First Nations Buy Into Pipelines

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

“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].

Up Next

Poll shows Canadians want to shrink bureaucracy

Don't Miss

From Sippy Cups to Solar Panels: Why a Blanket Ban on Plastics Misses the Mark

Todayville

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

CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place

International / 9 hours ago

Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing

Energy / 9 hours ago

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on November 18, 2024

Todayville

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.