Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

First Nations Buy Into Pipelines

Published

11 months ago

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Zinchuk

“Meaningful Indigenous participation in our resource economy is maturing. At first, First Nations used to ask for compensation, the jobs, and then for the contracts that created those jobs, Now they seek purchase equity in the project itself. Soon they will create the project and seek others to invest in it. Then they will have real economic power.”

It’s taken years to get here, but there’s a new trend in Canada’s pipeline industry, and it couldn’t come soon enough. That’s because the path we’ve been on until now has been one to ruin.

On July 30, TC Energy announced it was in the process of selling 5.34 per cent of its Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) System and the Foothills Pipeline assets for a gross purchase price of $1 billion. “The Agreement is backed by the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (AIOC) and was negotiated by a consortium committee (Consortium) representing specific Indigenous Communities (Communities) across Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. This results in an implied enterprise value of approximately $1.65 billion, inclusive of the proportionate share of the Partnership Assets’ collective debt,” TC Energy said.

This comes a few months after its March 14 announcement to sell “all outstanding shares in Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Holdings Ltd. and the limited partnership interests in Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (collectively, PRGT). PRGT is a wholly owned subsidiary of TC Energy and the developer of a natural gas pipeline project in British Columbia and potential delivery corridor that would further unlock Canada as a secure, affordable and sustainable source of LNG.”

The Nova system sale is significant. It’s the principal natural gas gathering system throughout Alberta and a bit into B.C. In addition to supplying Alberta with its gas needs, Nova, in turn, feeds the TC Energy Mainline. It also supplies Saskatchewan via Many Islands Pipe Lines and TransGas, both subsidiaries of SaskEnergy. And since Saskatchewan’s domestic gas production keeps falling, we now rely heavily on Alberta gas to keep our furnaces lit and our new gas fired power plants turning, keeping the lights on. When you look at the Nova map, it’s basically the map of Alberta.

Some of the most significant difficulties in getting major pipeline projects built in this country over the last 16 years has been Indigenous opposition. One of the first stories I wrote about with Pipeline News during the summer of 2008 was a First Nations protest on the Enbridge right of way at Kerrobert, complete with a teepee. That was for the Alberta Clipper project, but it was relatively quickly resolved.

Then there was Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which was approved by the Conservative federal government but halted by the courts because of insufficient Indigenous consultation. It was ultimately killed very early into the Trudeau-led Liberal administration, when he said, “The Great Bear Rainforest was no place for a pipeline, a crude pipeline.”

Northern Gateway would have terminated at Kitimat. Yet, curiously enough, that same forest had to be crossed to built the TC Energy Coastal GasLink project. It went grossly overbudget in no small part due to delays and resistance in every manner possible from the Wet’suweten in northern B.C. As Canadian Press reported on Dec. 11, 2023, “By the time the pipeline was finished, its estimated construction cost had ballooned from $6.6 billion to $14.5 billion.”

And then there was Trans Mountain Expansion. It had opposition from the BC government, City of Burnaby, and everyone who could apply a Sharpie marker to a Bristol board. But Indigenous opposition was a major factor. As Pipeline Online reported via the Canadian Press, “The project’s $34-billion price tag has ballooned from a 2017 estimate of $7.4 billion, with Trans Mountain Corp. blaming the increase on “extraordinary” factors including evolving compliance requirements, Indigenous accommodations, stakeholder engagement, extreme weather and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

By this spring, the number was $34 billion, and I anticipate its final cost will be higher still.

Maturing

There’s been a big change in recent years, not just in pipelines, but in other energy industries like wind and solar. That change had gone from consultation to jobs to equity investment.

The word used almost always is “reconciliation.” That can be a loaded word in many ways, Some feel it will heal wounds, and right past wrongs, or at least try to. Others would say it’s a form of extortion. And some take issue with racial overtones. But here’s something I heard this week that makes a lot of sense:

“Meaningful Indigenous participation in our resource economy is maturing. At first, First Nations used to ask for compensation, the jobs, and then for the contracts that created those jobs, Now they seek purchase equity in the project itself. Soon they will create the project and seek others to invest in it. Then they will have real economic power.”

That’s what Steve Halabura, professional geologist, told me. And he would know, since he’s been working with First Nations on this economic development front.

And you see that in the timeline I laid out. The 2008 protests were very much about compensation and jobs. Trans Mountain Expansion saw significant First Nations’ owned and operated firms awarded contracts. And now, they’re buying equity positions.

You know what? If First Nations bands, and people, do indeed become owners in these resource companies and infrastructure, if it helps pay for housing and water treatment plants, if it means meaningful work and paycheques, are they likely to fight the next project tooth and nail? Or will they want to be a part of it?

And think of it this way – if we could have gotten to this point ten years ago, maybe these projects might have gone much more smoothly. Maybe their final costs wouldn’t have been double, or quadruple, the original budget. When you think of it in that perspective – if a billion dollar equity stake meant Coastal GasLink could have cost $5 billion less, would it have been worth it to bring First Nations in as equity partners?

Some will say that’s extortion. Others would say it’s justice, or reconciliation. But maybe, just maybe, this is how we move forward, and everyone in the end wins. And maybe then Canada can, once again, build great things.

Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of Pipeline Online and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
conflict / 7 hours ago

Trump’s done waiting: 50-day ultimatum for Putin to end Ukraine war

National / 7 hours ago

Canada’s immigration office admits it failed to check suspected terrorists’ background

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Energy

Activists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy

Published on July 14, 2025

By

2016 image provided by Misti Leon, left, sits with her mom, Juliana Leon. Misti Leon is suing several oil and gas companies in one of the first wrongful-death claims in the U.S. seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the changing climate.

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jason Isaac

They twist yesterday’s weather into tomorrow’s crisis, peddle apocalyptic forecasts that fizzle, and swap “global warming” for “climate change” whenever the narrative demands. They sound the alarm on a so-called climate emergency — again and again.

Now, the Left has plunged to a new low: weaponizing the courts with a lawsuit in Washington State that marks a brazen, desperate escalation. This isn’t just legal maneuvering—it’s the exploitation of personal tragedy in service of an unpopular anti-energy climate crusade.

Consider the case at the center of a new legal circus: Juliana Leon, 65, tragically died of hyperthermia during a 100-mile drive in a car with broken air conditioning, as a brutal heat wave pushed temperatures to 108 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The lawsuit leaps from this heartbreaking event to a sweeping claim: that a single hot day is the direct result of global warming.

The lawsuit preposterously links a very specific hot weather event to theorized global warming. Buckle up—their logic is about to take a wild ride.

Some activist scientists have further speculated that what may be a gradual long-term trend of slight warming thought to be both cyclical and natural, might be possibly exacerbated by the release of greenhouse gases. Some of these releases are the result of volcanic activity while some comes from human activities, including the burning of oil, natural gas and coal.

Grabbing onto that last, unproven thread, the plaintiffs have zeroed in on a handful of energy giants—BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell, and the Olympic Pipe Company—accusing them of causing Leon’s death. Apparently, these few companies are to blame for the entire planet’s climate, while other oil giants, coal companies, and the billions of consumers who actually use these fuels get a free pass.

Meanwhile, “climate journalists” in the legacy media have ignored key details that will surely surface in court. Leon made her journey in a car with no air conditioning, despite forecasts warning of dangerous heat. She was returning from a doctor’s visit, having just been cleared to eat solid food after recent bariatric surgery.

But let’s be clear: this lawsuit isn’t about truth, justice, or even common sense. It’s lawfare, plain and simple.

Environmental extremists are using the courts to hijack national energy policy, aiming to force through a radical agenda they could never pass in Congress. A courtroom win would mean higher energy prices for everyone, the potential bankruptcy of energy companies, or their takeover by the so-called green industrial complex. For the trial lawyers, these cases are gold mines, with contingency fees that could reach hundreds of millions.

This particular lawsuit was reportedly pitched to Leon’s daughter by the left-leaning Center for Climate Integrity, a group bankrolled by billionaire British national Christopher Hohn through his Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and by the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s yet another meritless claim in the endless list of climate lawsuits that are increasingly being tossed out of courts across the country.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge threw out a climate nuisance suit against oil producers brought by Bucks County, citing lack of jurisdiction. In New York, Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed a massive climate lawsuit by New York City, pointing out the city couldn’t claim both public awareness and deception by oil companies in the same breath.

But the Washington State case goes even further, threatening to set a dangerous precedent: if it moves forward, energy companies could face limitless liability for any weather-related injury. Worse, it would give unwarranted credibility to the idea — floated by a leftwing activist before the U.S. Senate — that energy executives could be prosecuted for homicide, a notion that Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rightly called “moonbeam, wacky theory.”

The courts must keep rejecting these absurd lawfare stunts. More importantly, America’s energy policy should be set by Congress—elected and accountable—not by a single judge in a municipal courtroom.

Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

Published on July 14, 2025

By

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Cody Ciona

‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’

Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.

Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.

That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.

“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.

Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.

In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.

According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.

The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.

For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.

“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.

“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”

As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.

“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.

Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.

“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.

“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

Continue Reading

Trending

X