By James Wood, Calgary Herald August 17, 2012 5:27 AM

Critics say video an attempt to mislead public

By Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist August 15, 2012

About 1,000 square kilometres of islands have disappeared from Douglas Channel in an animated depiction of Enbridge Inc.’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker route.

The project would send bitumen by pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to Kitimat, where it would be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia.

A video on the Enbridge website shows Douglas Channel as a wide open funnel leading from Kitimat to the Pacific, omitting the narrow channels, islands and rocky outcrops that make up the potential tanker access route.

The view of Douglas Channel sprang to public attention after Lori Waters, a Vancouver Island researcher and owner of a biomedical communications company, created overlays and maps showing the real Douglas Channel and posted the images on Facebook.

Reaction against Enbridge – which is fighting an image problem because of recent pipeline spills – was swift.

“I find the pictures shocking. It’s reprehensible behaviour,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

“These images are disturbing enough to make me no longer trust anything coming from Enbridge. It’s utterly shameful,” he said.

However, Enbridge said the video is an obvious animation and contains a disclaimer that says it is “broadly representational.”

“That video is meant to be for illustrative purposes only. It’s not meant to be to scale. It’s meant to illustrate the pipeline route, not the marine aspects of the operation,” said Enbridge spokesman Todd Nogier.

“There’s a disclaimer at the end because it’s really clear this is meant to be illustrative,” he said.

The video is meant to be pleasing to the eye, but viewers would not mistake it for a detailed map, Nogier said.

A tanker safety video showing Douglas Channel in detail and to scale, together with technical reports on every aspect of the marine route, are on the Enbridge website, he said.

“If they are trying to conclude that we are trying to mislead people, nothing could be further from the truth. There’s lots of information there. It’s all there and it’s all for public viewing,” Nogier said.

However, groups opposed to the proposed pipeline and tanker project believe the video is an attempt to mislead.

The Enbridge view of Douglas Channel would make anyone who knows the area chuckle, said Eric Swanson of the Dogwood Initiative.

“In reality, it’s a twisting path through rocky islands and granite outcroppings, including 90 degree turns, but it’s shown as a sparkly, open channel,” he said.

“They are certainly painting a rosy picture of a very complicated and dangerous waterway.”

The video fits with recent Enbridge advertising campaigns, Swanson said.

“It’s more hyper-positive imagery because they know they have a problem because of the spills,” he said.

Josh Paterson, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said the promotional video skirts the line on fair advertising.

“That image really misrepresents the reality, which is that that channel is jam-packed with islands,” Paterson said.

“You are really not supposed to omit big pieces of information like that and

British Columbians should look at the images and decide how far they are willing to trust the company, regardless of what disclaimer they put on the video, Paterson said.

“A comparison of their images with the actual really raises questions about the trustworthiness of what they are telling people in B.C.,” he said.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Original source article: Enbridge stirs up controversy with depiction of West Coast waterway as containing no islands

By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News August 15, 2012

Critics outraged at rules that limit use of U.S. report likening Calgary company to Keystone Kops

 By Peter O’Neil, Calgary Herald August 13, 2012

The joint Canadian government panel studying Enbridge Inc.’s proposed $6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline won’t be able to fully assess a U.S. regulator’s findings that the company behaved like the “Keystone Kops” before, during and after the massive 2010 Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan.
The panel is refusing requests by intervenors to have the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s devastating criticism of Enbridge’s performance to be tabled with the panel and entered into the public registry as evidence.

The panel said the NTSB’s findings can be raised only during the “oral questioning” period for the Northern Gateway hearings that begin this autumn and conclude in December.

However, the NTSB report won’t be viewed as reliable evidence and won’t be considered in the panel’s final ruling, a spokeswoman said Monday.
Annie Roy, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, said the NTSB reports can only be used as “an aid to cross-examination” during the oral questioning period.

“An aid to cross-examination is generally not considered evidence and cannot be relied on for the truth of its content,” Roy said in an email.
“It will not typically be included on the public registry and will not be considered by the panel when making its recommendations. The panel will however consider the answers provided to questions using the aid.”

The statement stunned one of the project’s top opponents, Haisla First Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross.

“The Panel is supposed to be looking at potential adverse impacts from the project, including an accident,” Ross, whose lawyer recently sent a letter to the panel calling on Enbridge to fully disclose Kalamazoo River spill information, said in an interview.

“Ignoring a significant analysis of a major pipeline accident involving the same proponent as Northern Gateway does not make any sense.”
A prominent critic of the oilsands pipeline proposal called on the panel and Enbridge to find a way to ensure the Kalamazoo River report is fully considered.

“If the NTSB Kalamazoo material is intentionally excluded from the panel’s considerations it is likely there will be no public acceptance of the fairness of the upcoming hearings,” said independent economist Robyn Allan, former chief executive officer of the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

The panel, operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, revealed its position in separate letters to two B.C. intervenors who asked if they could submit as evidence the NTSB reports made public in July.

The panel responded that a witness cannot submit documents that weren’t prepared “under their direction and control,” since they couldn’t credibly answer questions about the documents “or otherwise confirm their accuracy.”

The Haisla nation’s Ross said Enbridge would “go a long way” in showing good faith to first nations and British Columbians by voluntarily submitting all its information on the Kalamazoo spill, including its evidence provided to the U.S. regulator.

Ross said Enbridge’s spill of an estimated 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen crude into Michigan wetlands, a creek and the Kalamazoo River – “enough to fill 120 tanker trucks,” according to the NTSB – is directly relevant to B.C. concerns about Northern Gateway.

Enbridge spokesman Todd Nogier said rules prevent the company from submitting the NTSB findings.

“As we are not the authors of the NTSB report, we cannot file it for evidence into the Joint Review Panel process,” he said in an email.

“We would expect to answer questions on the NTSB’s findings during the formal hearings that are taking place this fall. We are also open to including any information requested of us by the JRP through the regulatory review process.”

Allan said official assessments of the environmental impact of the Kalamazoo spill weren’t included in Enbridge’s earlier risk analysis filed with the Canadian review panel.

She said the NTSB’s findings about the role of human error in the Kalamazoo spill, and systemic problems with safety at Enbridge, also need to be considered.

Josh Paterson, a lawyer with the group West Coast Environmental Law, said Roy is underestimating the panel’s authority.

The NEB “has the power to order any party to provide it with any information that it thinks may be necessary to obtain a full and satisfactory understanding of the issues,” he said in an email.

“The board also has the power to dispense with the normal rules of evidence where the public interest and fairness require it. The NTSB report is a document that should definitely be part of the consideration of Enbridge’s proposal, and the Board has the power to make sure that happens, if it wants to.
“Whether or not the Board orders the report be produced, the NTSB report is likely to be used as a basis to question Enbridge in cross-examination, and it’s clear that Enbridge will have a great deal to answer for.”

In early July NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman compared Enbridge employees to the blundering Keystone Kops of the silent movie era. The board’s final report, submitted in late July, was equally harsh in its assessment of Enbridge’s handing of the spill.

“During the investigation, major deficiencies of the company emerged, as discussed in previous sections of this report. These deficiencies led to the rupture, exacerbated its results, and then failed to mitigate its effects,” the NTSB concluded.

“Although these deficiencies involved different elements of Enbridge’s operations, and may appear unrelated, taken together they suggest a systemic deficiency in the company’s approach to safety.”

While the panel has been constrained in its response to the NTSB reports, the NEB sent a letter to Enbridge chief executive Pat Daniel saying it would inspect the company’s Edmonton control room and planned to “carefully review” the NTSB’s findings.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal August 13, 2012

By Peter O’Neil, Edmonton Journal August 13, 2012

OTTAWA  – The joint Canadian government panel studying Enbridge Inc.’s proposed $6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline won’t be able to fully assess a U.S. regulator’s findings that the company behaved like the Keystone Kops during the massive 2010 Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan.

The panel is refusing requests by interveners to have the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s devastating criticism of Enbridge’s performance to be tabled with the panel and entered into the public registry as evidence.

The panel said the NTSB’s findings can be raised only during the “oral questioning” period for the Northern Gateway hearings that begin this autumn and conclude in December.

However, the NTSB report won’t be viewed as reliable evidence and won’t be considered in the panel’s final ruling, a spokeswoman said Monday.

Annie Roy, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, said the NTSB reports can only be used as an aid to cross-examination during the oral questioning period.

“An aid to cross-examination is generally not considered evidence and cannot be relied on for the truth of its content,” Roy said in an email.

The statement stunned one of the project’s top opponents, Haisla First Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross.

“The panel is supposed to be looking at potential adverse impacts from the project, including an accident,” said Ross, whose lawyer recently sent a letter to the panel calling on Enbridge to fully disclose Kalamazoo River spill information.

“Ignoring a significant analysis of a major pipeline accident involving the same proponent as Northern Gateway does not make any sense.”

A prominent critic of the oilsands pipeline proposal called on the panel and Enbridge to find a way to ensure the Kalamazoo River report is fully considered.

“If the NTSB Kalamazoo material is intentionally excluded from the panel’s considerations it is likely there will be no public acceptance of the fairness of the upcoming hearings,” said independent economist Robyn Allan, former chief executive officer of the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

The panel, operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, revealed its position in separate letters to two B.C. interveners who asked if they could submit as evidence the NTSB reports made public in July.

The panel responded that a witness cannot submit documents that weren’t prepared “under their direction and control,” since they couldn’t credibly answer questions about the documents “or otherwise confirm their accuracy.”

Ross said Enbridge would “go a long way” in showing good faith to First Nations and British Columbians by voluntarily submitting all its information on the Kalamazoo spill, including its evidence provided to the U.S. regulator.

Ross said Enbridge’s spill of an estimated 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen crude into Michigan wetlands, a creek and the Kalamazoo River – enough to fill 120 tanker trucks, according to the NTSB – is directly relevant to B.C. concerns about Northern Gateway.

By Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal August 14, 2012 6:27 AM

EDMONTON – It’s not the Rocky Mountains and it’s not the 773 rivers and streams in its path.

No, the biggest obstacle facing Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast is the one created by Enbridge itself: the giant hole in the company’s credibility.

The company inadvertently began making its credibility disappear by accidentally dumping more than three million litres of oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010, causing the largest inland pipeline spill in United States history and creating an $800-million cleanup job that is still ongoing.

When the author of a recent U.S. government report into the spill called Enbridge employees the Keystone Kops of pipeline safety, the hole where the company’s reputation used to be became the size of an open-pit mine.

Enbridge turned it into the Grand Canyon of credibility gaps by initially refusing to accept full responsibility for the spill and by making vague comments about improving pipeline safety.

When B.C. Premier Christy Clark used the Kalamazoo spill to criticize Enbridge and, more importantly, to demand a “fair share” of Alberta’s oil wealth as insurance against a similar spill from Northern Gateway, Enbridge must have finally realized its integrity was becoming the big obstacle.

So the company is trying to get its credibility back.

Last week, it took out fullpage newspaper ads in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario presenting The Facts on Pipelines.

This week, the company’s chief executive, Pat Daniel, began making the case for the Northern Gateway pipeline that would pump 500,000 barrels a day of Alberta bitumen to Kitimat for shipment to Asia.

It’s an argument that’s been made before – a $6-billion pipeline that will create jobs and economic spinoffs, mainly for B.C. – but it’s one being presented with more passion than ever before, and with a hint of exasperation if not outright desperation.

On the decidedly pipeline friendly Dave Rutherford radio show Monday morning, Daniel admitted Enbridge has been on the losing side of the Northern Gateway debate, complaining that “everything we say sounds defensive and self-interested and on the other side everything they say is really taken as gospel.”

And then Daniel went on to sound defensive and self-interested by painting everyone who is questioning the safety and economy of the Northern Gateway pipeline as anti-oil “revolutionaries.”

“I think we’re facing a very strong, almost revolutionary movement to try to get off oil worldwide, and it creates a lot of passion and drive in those revolutionaries that are trying to change the environment in which we work,” said Daniel.

“They know that going after the end use – going after you and I when we drive our car, or they drive their car, or get on an airplane – won’t work. So they’re coming after what they consider to be the weak link in the whole process, and that’s the infrastructure part of it.”

There are indeed antipipeline advocates whose unrealistic goal is to shut down the oilsands. But there are also pipeline skeptics who are not anti-oil but anti-spill, who happily drive cars but who don’t see the need to pump Alberta’s bitumen through their province simply for shipment to Asia.

By Kelly Cryderman, Postmedia News; Calgary Herald August 13, 2012 8:46 AM

In her first 10 months as premier, Alison Redford’s government has initiated more than a dozen reviews, public consultations or inquiries to look at everything from how a new environmental monitoring system for the oilsands should work to medical service queue-jumping.

The latest announcement came in the wake of a spending controversy in the health-care system, in which a senior financial executive ran up an expense tab of almost $350,000 in four years.

Last week, associate minister Don Scott – responsible for accountability, transparency and transformation – was handed the task of identifying a better system of expense reporting for cabinet ministers and other senior government officials. That’s on top of Scott’s work reviewing freedom of information laws and legislation to protect whistleblowers.

“The premier has been very clear she wants to do business in a new way,” said Kim Misik, Redford’s press secretary.

“It’s not a public-relations exercise.

“She really wants to make sure that we have an accountable system.”

While task force meetings and town halls can contribute to the public dialogue and unearth hidden truths, critics argue they’re also a means of placating voter anger by delaying tough decisions on costly new programs or contentious issues.

Wildrose party deputy house leader Shayne Saskiw said the raft of studies ordered by Redford are no substitute for action.

Saskiw noted a month after Redford won the PC party leadership last fall, she created a property rights task force where MLAs travelled the province to consult with rural Albertans on a number of contentious land laws.

The result is a new property rights advocate and a promise to review more land legislation. The government insists it’s a solid first step, while the Wildrose says it’s just windowdressing and doesn’t address real concerns.

“You don’t need high-paid, fancy consultants travelling the province to know that property rights are important; you should just know from your constituents and talking to Albertans,” Saskiw said.

However, Mount Royal University political analyst David Taras said such reviews aren’t always simple political ploys – they can also lead to substantial policies. Redford, he said, can point to the MLA compensation review by retired Supreme Court justice John Major as an example of a scrupulous examination by a respected public figure. Taras noted the government accepted most of Major’s recommendations this year, although a legislature committee is still debating what kind of pension MLAs should receive.

Still, Taras acknowledged initiating such reviews “gives the government a breather” when the public is angry about issues such as MLA severance packages topping $1 million and MLAs paid extra for sitting on no-meet committees.

“It’s a way of taking the pressure off,” he said.

Other ongoing Redford government reviews and public consultations include: A judge-led inquiry with ? consultations this fall into “improper preferential access” to publicly funded medical services. The inquiry came after a scathing Health Quality Council of Alberta report in February.

– The retail market review committee – created last winter after electricity rates spiked to historic highs – continues to look at power prices for consumers, and has been granted a deadline extension to Sept. 5 due to the “complexity of this issue.”

– Elections Alberta is reviewing its own legislation after a furor arose this spring around the chief electoral officer’s contention he can’t, by law, release details of investigations into illegal political contributions.

The public is also awaiting a number of completed reports. They include recommendations from former University of Lethbridge president Howard Tennant about how a new environmental monitoring system for the province, including the oilsands, should be funded and governed, as well as the red-tape reduction task force, which is looking at how to improve the regulatory environment for small businesses.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Original source article: Raft of Tory reviews: Seeking transparency or delaying action?

By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News August 10, 2012

OTTAWA — As battles rage over the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines, governments and energy companies are eyeing other options for transporting oilsands crude to foreign markets, including by rail, a pipeline through the Northwest Territories and shipping more oil to Eastern Canada instead.

The political, economic and environmental stakes are enormous. Billions of dollars of investment are on the line but, as the Northern Gateway saga has shown, there are also plenty of potential pitfalls for governments and project proponents.

British Columbia’s demands for supporting the Enbridge Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline proposals — including receiving its “fair share” of the economic benefits from Alberta and Ottawa — are sparking uncertainty over the future of the projects, which would ship oilsands crude from northern Alberta to the West Coast.

In the U.S., the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oilsands crude from northern Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast, has also turned into a political football.

President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada’s original Keystone XL permit application in January due to concerns about what pipeline construction and potential for spills could do to ecologically sensitive areas in Nebraska. The company has since reapplied for a presidential permit to reroute the controversial pipeline around some of the environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska, with a decision expected by early 2013.

The prolonged pipeline disputes in B.C. and south of the border have governments and petroleum producers considering other options for getting oilsands crude to foreign markets like Asia, including alternative pipeline routes, moving more oil east (and then onto the U.S.) and shipping bitumen on the rails.

Ken Chapman, executive director of the Oil Sands Developers Group, an industry lobby organization, said the ongoing battles over the Northern Gateway and planned expansion to the Trans Mountain pipeline mean “every option” must be looked at from an economic, environmental and First Nations perspective.

“None of these are easy but all of them are worth investigation,” Chapman said. “They (oilsands developers) are always looking at options. Rail is becoming more and more of an attractive option.”

However, producers can’t move nearly as much product by train, he said, which means rail probably must be considered a supplement — not a complete alternative — to shipping oilsands crude by pipelines.

A recent report from Standard & Poor’s found a barrel of diluted bitumen is transported at a cost of $7 by pipeline, compared to $6 to $8 by rail.

The report also said rail has the potential to move crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast from Alberta in about one-fifth the time of pipelines, with the capital cost to expand rail infrastructure about one-tenth that of the cost of adding incremental pipeline capacity.

Amid the pipeline problems, Canadian National Railway, in response to customer demand, is moving crude oil (including pure bitumen) from Western Canada to markets across the country and the United States, including the U.S. Gulf Coast, and California. There are currently no shipments going to Canada’s West Coast ports for export partly due to a lack of infrastructure to unload crude oil from rail cars onto ships, the company said.

In 2011, CN moved approximately 5,000 cars of crude oil (there are between 550 and 680 barrels of oil per rail car, depending on type of product and car) and the company expects to transport more than 30,000 carloads of crude oil in 2012 to various North American markets, said company spokesman Mark Hallman.

Canadian Pacific Railway’s crude oil volumes are also rapidly increasing.

The company expected to grow its crude-by-rail market from 13,000 carloads in 2011 to 70,000 carloads by 2014 but, based on growing demand, now expects to reach that level a year earlier in 2013, including with shipments to northeastern U.S. and the Gulf Coast.

The company currently isn’t shipping any oilsands crude to the West Coast but it’s being explored, said CP spokesman Ed Greenberg.

“Movements of crude oil to the West Coast for export is something that continues to be developed. We have the infrastructure in place to respond to energy producers, but this is something the producers are driving so they will ultimately decide,” Greenberg said.

Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod mused last week the Alberta government should — given the problems with pipeline proposals in B.C. — consider a northern pipeline route that would transport landlocked oilsands crude up through the N.W.T. and to the Beaufort Sea, where it could be transported to Asia.

However, the prospect of an oilsands pipeline running through the N.W.T. to the Arctic is already rankling aboriginal groups who battled for years to get a seat at the table and fair stake in the proposed Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline project that would run from the Beaufort Sea, through the Northwest Territories, and into Alberta.

Fred Carmichael, chairman of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, said a northern oil route would face huge backlash from environmentalists and aboriginal groups.

“They think there’s a battle with the Gateway pipe?” Carmichael told Postmedia News recently. “I tell you, there’d be one big battle here.”

Jack Mintz, director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, said the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain lines could lead to “significant sales to Asia” because the transportation costs of shipping the crude would be much more competitive.

“But if those get blocked, then it’s hard to see what other options right now there would be in terms of market diversification, like getting oil to Asia,” Mintz said.

Piping oilsands crude north through the N.W.T. is “a nice idea” but likely isn’t a viable option because winter would also pose a number of problems, including tankers getting through northern shipping lanes, he argued.

Transporting the product through an eastern pipeline to Central Canada and the Atlantic Provinces wouldn’t lead to true market diversification, he said, because most of the product would likely end up in the U.S.

Shipping bitumen by rail to B.C. won’t resolve a number of the lingering environmental concerns because there will still be worries about tankers spilling oil off the West Coast, he added.

“It won’t deal with the political disagreement,” he said.

The Harper government continues to trumpet the importance of diversifying Canada’s energy export markets beyond the United States and says new pipeline projects such as the Northern Gateway are critical for getting Canadian petroleum to Asia.

But Mintz said the federal government will likely be hesitant to push pipeline projects on British Columbians — who, polls show, are opposed to the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain lines — because the Conservatives will need the province’s support come the next federal election.

“You can have a number of seats in B.C. that could be affected, so what happens in terms of the actual politics in the end will be interesting,” he added.

David Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said his group is focused on trying to get West Coast market access through the proposed Northern Gateway project and Trans Mountain expansion.

However, he said rail shipments of crude to the Gulf Coast, proposals to ship bitumen by rail to the West Coast and the possibility of an eastern pipeline system to get more Western Canadian crude to Central and Eastern Canada are all options either being pursued or examined.

“What we’re seeing is that the market can be quite creative in terms of looking at other potential opportunities,” Collyer said.

Pipelines to the West Coast remain the safest and most economical way to transport large amounts of crude, he said.

“Rail will certainly potentially play a role but it’s difficult to see it at the scale comparable to what pipelines can provide,” he said.

Petroleum producers also “have to be realistic” about getting oilsands product to Asia via a northern pipeline through the Northwest Territories, he said, noting the Gateway and Trans Mountain lines are well advanced in design and commercial support compared to running a pipeline through the N.W.T.

Environmental groups say no new pipelines or alternatives for shipping oilsands crude should even be considered until the environmental consequences of developing the resource — including greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts on land — are more effectively addressed.

“We’re seeing a lot of opposition to these various transportation options for oilsands crude,” said Jennifer Grant, director of the oilsands program at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think-tank.

“It’s not just about making pipelines safer or looking at the various pros and cons of each option, it’s about addressing the upstream issues that have been receiving actually less attention as the spotlight has shifted to pipelines.”

[email protected]

Twitter.com/jasonfekete

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

 Original source article: Pipeline protests spur companies to consider shipping oilsands crude by rail

By Natalie Stechyson, Postmedia News August 10, 2012

OTTAWA — The United Church of Canada will vote next week on whether to publicly oppose the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, an issue some church leaders say is a moral question.

The proposal, from the British Columbia Native Ministries Council, is one of about 130 proposals church commissioners will discuss at the 41st General Council in Ottawa. The General Council meets every three years to elect a new church moderator and approve new policies.

“We are united in our belief that this project and others like it will do a disproportionate amount of direct harm to the life-sustaining air, food and water that we all share on Earth,” the proposal says.

The British Columbia Native Ministries Council, which is primarily made up of aboriginal members, took its proposal to the church’s All Native Circle Conference in July.

That conference then asked the General Council to publicly support the native ministries council in categorically rejecting construction of the proposed pipeline, and to communicate that decision to government, industry and the public.

Deliberations on the question are to take place Tuesday. The council commissioners could choose to accept, reject, or table the resolution for further study.

The 1,172-kilometre Gateway pipeline would transport oilsands crude from northern Alberta to the port of Kitimat, B.C., where it would be loaded onto supertankers and shipped to Asian markets.

The council will consider issues such as aboriginal rights and climate change when deliberating on the topic, said Mardi Tindal, the current moderator of the United Church of Canada.

“All of our sacred texts speak to the need of having an economy that is based on ecological health and justice,” Tindal said.

The United Church of Canada is no stranger to taking political stands. For instance, it called on the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage in 2003 — two years before it was legalized.

General Council will also consider proposals on a number of social justice issues including Canadian mining activities in the Philippines and Central America, the age of eligibility for Old Age Security, and the Israel-Palestinian debate.

“It enlivens our faith when we engage in these passionate conversations. It causes us to go deeply into what it means to have a living faith that not only breathes in with prayer, but breathes out with action,” Tindal said.

The United Church of Canada is the country’s largest protestant denomination, with close to three million Canadians identifying themselves identifying their religion as the United Church, according to Statistics Canada.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Original source article: United Church to decide next week whether it opposes Northern Gateway