Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[Colin Parkinson]

Question: How many of those 'small Independent Power Producers' were Ingenious owned/operated?

Not a lot, particularly in the first wave. We got 400 Applications just between Squamish and Lillooet. Most were "Claim staking", in hopes of selling a partly started project to someone with the means to finish it. However my favorite Indigenous owned one which has been a super success is this one: Atlin's Hydro Opportunity Working with Peter Kirby from the band on this one was a great time and great project. I rea;;y admire him for his hard work and vision.

 

[MilEME09]

Exactly.

The whole thing was a set up to stifle Canadian oil exports (except to the US), period.

Enbridges own report lists navigation issues in prince Rupert due to shallow water, but to me the solution is simple, dredge it to make it safer, or build the loading pier off shore where its less shallow. The issue is BC and FN will use every legal challenge possible to tie up a pipeline in the courts. Question to the group, would using the NWC work in this situation to prevent legal challenges? mind you, you would still need a ridiculous amount of security given protests as well as late night attacks that have happened on work camps to try and delay work.

 

[Kirkhill]

Plan B

Increase Alberta exports to Anacortes and pay the US a handling charge.

 

[QV]

Plan B

Increase Alberta exports to Anacortes and pay the US a handling charge.

Exactly. And triple the pipes heading straight south. If Canadian's don't want to play on team Canada, to hell with them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

They'll probably be unsuccessful in their challenge, which leaves the way 'legally open' for any future pipeline...

Dual court challenges seek to revoke controversial B.C. pipeline permit​

Over two days last week, a Gitxsan chief and a coalition of community and environmental groups launched separate court battles seeking to revoke the permit for the Prince Rupert Pipeline Project.

The B.C. government and the proponent of a controversial gas pipeline are facing two challenges in the province’s Supreme Court seeking to revoke the project’s environmental certificate.

Last week, Gitxsan Nation hereditary chief Charles Wright (also known as Luutkudziiwus) filed a request for a judicial review alleging the government failed to consult the hereditary chief and incorrectly declared the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) project as “substantially started.”

Roughly 900 kilometres long, once completed, the PRGT project is meant to transport natural gas from Hudson’s Hope in northeastern B.C. to either Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert, or to the proposed Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas export terminal 82 kilometres north of the coastal city. From there, gas would be super-cooled into a liquid and exported overseas to Asian markets.

The original proponent of the pipeline estimated it would generate $80 million in operating spending every year, while the province claims Ksi Lisims could contribute up to $15.5 billion in GDP to the B.C. economy over 30 years.

“We want to be clear that this isn’t about stopping the PRGT project,” Wright said in a statement Monday. “We hold rights and title to our territory, and we have a duty to fulfil our stewardship responsibilities under our own laws. That means no pipelines in Madii Lii territory.”

A “substantially started” designation represents a critical milestone that provides regulatory certainty to a project proponent and its investors by removing the expiry date from its primary permit. From a major regulatory perspective, the project is effectively de-risked, which can unlock financing, accelerate further construction, and shorten the overall timeline to operation.

In the case of the PRGT pipeline, B.C.’s Minister of the Environment and Parks and the head of its Environmental Assessment Office approved the “substantially started” designation on June 5, 2025.

The original environmental certificate — which the province handed to the proponents in 2014 and was set to expire in November 2024 — now remains valid for the lifetime of the project.

https://www.biv.com/news/resources-agriculture/dual-court-challenges-seek-to-revoke-controversial-bc-pipeline-permit-11281531

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I reviewed that pipeline route for navigability issues.

 

[MilEME09]

They'll probably be unsuccessful in their challenge, which leaves the way 'legally open' for any future pipeline...

Dual court challenges seek to revoke controversial B.C. pipeline permit​

Over two days last week, a Gitxsan chief and a coalition of community and environmental groups launched separate court battles seeking to revoke the permit for the Prince Rupert Pipeline Project.

The B.C. government and the proponent of a controversial gas pipeline are facing two challenges in the province’s Supreme Court seeking to revoke the project’s environmental certificate.

Last week, Gitxsan Nation hereditary chief Charles Wright (also known as Luutkudziiwus) filed a request for a judicial review alleging the government failed to consult the hereditary chief and incorrectly declared the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) project as “substantially started.”

Roughly 900 kilometres long, once completed, the PRGT project is meant to transport natural gas from Hudson’s Hope in northeastern B.C. to either Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert, or to the proposed Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas export terminal 82 kilometres north of the coastal city. From there, gas would be super-cooled into a liquid and exported overseas to Asian markets.

The original proponent of the pipeline estimated it would generate $80 million in operating spending every year, while the province claims Ksi Lisims could contribute up to $15.5 billion in GDP to the B.C. economy over 30 years.

“We want to be clear that this isn’t about stopping the PRGT project,” Wright said in a statement Monday. “We hold rights and title to our territory, and we have a duty to fulfil our stewardship responsibilities under our own laws. That means no pipelines in Madii Lii territory.”

A “substantially started” designation represents a critical milestone that provides regulatory certainty to a project proponent and its investors by removing the expiry date from its primary permit. From a major regulatory perspective, the project is effectively de-risked, which can unlock financing, accelerate further construction, and shorten the overall timeline to operation.

In the case of the PRGT pipeline, B.C.’s Minister of the Environment and Parks and the head of its Environmental Assessment Office approved the “substantially started” designation on June 5, 2025.

The original environmental certificate — which the province handed to the proponents in 2014 and was set to expire in November 2024 — now remains valid for the lifetime of the project.

https://www.biv.com/news/resources-agriculture/dual-court-challenges-seek-to-revoke-controversial-bc-pipeline-permit-11281531

Here's the stupid issue of elected vs hereditary chief's again

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Enbridges own report lists navigation issues in prince Rupert due to shallow water, but to me the solution is simple, dredge it to make it safer, or build the loading pier off shore where its less shallow. The issue is BC and FN will use every legal challenge possible to tie up a pipeline in the courts. Question to the group, would using the NWC work in this situation to prevent legal challenges? mind you, you would still need a ridiculous amount of security given protests as well as late night attacks that have happened on work camps to try and delay work.

Funny, working on terminal project up there which would have required dredging, the FN were quite concerned about it, but we had working for us a young lady from a Lower Mainland band that was puzzled by their concern, because her band generally reviewed about 75 dredging projects a year, along the Fraser and Vancouver harbour. She was quite the asset to have, so we let her spend time talking to them about her band experience and process to handle dredging reviews. The good thing up there is that there is much less contaminants in the seabed, than in other places.

Often for a band it's a matter of experience and perspective on how to deal with a "New to them" issue. When reviewing a new dock in Stewart that would result in a 100% increase in shipping, we had to remind everyone that meant going from about 6 ships to 12 a year........

 

[Kirkhill]

And the northern route, the Lax Kwa'laams Eagle Spirit route also has a plan B.

"....Eagle Spirit Energy has a plan to avoid the tanker moratorium entirely, Calvin Helin says.

"He said the group has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a landowner across the U.S. border in Hyder, Alaska. The tiny town wants to host the pipeline as an alternative location for the port terminal, Helin said."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/the-b-c-pipeline-project-you-ve-never-heard-of-and-why-it-may-succeed-1.4646892

Hyder is at the head of the Portland Canal, a long, narrow inlet, that also leads to Stewart BC. The Canal is 114 km long and about 2 km wide. The US-Canada border runs right down the middle. It passes by the Ksi Lisims site, Prince Rupert, Lax Kwa'laams and Haida Gwai. It debouches into the Dixon Entrance where the border between Canada and the US, as well as many tribal lands, is in dispute. Hyder is on land claimed by an American associated allied tribe of the Lax Kwa'laams.

An international court discussion could prove interesting.

Edit - funny you should also mention Stewart @Colin Parkinson

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here's the stupid issue of elected vs hereditary chief's again

You mean Democracy rule vs Dynasty rule.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And the northern route, the Lax Kwa'laams Eagle Spirit route also has a plan B.

"....Eagle Spirit Energy has a plan to avoid the tanker moratorium entirely, Calvin Helin says.

"He said the group has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a landowner across the U.S. border in Hyder, Alaska. The tiny town wants to host the pipeline as an alternative location for the port terminal, Helin said."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/the-b-c-pipeline-project-you-ve-never-heard-of-and-why-it-may-succeed-1.4646892

Hyder is at the head of the Portland Canal, a long, narrow inlet, that also leads to Stewart BC. The Canal is 114 km long and about 2 km wide. The US-Canada border runs right down the middle. It passes by the Ksi Lisims site, Prince Rupert, Lax Kwa'laams and Haida Gwai. It debouches into the Dixon Entrance where the border between Canada and the US, as well as many tribal lands, is in dispute. Hyder is on land claimed by an American associated allied tribe of the Lax Kwa'laams.

An international court discussion could prove interesting.

Edit - funny you should also mention Stewart @Colin Parkinson

I going to take that idea with a bag of salt, Hyder is built on a alluvial flood plain and a LOT of dredging will be required on a ongoing basis, plus the challenges of building anything big on that. The surrounding areas are steep slopes going directly into the sea, with the risk of landslides.

 

[Kirkhill]

Blockade runners take chances.

 

[Kirkhill]

Stipulation the first - no oil cargo larger than 12,500 tonnes

Estimated vessel size - 134 m stem to stern, 20 m beam, 10m air draught and 8 m draught, 5 to 10 MW range for 13 to 16 knots (25 to 30 kmh)

Observation 1 - Yara Birkenhead, an autonomous electric cargo ship operating in the Oslo Fjord carrying fertilizer in Seacans. DWT of 3,200 tonnes.

Vessel size - over 80 m stem to stern, 15 m beam, 5 m draught, 1.8 MW, 6 kts (10 kmh)

Assumption - Yara Birkenhead converted to oil transport
Transit time down Portland Canal from Hyder to Metlakatla Federal Indian Reservation on Annette Island at 10 kmh = 14 hours (call it 24 hours each direction to and from Metlakatla including loading and unloading)

Target flow rate 1,000,000 BPD (140,000 TPD)

44x Yara Birkenheads in transit daily (25 MUSD to build)
11x Autonomous 12,500 tonne tankers (10-20 MUSD apiece)
Cost of 140 km of pipeline 140 to 280 MUSD or greater.

Shuttling up and down the Portland Canal to a VLCC transfer station on (or off) Annette Island in Alaska.

MV Yara Birkeland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And an offshore transfer station at both ends - one off Hyder and one off Meltlakatla.

AI Overview



Offshore transfer stations for VLCC tankers are crucial for the global energy supply chain, facilitating ship-to-ship (STS) cargo transfers in open sea locations instead of at port. These stations are used for a variety of purposes, such as transporting crude oil from remote production fields, moving oil between vessels to bypass sanctions, and providing logistical hubs. Systems can be permanent offshore terminals or involve floating systems using hoses connected between a VLCC and shuttle tankers, which are equipped with dynamic positioning systems to maintain their position without anchoring.

Types of offshore transfer stations

• Permanent offshore terminals:
  These can be single-point mooring (SPM) terminals or more complex hubs with their own infrastructure. The SafeSTS Transfer Via buoy Terminal (TVB) is an example of a terminal designed to handle multiple transfers with shuttle tankers.
  
  
• Ship-to-ship (STS) transfer hubs:
  These are designated areas of open water where transfers occur between vessels. Some are permanent, while others are temporary or newly established, like the hubs emerging in the Atlantic for Russian oil exports.
  
  
• Dynamic Positioning (DP) shuttle tankers:
  These are a type of shuttle tanker equipped with DP systems that allow them to hold their position without anchoring, which makes them suitable for a wide range of conditions and increases efficiency.
  

Purposes of offshore transfers

• Connecting offshore production to markets:
  In remote or deep-water fields where pipelines to shore are not feasible, offshore transfers are used to move crude oil from production facilities to VLCCs.
  
  
• Logistical and supply chain operations:
  Transfer stations provide hubs for moving large quantities of oil, as seen with the transfer of Russian crude oil from the Baltic to the Atlantic for onward transport.
  
  
• Bypassing sanctions:
  Some ship-to-ship transfers occur as a way to move sanctioned oil, using offshore locations to obscure the origin or destination of the cargo.
  

Key features of the transfer process

• STS operations:
  A VLCC loads or unloads cargo by transferring it directly to or from another tanker, which is a complex process that requires careful planning and execution.
  
  
• Floating hoses:
  For transfers, floating hoses connect the two vessels. These are often designed to be highly visible and easy to inspect.
  
  
• Dynamic Positioning (DP):
  Shuttle tankers are frequently equipped with DP systems to hold their position accurately during transfer operations.
  
  
• Risk and planning:
  Transfers involve inherent risks, so they require detailed pre-loading cargo handling procedures and a thorough understanding of the complex logistical challenges.
  
  
  
  
  ......
  
  

Just because I feel bloody-minded...

 

[lenaitch]

“We want to be clear that this isn’t about stopping the PRGT project,” Wright said in a statement Monday. “We hold rights and title to our territory, and we have a duty to fulfil our stewardship responsibilities under our own laws. That means no pipelines in Madii Lii territory.”

Translation: more money please.

You mean Democracy rule vs Dynasty rule.

Or, as some have said: traditional governance vs White Man's law.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Translation: more money please.


Or, as some have said: traditional governance vs White Man's law.

lol, I’d like to see how many bands would have a majority of members stick with Dynasty Rule vs Democracy.

Isn’t it a bit like the argument of ruling like the 6th century Koran writings vs modern day reality?

 

[Brad Sallows]

lol, I’d like to see how many bands would have a majority of members stick with Dynasty Rule vs Democracy.

Isn’t it a bit like the argument of ruling like the 6th century Koran writings vs modern day reality?

Some might, particularly if the "dynasty" already has a wide enough family tie spread to control a majority.

Nothing but representative government subject to periodic elections should be an option anywhere in Canada. "Hereditary" should mean approximately "honourary".

 

[brihard]

Nothing but representative government subject to periodic elections should be an option anywhere in Canada. "Hereditary" should mean approximately "honourary".

Indigenous peoples enjoy a right to self determination. This is codified in both international law to which Canada is a signatory, as well as in our own domestic law implementing that treaty. The right to self determination in their systems of governments isn’t limited by a caveat of (but only if we think they’re making good decisions). That’s exactly the kind of paternalism we’re trying to put behind.

Indigenous groups get the same freedom we have enjoyed- to fly or fumble their way to democratization, to hold up leaders who aren’t that great, and to learn over extended periods what systems work for them. So yes that means that an individual band, tribe etc are free to uphold systems of hereditary chiefs I definitely should they so choose. I don’t like it either, but whether you or I likes it is legally inconsequential.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Indigenous peoples enjoy a right to self determination. This is codified in both international law to which Canada is a signatory, as well as in our own domestic law implementing that treaty. The right to self determination in their systems of governments isn’t limited by a caveat of (but only if we think they’re making good decisions). That’s exactly the kind of paternalism we’re trying to put behind.

Indigenous groups get the same freedom we have enjoyed- to fly or fumble their way to democratization, to hold up leaders who aren’t that great, and to learn over extended periods what systems work for them. So yes that means that an individual band, tribe etc are free to uphold systems of hereditary chiefs I definitely should they so choose. I don’t like it either, but whether you or I likes it is legally inconsequential.

Those are lofty words.

Except for the people forced to live and labour under a hereditary system, that could approximate living in a fiefdom. Do they not also have Charter rights?

Tell me, since we are upholding indigenous right to self determination, if those hereditary chiefs decide they want to get back into the traditional slave raiding business (which the Royal Navy- those colonialist bastards- only managed put a stop to in the 1850-60s), what is Canada’s stance on that? Yes, I am picking an inflammatory example to deliberately make a point. If we accept there are limits in this instance, than we are saying that there are actually limits under UNDRIP, past which we are not willing to go.

I am a sorry, but slapping the word “hereditary” or the word “traditional” on a practice does not make it automatically compatible with 21st century life. I, for one, think that people having the right to chose their local leaders and that right extends to, periodically, being able to democratically change them is a fundamental right of everyone born on this land mass.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Those are lofty words.

Except for the people forced to live and labour under a hereditary system, that could approximate living in a fiefdom. Do they not also have Charter rights?

Tell me, since we are upholding indigenous right to self determination, if those hereditary chiefs decide they want to get back into the traditional slave raiding business (which the Royal Navy- those colonialist bastards- only managed put a stop to in the 1850-60s), what is Canada’s stance on that? Yes, I am picking an inflammatory example to deliberately make a point. If we accept there are limits in this instance, than we are saying that there are actually limits under UNDRIP, past which we are not willing to go.

I am a sorry, but slapping the word “hereditary” or the word “traditional” on a practice does not make it automatically compatible with 21st century life. I, for one, think that people having the right to chose their local leaders and that right extends to, periodically, being able to democratically change them is a fundamental right of everyone born on this land mass.

Wait, are we talking about First Nations or the Royal Family now?

 

[brihard]

Those are lofty words.

Except for the people forced to live and labour under a hereditary system, that could approximate living in a fiefdom. Do they not also have Charter rights?

Tell me, since we are upholding indigenous right to self determination, if those hereditary chiefs decide they want to get back into the traditional slave raiding business (which the Royal Navy- those colonialist bastards- only managed put a stop to in the 1850-60s), what is Canada’s stance on that? Yes, I am picking an inflammatory example to deliberately make a point. If we accept there are limits in this instance, than we are saying that there are actually limits under UNDRIP, past which we are not willing to go.

I am a sorry, but slapping the word “hereditary” or the word “traditional” on a practice does not make it automatically compatible with 21st century life. I, for one, think that people having the right to chose their local leaders and that right extends to, periodically, being able to democratically change them is a fundamental right of everyone born on this land mass.

It’s not lofty, it’s just what the law is. Canada chose that, we’re bound by it.

Histrionic ‘what ifs’ don’t advance the discussion. Stick with what their jurisdictions and powers actually are. We’re mostly talking internal governance, band funding, local infrastructure, and some legislative roles of matters that would otherwise be the province, like child welfare and such. Indigenous self-determination for these things doesn’t make the Criminal Code go away, nor does it trump other binding international norms against things like, since you brought it up, slavery. We have criminal law against human trafficking that indigenous self determination doesn’t erase.

Indigenous governments are also quite limited territorially. People can choose to leave the geographic community and live elsewhere. Many do. Nobody is forced to ‘live and labour’ there any more than anyone else in Canada is wherever they should happen to live.

Now obviously in the context of this thread the real consternation is the tension between hereditary chiefs and democratically elected band councils when voicing support or opposition to infrastructure projects that extend beyond their own territory. Got it. But that’s more a question of the continued evolution of the duty to consult, which while obviously very related, is still legally distinct.