Indigenous communities await Trans Mountain pipeline share

Ottawa’s Commitment to 30 percent Indigenous Stake in Trans Mountain Pipeline Still Awaiting Confirmation.

Indigenous leaders in Western Canada have been waiting for months for confirmation that the federal government will indeed enable Indigenous Peoples to get a 30 percent share in the Trans Mountain oil pipeline system.

That Ottawa has such a share in mind has been confirmed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She says Ottawa is looking at possibly offering a loan guarantee to First Nations.

“They wanted to get the Indigenous partners to own 30 per cent. . . . It’s going to be a great source of income for the Indigenous partners.”

With the pipeline system’s capacity set to almost triple through the expansion project known as TMX, the federal government first announced in 2019, its intention to explore the possibility of the economic participation of 129 affected Indigenous Peoples.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland sent Indigenous leaders a letter last August outlining a plan to sell a stake in the pipeline system to eligible communities through a special-purpose vehicle. It said they would not have to risk any of their own money to participate.

But since then Indigenous groups have been awaiting further word from federal authorities on how and when the equity promise will be kept.

All Ottawa has said publicly is this on May 1: “The federal government will launch a divestment process in due course.”

Two key groups have aired proposals for acquiring equity in the oil pipeline:

The Western Indigenous Pipeline Group was formed in 2018 “ to acquire a major stake in Trans Mountain for the benefit of Indigenous communities who live along the pipeline.” It’s been working behind the scenes, and, with Pembina Pipelines Corporation, developed in 2021 the Chinook Pathways operating partnership.

“Chinook Pathways is finance ready. There are no capital contributions required for Indigenous communities. We will structure the transaction so that participating communities will make zero financial contribution.”

Project Reconciliation, also founded in 2018, proposed a ”framework” that would give ownership of the pipeline system to 129 Indigenous Peoples.
“We are poised to facilitate Indigenous ownership of up to 100 percent, fostering economic autonomy and environmental responsibility.”

And: “A portion of revenue generated (portion directed by each Indigenous community) will be used to establish the Indigenous Sovereign Wealth Fund, supporting investment in infrastructure, clean energy projects and renewable technologies.”

A third group, the Alberta-based Iron Coalition, announced interest in TMX in 2019, but apparently dropped out in 2020.

In Alberta, the pipeline system spans the territories of Treaty 6, Treaty 8, and the Métis Nation of Alberta (Zone 4). In British Columbia, the system crosses numerous traditional territories and 15 First Nation reserves.

Commentator Joseph Quesnel writes: “According to Trans Mountain, there have been 73,000 points of contact with Indigenous communities throughout Alberta and British Columbia as the expansion was developed and constructed. . . .

“Beyond formal Indigenous engagement, the project proponent conducted numerous environmental and engineering field studies. These included studies drawing on deep Indigenous input, such as traditional ecological knowledge studies, traditional land use studies, and traditional marine land use studies.”

And Alberta’s Canadian Energy Centre reported: “In addition to $4.9 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses during construction, the project leaves behind more than $650 million in benefit agreements and $1.2 billion in skills training with Indigenous communities.”

Not all First Nations have been happy with the expansion project.

In 2018, the federal appeal court ruled that Ottawa had failed to consider the concerns of several nations that challenged the project. In 2019, the project was re-approved by Ottawa, and again several nations (including the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh) appealed. That appeal was dismissed in 2020. The nations then went to the Supreme Court of Canada, but it declined to hear the case.

Private company Kinder Morgan originally proposed the expansion project, but when it threatened to back out in 2018, the federal government stepped in and bought the existing pipeline, and the expansion project, for $4.5-billion. Ottawa said it was “a necessary and serious investment in the national interest.”

Ottawa at that time estimated that the total cost of the expansion project would come in around $7.4 billion. But cost overruns have since driven the final price to some $34 billion.

On the other hand, Ernst & Young found that between 2024 and 2043, the expanded Trans Mountain system will pay $3.7 billion in wages, generate $9.2 billion in GDP, and pay $2.8 billion in government taxes.

The TMX expansion twinned the 1953 Trans Mountain pipeline from near Edmonton to Burnaby (1,150 km) and increased the system’s capacity to 890,000 barrels a day from 300,000 barrels a day.

The original pipeline will carry refined products, synthetic crude oils, and light crude oils with the capability for heavy crude oils. The new pipeline will primarily carry heavier oils but can also transport lighter oils.

And the Alberta Energy Regulator says it expects oilsands production to grow by more than 17 per cent by 2033 (increasing to four million barrels a day from 3.4 million in 2023). And it expects global oil prices will continue to rise.

The TMX expansion finally opened and began to fill on May 1 this year.

And, as our CEO Stewart Muir noted, there was a quick reduction of eight cents a litre in gasoline prices for Vancouver due to completion of the project.

From Trans Mountain’s Westridge Marine Terminal at Burnaby, around three million barrels of oil have been shipped to China or India since the TMX expansion opened.

But because the port of Vancouver can handle only smaller Aframax tankers, more than half the oil has first been shipped to California, where it is then transferred to much larger VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) tankers. That makes for a longer but potentially cheaper journey.

At Westridge, because of limited tanker size, cargoes are limited to about 600,000 barrels per Aframax vessel. The largest VLCCs can carry two million barrels of oil. Westridge now can handle 34 Aframax tankers per month.

Some 20 tankers loaded oil there in June, a couple fewer than TMX had hoped for.

“This first month is just shy of the 350,000-400,000 bpd (barrels a day) we expected ahead of the startup,” said shipping analyst Matt Smith. “We are still in the discovery phase, with kinks being ironed out . . . but in the grand scheme of things, this has been a solid start.”

The Dubai Angel became the first Aframax tanker to load at Westridge. It took on 550,000 barrels of Alberta crude in the last week of May, and headed for the port of Zhoushan, China.

Now the Dubai Angel is headed to Burnaby for another load, and is expected to arrive there on July 8.

Related Topics:#ChinookPathways #ResourceWorks #TMX #TransMountainPipeline #WesternIndigenousPipelineGroup

Up Next

Federal government’s bloated bureaucracy needs an immediate overhaul

Don't Miss

Returning Trump To The White House Would Reverse Biden’s ‘Energy Ideocracy

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

Four of Canada’s top banks ditch UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate alliance

National / 2 hours ago

77% of Canadians want immediate election amid Trump tariff threats: poll

conflict / 3 hours ago

Trump Fails to End Ukraine War on Day 1

Daily Caller

Trump Moves To Reverse Biden’s Green New Deal Agenda — With A Special Focus On Wind

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Shares of big Danish offshore wind developer Orsted dropped by 17% Monday, the same day President Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 47^th president of the United States. The two events are not merely coincidental with one another.

To be sure, Orsted’s loss of market cap was caused by several factors, including both the general slowing of the offshore wind business, and Orsted’s own announcement that it will incur a $1.69 billion impairment charge related to its Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New York. Company CEO Mads Nipper attributed the charge to delays and cost increases and said the project completion date is now delayed to the second half of 2027.

But there can be little doubt that the raft of energy-related executive orders signed by Trump also contributed to the drop in Orsted’s stock price. As part of a Day 1 agenda consisting of a reported 196 executive orders, the new president took dead aim at reversing the Biden Green New Deal agenda in general, with a special focus on wind power projects on federal lands and waters.

In addition to general orders declaring a national energy emergency and pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords (for a second time), Trump signed a separate order titled, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” That long-winded title (pardon the pun) is quite descriptive of what the order is designed to accomplish.

Section 1 of this order withdraws “from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331.” Somewhat ironically, this is the same OCSLA cited in early January by former President Joe Biden when he set 625 million acres of federal offshore waters off limits to oil and gas leasing and drilling into perpetuity.

As with Biden’s LNG permitting pause, the fourth paragraph of Section 1 in Trump’s order states that “Nothing in this withdrawal affects rights under existing leases in the withdrawn areas.” However, the same paragraph goes on to subject those existing leases to review by the secretary of the Interior, who is charged with conducting “a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases, identifying any legal bases for such removal, and submit a report with recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.”

Observant readers will know that the parameters of this order as it relates to offshore wind are essentially the same as a proposal I suggested in a previous piece here on Jan. 1. So, obviously, it receives the Blackmon Seal of Approval.

But we should also note that Trump goes even further, extending this freeze to onshore wind projects as well. While the rationale for the freeze in offshore leasing and permitting cites factors unique to the offshore like harm to marine mammals, ocean currents and the marine fishing industry, the rationale supporting the onshore freeze cites “environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills and deliver a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, with their findings and recommended authorities to require the removal of such windmills.”

This gets at concerns long held by me and many others that neither the federal government nor any state government has seen fit to require the proper, complete tear down and safe disposal of these massive wind turbines, blades, towers and foundations once they outlive their useful lives. In most jurisdictions, wind operators are free to just abandon the projects and leave the equipment to dilapidate and rot.

The dirty secret of the wind industry, whether onshore or offshore, is that it is not sustainable without consistent new injections of more and more subsidies, along with the tacit refusal by governments to properly regulate its operations. Trump and his team understand this reality and should be applauded for taking real action to address it.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Business

Debunking the myth of the ‘new economy’

Published on January 22, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

Where the money comes from isn’t hard to see – if you look at the facts

In British Columbia, the economy is sometimes discussed through the lens of a “new economy” focused on urbanization, high-tech innovation, and creative industries. However, this perspective frequently overlooks the foundational role that the province’s natural resource industries play in generating the income that fuels public services, infrastructure, and daily life.

The Economic Reality

British Columbia’s economy is highly urbanized, with 85% of the population living in urban areas as of the 2021 Census, concentrated primarily in the Lower Mainland and the Capital Regional District.
These metropolitan regions contribute significantly to economic activity, particularly in population-serving sectors like retail, healthcare, and education. However, much of the province’s income—what we call the “first dollar”—originates in the non-metropolitan resource regions.

Natural resources remain the backbone of British Columbia’s economy. Industries such as forestry, mining, energy, and agriculture generate export revenue that flows into the provincial economy, supporting urban and rural communities alike. These sectors are not only vital for direct employment but also underpin metropolitan economic activities through the export income they generate.

They also pay taxes, fees, royalties, and more to governments, thus supporting public services and programs.

Exports: The Tap Filling the Economic Bathtub

The analogy of a bathtub aptly describes the provincial economy:

Exports are the water entering the tub, representing income from goods and services sold outside the province.
Imports are the water draining out, as money leaves the province to purchase external goods and services.
The population-serving sector circulates water within the tub, but it depends entirely on the level of water maintained by exports.

In British Columbia, international exports have historically played a critical role. In 2022, the province exported $56 billion worth of goods internationally, led by forestry products, energy, and minerals. While metropolitan areas may handle the logistics and administration of these exports, the resources themselves—and the wealth they generate—are predominantly extracted and processed in rural and resource-rich regions.

Metropolitan Contributions and Limitations

Although metropolitan regions like Vancouver and Victoria are often seen as economic powerhouses, they are not self-sustaining engines of growth. These cities rely heavily on income generated by resource exports, which enable the public services and infrastructure that support urban living. Without the wealth generated in resource regions, the urban economy would struggle to maintain its standard of living.

For instance, while tech and creative industries are growing in prominence, they remain a smaller fraction of the provincial economy compared to traditional resource industries. The resource sectors accounted for nearly 9% of provincial GDP in 2022, while the tech sector contributed approximately 7%.

Moreover, resource exports are critical for maintaining a positive trade balance, ensuring that the “economic bathtub” remains full.

A Call for Balanced Economic Policy

Policymakers and urban leaders must recognize the disproportionate contribution of British Columbia’s resource regions to the provincial economy. While urban areas drive innovation and service-based activities, these rely on the income generated by resource exports. Efforts to increase taxation or regulatory burdens on resource industries risk undermining the very foundation of provincial prosperity.

Furthermore, metropolitan regions should actively support resource-based industries through partnerships, infrastructure development, and advocacy. A balanced economic strategy—rooted in both urban and resource region contributions—is essential to ensure long-term sustainability and equitable growth across British Columbia.

At least B.C. Premier David Eby has begun to promise that “a new responsible, sustainable development of natural resources will be a core focus of our government,” and has told resource leaders that “Our government will work with you to eliminate unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic processes.” Those leaders await the results.

Conclusion

British Columbia’s prosperity is deeply interconnected, with urban centres and resource regions playing complementary roles. However, the evidence is clear: the resource sectors, particularly in the northern half of the province, remain the primary engines of economic growth. Acknowledging and supporting these industries is not only fair but also critical to sustaining the provincial economy and the public services that benefit all British Columbians.