Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
People in the NWT have a lot to lose if the United States government approves the extension of a pipeline that will pump crude bitumen from the oil sands in Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas, says Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus.

Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus participated in Keystone XL protests and U.S. congressional hearings to draw attention to how the proposed pipeline from Northern Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico will affect NWT lands that are downstream from the oil sands. - NNSL file photo

"(Dene people are concerned) because we are downstream,” he said. “If this pipeline is approved, then that means they will expand the tar sands.”

Erasmus has been actively opposing the projects, travelling to Ottawa on Sept. 26 to participate in the protests against the Keystone XL expansion project. He also participated in the congressional hearings – and coinciding protest – in Washington, D.C. from Oct. 5 to Oct. 7.

“An extension means more tailings ponds and more use of water and we're feeling the effects,” said Erasmus on why he participated in these events. “The tailings ponds, they're toxic. There is something to the effect of 700 square miles of tailings ponds in Alberta and they leech into the water and into the environment, and we still don't know the effects of that.

“In our meeting with the Secretary of State, they told us that they have commissioned an independent body to look at the risk assessment, which we believe is a good thing because it's detached from industry and it's detached from government,” said Erasmus. “And it helps them look at the risks involved, which includes the downstream risks.”

Erasmus brought a document called the Mother Earth Accord to the hearing in the United States. Created at the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Emergency Summit held in Sept. 2011, the accord, which calls for a moratorium on oil sands development, contains 21 declarations, including one that points to a study by the National Academy of Sciences that states the oil sands has leeched at least 13 toxic pollutants – including lead and arsenic – into the Athabasca river, “which flows 3,000 miles downstream to the Arctic Ocean,” it reads.The study contradicts industry claims that increased contamination is from natural sources.

With the accord, Erasmus brought 60 pages of signatures from those who support the document. Supporters include the Green and NDP parties of Canada, and Erasmus was hopeful that the federal Liberal party would also be signing the document soon.

“We need to do research. We need to study this, we need to understand it before we move any further to expansion," he said.

The Canadian government has come out in strong support of the project, and for the oil sands in general. In early January 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of the Environment Peter Kent issued statements defending the oil sands, both saying that Alberta oil was an “ethical” alternative for U.S. consumers when compared with most other imported oil.

Expanding the pipeline would mean the oil sands would have to increase production by hundreds of thousands of barrels a day, and that means more jobs for Canadians. A study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute projected that the 75,000 jobs the oil sands provided in 2010 could expand to 905,000 jobs in 2035 if expansion projects go ahead. The report states that 126,000 of these jobs would be outside Alberta.

However, for Erasmus, the environmental impact of the oil sands and construction of the pipeline outweighs any potential jobs, and says that participation in the recent protests against Keystone XL prove this.

"There's a huge wave of opposition to the pipeline,” said Erasmus, adding that at the Washington hearings, he heard from many different kinds of people, from United States. city mayors, to businessmen to the environmentalists you would expect to be at such an event – and they all opposed the Keystone pipeline.

"What we're advocating is that this whole proposal originated under the Bush administration and so it's the old way of doing business,” said Erasmus. “And what President Barack Obama can do is say that this is no longer the plan of the US and that they have a new plan on how to move forward in a sustainable way.”

Concerns about the environmental sustainability of expanding the oil sands and building the extended pipeline are not the only issues being raised. States in the path of the Keystone XL are questioning what would happen if the pipe were to leak.

A disgruntled former construction inspector for the original pipeline, which started moving oil in 2010, said that line has leaked at least 14 times because of sub-par construction standards.

Mike Klink, civil engineer based in Indiana who worked for Bechtel in North and South Dakota on the original Keystone pipeline construction was a sub-contractor for TransCanada, the Calgary-based company in charge of the Keystone project.

During his time on the Keystone project, Klink witnessed many problems with the quality of construction, including improperly installed reinforced steel, poorly cured concrete and fudging soil compaction tests at pump stations along the line, as well as poor overall quality in the steel of the pipeline itself. Klink said the steel, shipped in from India and China, would split and had problems being welded.

“So, the longevity of it (the pipeline) is not going to be as long, especially with the abrasive tar sands oil running through it," said Klink.

"I reported (issues) back to my supervisor who then supposedly was supposed to report them back to TransCanada. And the main thing that I got back from my boss and the TransCanada people was: 'well, it's in the middle of nowhere, who the hell cares?' "Klink eventually lost his job on the pipeline in Sept. 2009, which he alleges is because he was so outspoken about quality issues and there were national inspectors coming to visit the area he was working on.

Losing his job hasn’t made Klink any less outspoken on the problems with the pipeline. He was also in Washington and made a presentation in front of congress during the hearings.

“That’s the biggest thing I can say is: it just shouldn’t be built period,” said Klink. “It should be shut down and the tar sands should be shut down for the reasons I gave you.”

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.