The Enbridge lesson: Major projects need public support
While not addressing it directly, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has delivered what may be a damaging blow to Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.
The damning report undermines a crucial element of Enbridge's application to build a 1,000-kilometre pipeline across northern B.C. - the need for British Columbians to trust Enbridge's assurances that it can operate the line with minimal risk of a catastrophic spill.
The NTSB's report on a 2010 pipe-line breach into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that resulted in the most expensive pipeline spill in U.S. history found pervasive organizational failures and likened Enbridge's response to the Keystone Kops.
While the language may have been over the top and aimed at a domestic political audience, the details are still damning. The company was aware of the potential for a spill for five years and took no action, and when the corroded pipe finally split, Enbridge continued to pump oil through the breach for 17 hours despite seeing alarms that there was a problem.
This is not the narrative we would expect from a company that is asking British Columbians to trust it to protect our fragile northern wilderness.
While the hearings that will lead to a regulatory verdict on the project are continuing, politically in this province Northern Gateway has become a difficult project to back.
Polls show that even before the U.S. NTSB report, a majority of British Columbians were persuaded that the projected benefits of the multibillion-dollar project are not worth the risk, especially since most of the benefits are accrued elsewhere and the risks are here.
Opposition to the pipeline transcends the core group of preservationists who are against any development. It includes first nations, municipalities and the opposition New Democrats, who will be in government before construction can begin if Premier Christy Clark can't end her own losing streak. And most critically it includes significant numbers of people who understand the importance of access to energy and the need for economic development, but don't believe that Enbridge has done what would be needed to make the case for this project at this time.
Although we're not sure how, that could change, of course. If it does, it won't be because British Columbians become persuaded that Enbridge or the federal government knows better than they do what is good for them. That thinking led to the HST fiasco, which is still top of mind.
The failure to date by Enbridge to secure public support for its proposal to ship oil through northern B.C. and by tanker out of Kitimat should be considered a case study for Kinder Morgan if it hopes to be able to proceed with its expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver.
The lessons from Enbridge should start with the realization that for a pipeline to be accepted, it will have to have a significant local owner-ship. That doesn't necessarily mean an equity stake, but a sense that the people who will be affected and who must absorb some risk, no matter how minimal, will also reap proportional benefits.
B.C.'s economic future does not depend on the success or failure of any individual project, no matter how large. But we do need economic development. We need jobs. We need government revenues. We need energy. We can't afford to take an entirely selfish approach to projects that are in the national interest even though it is always reasonable to ask what is in it for us.
We also need enlightened corporations that understand that public support that includes first nations will always be needed for major projects in this province and can never be assumed just because senior levels of government are on side.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun