices for crude overseas.

But a lawyer for the Haisla First Nation, which claims much of the land the pipeline would travel though, said projections of nearly $1.5 billion a year in increased revenue by 2018 are inflated.

Hana Boye said the estimate Enbridge (TSX:ENB) is presenting at the National Energy Board hearings was developed with figures from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers which suggest oil supply in Western Canada will grow by 6.5 per cent a year between 2011 and 2020.

The proposed route for Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline is from just north of Edmonton Alberta to Kitimat on the West Coast of B.C. EnbridgeThe proposed route for Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline is from just north of Edmonton Alberta to Kitimat on the West Coast of B.C. Enbridge

That's different than what Enbridge is telling its own investors and shareholders, said Boye. The company's own estimate is 4.4 per cent growth — a difference of 500,000 barrels a day by 2020 that leads to a corresponding drop in revenues earned by producers.

"Have you given a different supply forecast to your shareholders than that provided to the panel?" Boye asked Enbridge's Gateway manager John Carruthers on Tuesday.

Carruthers acknowledged that different figures have been used at different times. Estimates can vary depending on assumptions of what the mix of varying crudes would be, he said.

"There would be times when we would see differences."

But the variances aren't big enough to change the project's economics, Carruthers said.

"The minor changes over time don't change the project need."

Boye added that the project could discourage the upgrading of oilsands bitumen in Alberta and that its cost to the environment hasn't been fully evaluated.

She pressed Enbridge over the use of diluent — lightweight solvents mixed with bitumen or other heavy crudes to make them flow through a pipe. Although the mix varies, roughly one-third of what would flow through the Gateway line would be diluent. The Gateway project includes a second pipeline that would import diluent from the B.C. coast back to Alberta.

Boye suggested the cost of that diluent has not been factored into calculations of producer benefit.

Ignoring the cost of diluent exaggerates the case for shipping raw bitumen outside Alberta for upgrading or refining, said Robyn Allan, an analyst for the Alberta Federation of Labour, who is advising the Haisla.

"There is no economic analysis ... that's been supplied to the hearings (of the impact) to the Canadian economy when we import condensate instead of upgrading in Alberta," she said outside the hearing.

"Importing condensate instead of upgrading (bitumen) is hollowing out the sector."

Claims analysis ignored side effects

Boye also questioned environmental economist Mark Anielski about his dollar-value calculation of the project's environmental impact. She pointed out that his analysis only included the 50-metre pipeline right of way and ignored possible effects outside that corridor.

Anielski responded those effects could exist, but there's no credible method of putting a monetary value on them.

"This kind of information is not available," he said. "To speculate would be unprofessional of me."

Anielski also acknowledged his report didn't put a value on a wide array of ecological effects from forests that would be disturbed by the pipeline — everything from erosion control to genetic diversity to pollination.

Enbridge has promised to plant a tree for every one cut down for the pipeline right-of-way, he said. The company is also working with the Nature Conservancy to protect land that would offset areas disturbed by the project.

The hearings are expected to continue in Edmonton throughout the week.

The Canadian Press, Tuesday Sept 18 2012

Edmonton - Alberta can create more than 200,000 long-term green jobs and build a strong economic future, according to a groundbreaking report on green jobs released by two prominent environmental groups and the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The report, entitled Green Jobs: It's Time to Build Alberta's Future, was commissioned by Greenpeace, Sierra Club Prairie Chapter and the Alberta Federation of Labour. This unique coalition responds to the interest Albertans have in a strong bottom line that also supports ecological health.

"This report shows what we've been saying for some time now: that a green economy is a healthy economy. Right now, we have the ability to put tens of thousands of Albertans back to work building the future," said Jeh Custer, Energy Campaigner with the Sierra Club Prairie Chapter. "All we need is a little bit of vision and a lot of leadership."

The green jobs strategy is needed now at a time when Alberta has record job losses and its first deficit in over a decade. Alberta has slipped from having the lowest unemployment levels in Canada to third. Since August 2008, employers have cut over 135,000 full-time positions.

The vision in the report will breathe new life into the province's economy and help improve its environmental track record, which has recently come under international criticism.

Green Jobs: It's Time to Build Alberta's Future, shows a new way forward. It outlines what a green economy should look like. The green jobs of the future include electricians, computer software engineers, iron and steel workers, electrical engineers, electrical equipment assemblers, welders, metal fabricators, electrical equipment technicians, construction workers, machinists, construction labourers, operating engineers, and electrical power line installers and repairers, and sheet metal workers - a truly "green collar" industry.

"It's time this government invests in people and put our dollars towards building safe, vibrant and sustainable communities in Alberta," said Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour. "This report shows undeniably that a green investment will allow us to diversify our economy, to stabilize it and to put tens of thousands of people to work immediately building our green energy future."

Other green jobs could be created in providing water treatment for First Nations communities, improving wastewater treatment systems, reforestation, and cleaning up contaminated sites. These opportunities can create many more good green jobs in rural and urban areas.

"Instead of investing $2 billion in false solutions like Carbon Capture and Storage, the government should choose solutions that will help every Albertan," said Mike Hudema, Climate and Energy campaigner with Greenpeace, Canada. "The time has come to let go of what's clearly not working and begin focusing our energy on creating the clean, green economy that will sustain us for generations to come. It's time to build the future."

- 30 -

For more information, please contact:

Gil McGowan, President, AFL, office - 780-483-3021; cell  780-218-9888

Jeh Custer, Sierra Club Prairie Chapter, 780-660-5483

Mike Hudema, Greenpeace Tar Sands Campaigner, 780-504-5601

Jessica Wilson, Greenpeace Media and Public Relations Officer, 778-228-5404