Former Insurance Expert Continues To Raise Questions Regarding Northern Gateway

Monday, July 9th, 2012

(Vancouver, BC) The BC Métis Federation has taken a position against the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project this past April and since this time has raised a number of serious questions about how the Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) can be justified in their support of this project. One of the three reasons for the resolution against the project was that the project was not with the
environmental risks.

A recent article in the Times Columnist dated July 6th titled “Expert voices fears over oil-spill liability” provides more reasons for further  concern about the risk to Métis people and all British Columbians. The article is statements from Robyn Allan who was the former chief executive for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).

BC Métis Federation President Henry stated, “This article is a must read. What I believe is many Métis people in BC and Alberta likely do not fully realize Enbridge has structured the Northern Gateway Limited Partnership as a separate company. Essentially I understand that Enbridge will be one of a few owners and when and if a spill occurs how will this be addressed? Enbridge can claim their insurance will cover such costs, etc. but how is Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership going to function as a company? Who are the directors? What is the risk to any Aboriginal community who has signed on to the limited partnership.”

BC Métis Federation President Henry concluded, “The MNBC announced in May, as the Métis Provincial Council of British Columbia, that they are one of the equity partners and agreed to support the project. The MNBC letter makes statements that are inaccurate about the deal itself and BC Métis Federation will be making a submission to the Joint Review Panel this week to further address the MNBC’s improper
representation regarding this matter. MNBC leadership and staff do not communicate any of the proposed risks and this article raises a significant point that I hope all Métis people research and come to better understand, especially in light of the recent Enbridge spill in Alberta and the major fine for the spill in 2010 in Michigan.”

Keith Henry
President
BC Métis Federation
#300-3665 Kingsway, Vancouver, BC, V5R 5W2
Office 1-604-638-7220
Cell 1-778-388-5013
Email k.henry@bcmetis.com

You can follow BC Métis Federation President Keith Henry on twitter @keithhenryMetis

Download this press release in PDF format Download the MNBC Memo to Presidents in PDF format

,

5 Responses to Former Insurance Expert Continues To Raise Questions Regarding Northern Gateway

  1. Marlene July 9, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    This is very scary indeed, perhaps chartered communities should be prepared to ask for more clarity on this issue; because I doubt very much if there is enough”Metis” money to pay a law suit of such magnitude when a spill occurs. And if there is Metis insurance; what was the cost of that and from what funding pot? etc.

  2. George and Terry Goulet July 10, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    For an excellent video giving an economic analysis of the Northern Gateway Pipelines Proposal by an eloquent Robyn Allan, google the BCMF article “BCMF Enbridge Pipeline Spills…” of June 20, 2012 and scroll down to our remarks of June 23/12. A link to the video of Robyn and to her 11 page paper appears there.

    Also on the APTN National News last night, Gabriel George of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation adjacent to Burrard Inlet announced that the Nation was opposed to both Northern Gateway and the Kinder Morgan expansion. In the case of Kinder Morgan, the Nation suffered effects from a Kinder Morgan pipeline rupture in 2007 that spilled over 200,000 liters of oil in the Burnet Highway-Hastings area.

    LONG LIVE THE METIS

    Dominus Vobiscum

    George and Terry Goulet

    Dominus Vobiscum

    George and Terry Goulet

  3. Richard Lucier-larson July 10, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Tansi all:

    An interesting report on CHEK T V of Victoria B.C. , an independent local owned station usually favourable to business interests.
    On the 6:30 p.m. news a report from the U.S. and the U.S regulatory agency on Oil Pipelines ,reporting on the Enbridge Oil Spill in the Kalamazoo River a couple of years ago.
    The agency’s first person reporting labelled the owners of the “Keystone pipelines as acting like Keystone Cops in their 17 hour delay in shutting down the oil spilling out of badly corroded pipeline”, A fair amount of criticism from the agency over Enbridge’s actions .
    The C.E.O. of Enbridge was not looking happy and when asked for a comment as to what will happen in the future, replied ” Yes it can happen again, but we will do our best to ensure no damage etc ”

    So there you have it, it’s not If But When.
    Richard Lucier-larson

  4. Keith Henry July 11, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    Good morning Marlane,

    I do not think the communities would be liable as a “limited partner” but there needs to be tough questions about whether MNBC leaders signed on (as we know without consultation) given these types of legal risks. Did they get their own legal opinion? What did it say?

    The larger issue for me if Enbridge could be less than a 50% owner or shareholder of the Northern Gateway Limited Partnership. Are they and if so who are the other business partners? We know today 10% was offered to Aboriginal communities so how is the other 90% owned?

    Remember also that in theory Enbridge could sell their shares and ownership to another buyer at any time. What is the business model here really should be seriously questioned.

    Hope this assists.

  5. Richard Lucier-larson July 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Tansi all:
    Word from Victoria:

    “Victoria City Council has been approached to support the campaign Canadians for the Great Bear, which opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline and the expansion of crude oil and bitumen exports via tankers along the BC coast. Background materials on this campaign are attached.

    The UBCM passed two motions opposing the Northern Gateway Pipeline in 2010 and since then the cities and towns of Terrace, Whistler, Prince Rupert, Nelson, Smithers and the Regional District of Queen Charlotte have passed similar motions. Recently, the City of Victoria passed a motion opposing the expansion of oil tanker traffic along the BC Coast.

    This motion is more specific to the Northern Gateway Pipeline project and the significant risk it poses to our coastal communities and the economic risk the pipeline poses to all British Columbians.”

Leave a Reply