From the Canadian Energy Centre 

By Deborah Jaremko and Will Gibson

“Canada’s Indigenous communities need projects, not lawsuits that hold them up”

From the outset, projects must unite leadership from proponents, governments and affected First Nations

The head of the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) is calling for the repeal of the oil tanker ban on B.C.’s north coast as Canada seeks “nation-building” projects to strengthen economic independence.

With short shipping times to hungry Asian markets, ports like Prince Rupert or Kitimat offer a strong business case – but only if the tankers can dock.

“No proponent is going to look at investing in a pipeline to the north coast with that kind of legislation in place,” says NCC founder and CEO Dale Swampy.

Formed in 2016, the NCC is a group of pro-development First Nation leaders including some who were equity partners in the cancelled Northern Gateway pipeline from Edmonton to Kitimat.

Canada’s Indigenous communities need projects, not lawsuits that hold them up, he says.

Original map of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, submitted to regulators as part of a preliminary information package in October 2005. Map courtesy Canada Energy Regulator

Northern Gateway and the tanker ban

The tanker ban and Northern Gateway are intrinsically linked.

The moratorium contributed to the loss of Indigenous ownership stakes and an estimated $2 billion in economic opportunity for First Nations and Métis communities.

“We have consistently spoken up against this legislation, which directly affects the ability of our communities to participate in developing resources,” Swampy says.

With the aim to diversify markets for Canadian oil by reaching customers in Asia, Enbridge announced Northern Gateway in 2004.

The project’s 7,800-page regulatory application to the National Energy Board (NEB) – including more than 1,600 pages specific to marine safety – followed in May 2010.

In December 2013, after extensive assessment and public hearings, including with Indigenous communities, a three-member Joint Review Panel from the NEB and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency recommended the project to go ahead.

In June 2014, the federal government approved Northern Gateway with 209 conditions, including a requirement to fulfill over 400 voluntary commitments, many tied to marine safety.

After receiving approval, Northern Gateway’s management team and the project’s Aboriginal Equity Partners proposed an increase in Indigenous ownership from 10 per cent to 33 per cent.

They also created a joint governance structure where the communities and the company would have an equal voice.

The modified project would also incorporate First Nations and Métis environmental stewardship and monitoring using traditional science.

Meanwhile, legal actions were underway by environmental groups and Indigenous communities outside the equity partners.

By December 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal had consolidated multiple cases challenging the project’s approval.

Blocking the Northern Gateway pipeline and enacting a moratorium on oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s north coast became cornerstones of the Liberal Party’s 2015 election platform.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act legislated moratorium area, 2017. Map courtesy Transport Canada

In November 2015, just a week after being sworn in, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instructed his transport minister to “formalize” the ban, a major setback for Northern Gateway.

Five months later, in June 2016 the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the government’s approval for the project, ruling that Canada had failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities.

In November 2016, Trudeau officially rejected Northern Gateway, devastating hopes for the bands that would have become equity partners.

“Thirty-one of the 40 First Nations and Métis communities who were located on Northern Gateway’s right-of-way supported the pipeline, but a couple of communities backed by environmental groups were able to stop the entire project,” Swampy says.

“That’s not fair or democratic.”

In May 2017, Bill C-48, also known as the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, was formally introduced in the House of Commons.

Indigenous communities stripped of opportunity

At the time, Swampy told the Financial Post that the communities saw the decision to reject Northern Gateway as political and not acting in the best interests of Canadians.

“They weren’t asked about the financial effect, the lost employment,” he said.

The implications of the tanker ban go far beyond the West Coast, Indian Resources Council CEO Stephen Buffalo told the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in March 2019.

Buffalo joined Swampy and other Indigenous leaders to speak to the committee as part of its consideration of Bill C-48.

Representing more than 130 First Nations that produce or have the potential to produce oil and gas, he said community prosperity is closely tied to the sector.

“The industry is suffering greatly from the lack of pipeline access…We need access to new markets to obtain fair value for our oil resources,” Buffalo said.

“We are struggling with addictions and depression, and people are losing hope. If we are ever going to make faster progress on these issues, our First Nations communities need more own-source revenues to fund cultural programs, sports programs or health activities for our young people,” he said.

“We need more jobs available for our people. We need them to earn good wages — wages that can support their families. Right now, Bill C-48 and other policies threaten all of that for us.”

Buffalo questioned the necessity of the tanker ban.

“I think all First Nations would support development of strict regulations that protect the environment, but that’s different from arbitrarily stopping just Canadian oil tanker activity,” he said.

The Senate approved the tanker ban and it became law upon Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

Shifting times and new pipelines

Six years and the threat of U.S. tariffs later, the view on Canadian oil pipelines — and, potentially, the tanker ban itself — is shifting.

Growing public support for pipelines in recent opinion polls has encouraged Swampy.

So, too, has the change in attitudes towards development by coastal First Nations that have experienced the benefits of working with industry.

“Many of the coastal First Nations in northwestern B.C. are either building or looking at building LNG facilities. They appreciate the fact prosperity can be gained by partnering on these projects,” he says.

The NCC wants to see that same opportunity for the communities that would have benefited from Northern Gateway, through a new oil pipeline proposal to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert.

“We are hoping providing some certainty with Indigenous consultation and participation will give proponents some certainty they have a willing partner,” Swampy says.

To avoid lawsuits that delay or cancel projects and drive developers out of Canada, Swampy says agreements must, from the outset, unite leadership from proponents, governments and affected First Nations.

“We hope governments hear our message: we want projects, not lawsuits,” he says.

“Communities don’t need a cheque or a handout. They need the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way.”

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Trump administration has an opportunity to free the U.S. of draconian climate regulations and directives the European Union (EU) has imposed on American oil and gas companies for years, energy sector experts and industry insiders told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Though the Trump administration made a major trade deal with the EU in July that benefitted American energy, the EU still imposes a number of climate regulations and directives that drive up U.S. energy costs, according to some energy policy experts. The Trump administration is positioned to pressure the EU into a fairer trading atmosphere and ease burdens on the American energy sector, industry insiders told the DCNF.

“It’s going to take the pressure of the Trump administration in the trade negotiations to get the EU to back down from these extraterritorial regulations imposed on American companies, including U.S. oil and natural gas producers,” Vice President of Corporate Policy at the American Petroleum Institute (API) Aaron Padilla told the DCNF. “The EU should not make it more difficult for companies to provide the energy that their consumers need.”

Trump has threatened the EU with tariffs to buy American oil and gas, and part of the major July trade deal required the EU to purchase $750 billion in American energy by 2028.

“The Administration continues to address trade barriers against every American industry with our trading partners, and commitments from the EU, Japan, South Korea, and other countries to buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American energy over the next few years reflect how President Trump is delivering on his agenda of fair trade and drill, baby, drill,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told the DCNF.

Tammy Nemeth, a strategic energy analyst, told the DCNF that the climate regulations and directives are burdensome to American oil and gas companies. Nemeth argues that these regulations increase costs on U.S. businesses and Americans as companies hoping to do business in the EU have to wrestle with layers of red tape and adopt a net-zero transition plan. It is difficult to estimate, but compliance with EU climate regulations and directives can add significant costs, according to Nemeth.

“I think if companies are approaching [these non-tariff barriers] with open eyes, they’ll say we need the government to help us maybe eliminate some of these non-tariff barriers, because if the compliance costs [equate to a] 10 to 30% increase, then that’s something that they have to pass on, not just to those to whom they’re exporting, but also domestically, because those are costs that are borne by the entire company,” Nemeth told the DCNF. “[These non-tariff barriers] could therefore increase costs to Americans, not just passing it on only to the Europeans, because all of those bureaucratic structures have to be established within the company, and that’s cost they have to absorb or pass on in some way.”

If American oil and gas companies decide to not comply with the climate regulations, they can be heavily fined or essentially forced out of trading with the EU, Nemeth said.

“It’s really quite absurd,” Nemeth said, noting that the EU already requires a significant amount of red tape and environmental reporting paperwork. Nemeth added that all the reporting also can open companies up to environmental litigation.

API has generally supported President Donald Trump’s energy policy and praised his April decision to exempt oil and gas from new reciprocal tariffs, however, the trade association argues that now is the time to force the EU into relaxing its non-tariff barriers. API has asked the Trump administration to negotiate EU non-tariff barriers, including the CSDDD and the EU methane regulation, to ease burdens on American oil and gas companies hoping to do business in the EU, Padilla noted.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework on Tuesday, stating that the U.S. “will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists.”

An EU official told the DCNF that negotiations with the U.S. are still ongoing, though any amendments to EU legislation would represent a non-negotiable boundary for the EU.

Energy costs have been a major concern for European officials following the 2022 spike in prices, which hit the continent’s economies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and weaponization of its natural gas supply. Many European countries are also devoted to a green energy transition as the continent faces high electricity prices and grid instability.

Notably, several European countries have recently moved to rethink or reverse their anti-nuclear pledges in search of a sustainable energy resource.

“We say to the Europeans, you don’t need to put these non-tariff barriers into place. The only result of them is going to be to make it more expensive and difficult for Europeans to import the energy that they need from the United States. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” Padilla said. “You need oil and you need natural gas from the United States, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So, don’t make it more difficult to get that energy that you need from the United States.”

Nemeth and other energy policy experts argued that these non-tariff barriers work to benefit EU oil and gas companies and disincentivize American companies from competing in the European market.

“For years, the European Union has used trade policy as a backdoor to impose its climate agenda on American businesses. Their reporting rules and carbon tariffs aren’t about saving the planet, they’re about controlling markets and kneecapping competitors,” CEO and founder of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told the DCNF. “As President Trump negotiates with the EU, the first order of business must include a clear commitment to scrap these schemes. The United States should set the terms and not let European bureaucrats punish American energy.”