As the leadership contest for Alberta’s newly formed United Conservative Party heats up, it’s no surprise pipeline politics are front and centre.

As four major oilsands pipeline projects from Alberta sit abandoned, stalled or awaiting review, one contender is proposing to beat the pipeline gridlock through an entirely new route.

It wouldn’t be through the west or east coast but through the Arctic — namely Churchill, Manitoba, the polar bear capital of the world, nestled in Hudson Bay.

“Churchill has Canada's only deep-water port facility, and it could be capable of sending 250,000 barrels/day of Alberta oil to global markets so we can secure the premium price,” states a media release from Jeff Callaway, former Wildrose president and now leadership contender for the United Conservative Party.

The president of the Churchill Chamber of Commerce blasted the proposal as ecologically dangerous.

“Everyone always wants jobs and security that way but oil is pretty scary business, especially on the edge of the Arctic,” Dave Daley, an avid dogsledder and owner of Wapusk Adventures, told CBC.

"As soon as that article hit town here there was a big uproar about 'Say no to oil.' "

Latest Oil Pipeline Proposal Comes as Support Grows for Getting Off Oil

This latest pipeline proposal comes at time when the world is grappling with the urgent need to ramp down fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

Pipelines have become a symbol of the larger debate about climate change, with new pipeline proposals threatening to enable increased oil production at a time when scientists and world leaders agree rapid de-carbonization is needed.

New polling released by Abacus Data this month indicates a majority of Canadians (59 per cent) are growing “more worried about climate change and it is changing my view of how long we should use oil.” That includes 48 per cent of Albertans and 35 per cent of Conservative voters.

“Energy, pipeline and climate issues have been among the most highly charged political debates in Canada for several years,” said Abacus chairman Bruce Anderson.

“What we are seeing in our numbers now is an evolution of opinion: concerns about climate change have deepened, and belief that the world is going to transition away from oil has grown.”

Canadians are also becoming more convinced that oil demand will decrease in the next few decades. Ten years from now, equal numbers believe demand for oil will be rising (31 per cent) as believe it will be falling (32 per cent).

“This represents a striking 15-point increase in the number who believe demand will be falling, compared to our result in April of this year,” Abacus states.

A majority (55 per cent) would prefer to see demand in decline in 10 years and fully two-thirds would like to see demand declining in 30 years.

Even in Alberta, more people would like to see demand for oil declining (38 per cent) in 10 years as would like to see it increasing (28 per cent). Looking out 30 years, 48 per cent would prefer to see oil demand in decline, compared to 20 per cent who would like to see it increasing.

So if public sentiment is shifting to a place where it doesn’t support an increase in oil demand even in the next 10 years, how does that impact the debate about constructing new pipelines?

“Over the last three years, feelings about the construction of new pipelines to deliver Canadian energy to new markets have shifted. Negative feelings have not grown (21 per cent), but positive feelings (44 per cent) have dropped, while more people take a neutral stance (36 per cent),” Abacus states, noting stark differences of opinion based on generation and partisanship.

Yet when asked to choose between two alternatives: building new pipelines while pursuing efforts to reduce emissions, or building no new pipelines to avoid contributing to climate change, the large majority continues to support a strategy that both builds new pipelines (thus increasing emissions) while simultaneously ramping up policies that will see the country shift to more renewable forms of energy (to reduce emissions).

This question gets at the crux of the breakdown of public narrative on the construction of new export pipelines. Either the public fundamentally misunderstands that the export pipeline proposals under consideration would enable increased production, and therefore increase emissions, or essentially Canadians want to have their cake and eat it too.

Alberta Leadership Candidate Proposes Oil #Pipeline to #Arctic As World Aims to Get Off Oil https://t.co/pPHVUZongI #ableg #cdnpoli #climate

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 23, 2017

Alberta Government Proposed as Main Investor in Churchill Pipeline

Back to Callaway’s Churchill pipeline idea. Key to the proposal is a front-and-centre role for a new conservative Alberta government, which Callaway envisions subsidizing the proposal as the pipeline’s main investor.  

According to Callaway, after ousting the NDP government, Alberta should buy the out-of commission rail line that connects Churchill with points south, and the port facilities.

The port would then be revamped to handle both oil and grain exports. In addition, a new oil pipeline and access road would be built alongside the railway line.

The plan echoes one carried out by Premier Peter Lougheed in the 1980s when the government put up $200 million to expand the grain export terminals in Prince Rupert so farmers would have better access to world markets.

But it’s a far cry from recent conservative policy in Alberta, which decries any government bankrolling of energy projects. Canada has also joined other G20 countries in pledging to stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction.

Omnitrax, a Denver-based company that owns the railway and the port facilities, has said it is not prepared to pay the $20 to $60 million dollars it would cost for repairs. It wants the federal government to step in instead.

Callaway did not respond to interview requests for this article.

Pipeline Projects Face Uphill Approval Battle

If the proposal ever came up for serious consideration, it would be years away.

At this stage, Callaway is not a front runner in the leadership race for the United Conservative Party, the party that emerged after the Wildrose and Progressive Conservatives agreed to unite. Jason Kenney, a former Harper cabinet minister, and Brian Jean, former leader of the Wildrose, have much better chances of winning.

Alberta’s provincial election is two years in the future and approval for a project of this magnitude, never mind completion, could easily take ten years (past the point when the majority of Canadians say they want to see oil demand decreasing).

But Callaway’s “big idea” is another sign of the growing frustration, particularly among conservatives, with a lack of progress on the pipeline file.

When NDP Premier Rachel Notley announced Alberta’s Climate Change Action Plan in November 2015 she touted it as a path to social licence for Alberta’s energy projects, particularly interprovincial pipelines. The plan included a carbon tax, a phase out of coal- generated electricity and a cap on oilsands carbon emissions and more renewable energy.

If Alberta doesn’t get a pipeline built, David Taras, a veteran observer of Alberta and Canadian politics and professor of communication studies at Mount Royal University, said the frustration in Alberta could boil over.

The “politics of isolation and anger” may surface in Alberta and that would play right into the hands of the United Conservative Party.

Numerous projects have faced regulatory and social licence hurdles when it comes to moving oilsands crude from landlocked Alberta to coastal export facilities.

After one of the most protracted, controversial and public pipeline reviews in Canadian history, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project is now dead.

The future of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project remains uncertain.

The project, which involves twinning the current Trans Mountain pipeline will lead to a seven-fold increase of oil tanker traffic off the coast of British Columbia. Concerns over oil spills, a lack of consent from First Nations, as well as growing support for strong climate policies have converged to make the pipeline politically toxic in B.C.

The new B.C. NDP government was recently granted intervenor status in a legal challenge of federal permits for the pipeline and has promised to do everything possible to legally impede the pipeline’s construction.

Pressure on the federal government to modernize the National Energy Board’s process for reviewing pipeline projects escalated during the Trans Mountain assessment process, which was widely criticized by numerous participants and coined an act of public deception.

The NEB’s review of the Trans Mountain pipeline did not consider the upstream climate impacts of the pipeline and included no oral cross-examination of evidence.

Public scrutiny of Canada’s review process for pipelines has come to bear on the ongoing review of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline. In August, the National Energy Board announced it would consider upstream emissions in addition to downstream emissions of projects undergoing review, prompting TransCanada executive to request a suspension of the Energy East review.

The company signalled it will reconsider whether the pipeline is worth pursuing given the changes to the regulatory process.

In a perhaps unexpected turn for TransCanada, the Keystone XL pipeline project, unequivocally rejected by former President Barack Obama, was resuscitated by President Trump in March. Despite the new political support for the project, the company has publicly questioned the need for the project, leading some to wonder if Keystone XL, first proposed over a decade ago, will in fact be built.

How all of this pipeline turmoil will play out in the next Alberta election is anybody’s guess, given the rapidly shifting public opinion around the need to get off oil.

But it’s worth noting the Abacus survey was fielded in early August, before two devastating hurricanes hit the U.S., before another scorching month in B.C. stoked further forest fires and before drought conditions struck several provinces.

As the world feels the urge to shift off of fossil fuels, a transition some are calling the third industrial revolution, it’s clear the pipeline debate is caught in the crosshairs.

Image: Trans-Alaskan pipeline. Photo: etherlore via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Laura Bouchard for CANADALAND.

A few weeks ago, Bruce Anderson, a popular pundit and pollster, wrote an opinion piece criticizing the NDP’s Leap Manifesto as a clumsy political misstep. Canadians, Anderson argues, would never go for bold action addressing climate change. We’re a mild people. A simple people. He wrote:

“Canadians want 'pro-growth environmentalism.' They want to tap entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, science, capital and yes, capitalism, to help create ideas that marry our desire to put food on the table, money away for our kids’ education, and some sense of security about how we’re going to live in retirement.”

This last sentence caught my eye. If you read it closely, you’ll notice two lists. First are the feel-goodisms the oil industry likes to drape itself in: innovation, science, entrepreneurship; second are the actual anxieties of average Canadians. Rather artfully Anderson has fused the interests of everyday Canadians with the rhetoric of the oil patch; perfectly aligned and indistinguishable.

I know the oil industry wants to be thought of as innovative growth entrepreneurs, not out of guesswork, although that wouldn’t be terribly difficult, but because they told me so. Or at least CEPA, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, did, in a focus group, moderated by Bruce Anderson — a connection he didn't disclose in his Globe and Mail piece.

CEPA isn’t an actual company but a PR organization. They bill themselves as “the voice” of pipeline companies like Enbridge, TransCanada, and Kinder Morgan Canada. And if you thought, “Wait, isn’t CEPA the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada’s main environmental legislation?” you’re right, it definitely is. Acronym insidiousness is apparently the industry standard for this sort of thing.  

In 2012, I signed up to be a focus group participant to earn some extra money. I had no idea what it would be about, or that Canada-famous Bruce Anderson would be leading it.   

CEPA was testing a few potential narratives. The first was about drawing parallels to the historic infrastructure that built Canada, like the CPR. The second was about Canada being at the forefront of innovation, science and economic growth. There were poster mock-ups for this message track. The most distasteful, in my opinion, was the one with a pristine futuristic pipeline streamlined across an equally pristine wilderness landscape.

After seeing the ad spots and mock-ups, we were asked for our reactions. The comments were mostly technical and specific: fonts were hard to read, narration had too many words. I sat and waited for the rest of the group (mostly boomers and certainly no one under 35) to contribute their thoughts. I was trying to decide how much of a dick I should be. Eventually I settled on 100 per cent:

“I’m surprised you’d want to portray pristine untouched wilderness next to pipelines in your ads, given the fact that pipelines spill and leak a lot.”

This was followed by a pretty lengthy silence. I had expected a few people to be annoyed or hostile. What I didn’t expect was the exact opposite. If I had to describe the main feeling in the room, it would be “I didn’t know we were allowed to do that.”

From then on, there was a full-on focus group revolt. Suddenly participants were bringing up climate change and green energy options and safety,  each comment a little bolder than the last. It was as if everyone had been given permission to care about the environment without being dismissed as reckless.

Bruce Anderson has spent his life figuring out how to make the best arguments for promoting oil and gas development (to his credit he has not hidden this fact, unlike some other CBC personalities). Because of this, he knows it’s helpful to dress up an unimaginative backwards industry of strip-mining and explosive drilling as innovative, productive and forward-leaning. He also knows exactly where to twist the knife — that exploiting Canadians fears’ about economic insecurity is a great way to cow them away from any genuine environmental action they might actually favour.

I suppose my question to Mr. Anderson is this: Has he ever really tried to sell a green sustainable economy? Or any plan that would prevent global temperatures from reaching the point of no return? Clearly there is an appetite on the part of the public to do something. If one not-terribly-well-spoken twenty-something with a single comment can completely derail a pipeline focus group into a full-fledged climate change discussion, imagine what the Bruce Andersons of this world could accomplish if they actually tried.

Image: Bruce Anderson/Abacus Data

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In polling released by BC Hydro last week, the public power utility touts “broad” support for its controversial Site C dam — a mega hydro dam on the Peace River that would flood 107 kilometres of river valley, forcing farmers and First Nations off their land.

Hydro must have been counting on nobody taking a close look at the questions they asked respondents, because not only are they misleading, but they also tell another story entirely.

Let’s first address a glaring problem with the questions themselves: polling company Abacus Data began by asking British Columbians a multiple choice question about how to meet “increasing electricity demand.” 

There’s just one problem: B.C. does not have increasing electricity demand. In fact, electricity demand in B.C. has remained basically flat since 2005. But no, the pollster told all 1,000 telephone respondents that electricity demand is rising and we must meet it somehow.

Then comes the key question: “Is the idea of building Site C, a new hydroelectric dam, to help meet the rising demand for electricity in B.C., an idea you strongly support, support, can accept under certain circumstances, oppose, or strongly oppose?”

Well whaddya know, that old porky about “rising demand for electricity” has appeared right in the benchmark polling question, presented plainly as fact.

(Anyone with any experience with polling knows the demand language is so prominent because BC Hydro has likely message tested the bejeebus out of it and knows exactly how to prime the pump to elicit the answer it wants.)

Continuing the obsession with power demand, later on in the poll, respondents are asked to gauge their agreement with the statement: “I have no doubt that the demand for electricity in B.C. will continue to grow significantly in the years ahead.”

After being misinformed about electricity demand in B.C. repeatedly in the poll, 89 per cent of respondents then say they expect demand to increase. In other words: 89 per cent of respondents listened diligently to the misleading information and responded accordingly.

Enter this quote from Bruce Anderson, chairman of Abacus Data, who designed and analyzed the poll: “What stands out for me is the fact that people broadly believe that more power will be needed and that a new dam is probably one of the best ways to meet growing demand.”

Well, doesn’t that just take the biscuit. Really, Mr. Anderson, were you surprised that after you told respondents multiple times that electricity demand is increasing that they then parroted your line back to you? Seems like a pretty simple case of cause and effect to me.

Opposition to Site C Dam Has Doubled Since 2013

Now, for the results themselves. While BC Hydro would like you to focus on awareness reaching a new high (77 per cent) and 73 per cent of British Columbians saying that they either support or can support Site C under certain circumstances, the trends tell a different story.

Between 2013 and 2016, awareness of the project grew from 41 per cent to 77 per cent. During that same period of time, opposition to the dam nearly doubled, growing from 13 per cent to 24 per cent. In other words, the more people who learn about the dam, the more opposition increases — that’s not a super positive trend-line for a project that is only six months into eight years of construction.

.@BCHydro (really) doesn’t want you to know #SiteC opposition has doubled https://t.co/O76cyRjVZp #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/SeshQDDHSX

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 14, 2016

Support also grew from 42 per cent in 2013 to 49 per cent in 2016, during which time the B.C. government churned out relentless spin about the so-called “need” for the project. Despite the spin, growth in opposition significantly outpaced support. 

“It's not that people don't have any anxieties about the impacts of this project, but that a better alternative is not obvious, and a certain degree of comfort has developed that this project is being handled with appropriate diligence,” Anderson said in BC Hydro’s release.

Actually, a better alternative is obvious — but BC Hydro never chose to poll about that. First and foremost, demand for power has been flat in B.C. for the past 10 years. Were it to begin to increase, we could easily meet our needs with the Columbia River entitlement or various smaller scale renewable options — chiefly geothermal. Both of those options would be far cheaper than the Site C dam.

And when it comes to the project being handled with “appropriate diligence,” there are numerous high-profile individuals and groups who have come forward to argue the contrary. Perhaps most surprising is Harry Swain, chair of the provincial-federal panel tasked with reviewing Site C, who said BC Hydro’s failure to adequately investigate alternatives to the dam represents a “dereliction of duty" and that the province shouldn't be moving ahead while the demand case remains unclear.

The joint review panel’s report on Site C predicted the dam would lose at least $800 million in the first four years of production because there’s no need for the power in B.C. and exports would lose money.

That’s why B.C. Premier Christy Clark is now flapping her gums about selling the power to Alberta to power the oilsands  — an entirely new (and totally unrealistic) justification for the project that confirms there’s no need for the power in B.C.

Clark knows there’s no demand for new power in B.C.  No doubt BC Hydro knows it, too. Now if only British Columbians knew it — then how would they answer a polling question about spending nearly $9 billion to build a new dam?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Authorizations allowing construction to begin immediately on the Site C dam on the Peace River in northeastern B.C. were issued on Tuesday by B.C.’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — despite a pending legal challenge by the Treaty 8 First Nations.

This Saturday, hundreds of people in canoes and kayaks will paddle down the Peace River to protest the imminent construction of the dam and flooding of the river.

The $8.8 billion Site C dam — the most expensive public project in B.C. history — was approved by the B.C. government in December. If built, the dam will flood more than 100 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, drowning agricultural land that experts say could produce fruit and vegetables for one million people.

Since the government’s decision to move forward with the project, expert voices have come out of the woodwork to speak out against the project.

Last week, the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board, representing 23 local governments and 2.5 million people, voted to ask Premier Christy Clark for a two-year moratorium on Site C. The board joins more than 30 other B.C. municipalities calling for a moratorium on the project.

“This permitting decision shows the provincial government’s disdain for B.C. ratepayers,” said Rob Botterell,  general counsel to the Peace Valley Landowner Association.  “BC Hydro’s own analysis shows that a two-year delay will save B.C. ratepayers about $200 million.  Who benefits from the urgency to construct Site C? Certainly not those of us paying the tab."

Dam Construction Will 'Indefinitely Scar' B.C.'s Relationship with First Nations

The First Nations Leadership Council recently said moving forward with the dam before the Treaty 8 legal challenge has been heard on July 20th will “indefinitely scar” B.C.’s relationship with First Nations.

This spring, energy economist Robert McCullough said that BC Hydro has dramatically underestimated the cost of producing power from Site C and that far cheaper energy alternatives are available.

Harry Swain, chair of the panel that examined Site C for the federal and provincial governments, has called the failure of the B.C. government to investigate alternatives to the dam a “dereliction of duty.” His criticism of the B.C. government's actions was called “unprecedented” by environmental law experts.

The cost of renewable alternatives have plummeted in cost in recent years and Site C’s business case assumptions are two to five years out of date. The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says geothermal can meet all of B.C.'s future energy needs at a lower cost than Site C with fewer environmental impacts.

Despite growing opposition from experts, BC Hydro released polling on Tuesday indicating that support for the dam has increased amongst British Columbians.

The Abacus Data poll shows 59 per cent of those polled support building the Site C dam, while 22 per cent support the dam under certain circumstances. Seventeen per cent are opposed. Province-wide awareness of the Site C dam has increased significantly: 75 per cent of British Columbians surveyed are aware of Site C now, compared to 41 per cent in 2013.

The B.C. government says Site C will provide approximately 10,000 direct jobs during construction and will generate enough electricity to power about 450,000 homes per year.

However, the panel that reviewed BC Hydro’s application to build the dam found demand for the power had not been proven on the timeline provided and called for an independent review of costs by the B.C. Utilities Commission — a call the B.C. government has ignored.

Early indications are that some of Site C’s power will be used to power natural gas operations in northeast B.C. For at least the first four years, demand for the power will be insufficient so a portion will be exported at a projected loss of $800 million.

Photo: This section of the Peace River will be flooded if the Site C dam is built.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.