Special Report (October, 1977)

Transcription (Hover to view)


(

‘

———

TULNAD FOUNOSTY SAITO NVICNI ‘O’a AO NOINN

Ne



UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN CHIEFS

PECIAL REPORT





The Oil Port Inquiry
Is NOT Dead

Commissioner Andrew Thompson recessed the formal hear-
ings of the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, to wait for a serious
proposal to be submitted by Kitimat Pipelines Ltd. KPL is
planning to build a superport at Kitimat to offload crude
oil from tankers and to ship the oi! by pipeline, from Kiti-
mat to Edmonton. However, KPL has not come forward
officially and renewed its application to the Federal
Government.

Commissioner Thompson called off the Inquiry until
KPL comes forward with an official proposal and the Inquiry
staff has enough time to look at the application. Commis-
sioner Thompson stated that he would prepare a report on
the findings of the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry so far to
submit to the Federal Government.

The Inquiry will be reconvened after Thompson has
given his report to the Government and not until Kitimat
Pipelines Ltd. agrees to participate fully in the Inquiry.
Kitimat is considered as first choice for an oil port on the
West Coast.

Even though Commissioner Thompson has called off
the Inquiry for the time being, the Union of British Colum-
bia Indian Chiefs believes that the threat of an oil port on
our coast is still real. (cont’d. on back cover)



courtesy of The Indian Voice

Dear Friends,

As long time has been counted the waters and
the land have given us life. We have never given up
our rights to the bounty of the sea, the rivers, the
mountains and the plains.

Today our rights to the land and waters of
this country are in danger as never before. Super-
tankers, larger than a football field will travel our
waters very soon unless we work together and speak
out against an oil port on our coast.

Even though Commissioner Andrew Thomp-
son has recessed the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry
for the time being, | believe that supertankers and
the oil spills are still a real threat.

On October 12, at the formal hearings of the
West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, | said that | opposed
an oil port on our coast for two reasons:

1. We want a just agreement and affirmation of
aboriginal rights in this province.

2. Our many types of salmon fishes and many
other types of seafood, and this includes in
rivers in the interior, is a necessary food como-
dity for the survival of Indian people.

| have not changed my mind, | believe that
the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry should reconvene
in the new year, after the Kitimat Pipeline Company
comes forward with a new application for the
Inquiry to look at.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
believes that this land and these waters belong to
us. We must oppose any developments that would
endanger our way of life, and our rights to the
life given to us by the Creator.

| urge you to continue the fight for our
Fishing Rights. If we give up the fight, the oil
port will be built and supertankers will spill lakes of
oil into our waters.

The oil could destroy the life of the sea for-
ever.

Yours in Struggle,

George Manuel, President
Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

|

= \ C ry)

so ) \ 1 a

r
ee

SOY’

|
\

“As long as we native
_ Indians have a heritage
that we are proud of,
as long as we have
traditions that we are
proud of, and as long
as we have a culture
that we are proud of,
and as long as we have
our hereditary rights,
especially fishing rights,
we will protect every-
thing we have and we
will strongly protest
any more impositions
regarding these rights.”
Saul Terry, Lillooet.



“if a major oil spill
occurred, who’s suppo-
sed to replace all that
which nature has given
us since the beginning
of time and it will only
take a few days for the
oil to contaminate and
spoil it, make it un-
eatable. What are we
going to have, what are
going to do?”’

Teddy Seward, Mount
Currie.





“I’m glad to see that the people
are really beginning to see the struggles that we are
having in regards to our hereditary rights, aboriginal
rights.

But the main thing | would like to see is that we
get our privileges of fishing and hunting, as we all
know, as native people, that these games were put
here for us to use by the Great Spirit. We happened,
as Indian people, to be put back here on this con-
tinent on one side and the Great Spirit has given us
fish, birds, deer, vegetation to live on and as the
non-Indians came in they have taken control of
most of it and they’ve given us very little and what-
ever we have left now we are struggling to try and
hold it and | hope the Commissioner would really
give us a good report of demanding some of these
rights, Indian rights for we know the fish is ours,
the game is ours, and also the fowl and birds is ours.
and also the country is still ours.”

Rosie Stager, Mount Currie.



MOUNT CURRIE & LILLOO
October 17, ’



““My name is John Williams. | am of
the Mount Currie Band. | oppose an oil tanker route ©
in B.C. waters for these reasons.

One, that no Government of Canada or even the ©
United States has ever made any settlements of our
lands. To me this is one of the most important, thev |
have never came to talk to us and have imposec nll
their ways, their values onto our people. :

Number two, it goes on to our aboriginal rights
and we believe that the waters on the coastline ©
where our fishes go would affect us in some form.
To us the fish that we have in our lakes that come ©
here every year is our main food source.”

John Williams, Mount Currie.





‘T COMMUNITY HEARINGS
8 & 19, 1977.





“in culture fishing we
used to make our own
twines, ‘make our own
nets, the forth fathom
net takes about six
months to make and
it’s quite a sturdy net
and we use that for
Spring Salmon, Cohos,
and Sockeyes. The fish-
ing was very good here
in the early days until
they put up the hatch-
eries, you don’t see that now a days.

I’ve seen a lot of changes in my life, yes, as an
old timer and | still have real objections to having
them big ships, transporting oil across the shores of
British Columbia down to the States. I’m really
against that because it’s bad enough now a days
with fish getting scarce."’ Charlie Mack, Mt. Currie





“Man is encouraging and conspiring
against salmon and it’s industry by possible threats
of oil ports and supertankers, Oil spills could cause
the destruction of ecology and environment along
with the commercial fishermen and spin-off indus-
tries and therefore within roles of unemployment.
If the tankers don’t destroy the salmon industry,
the government will certainly allow total destruc-
tion, extinction of salmon by allowing all those
industries to develop which is detrimental to the
rivers.’’ Vic Adolf, Lillooet.



; oo, t P oe is a
“If an oil spill happened at the mouth of the
Fraser, that oil would cover a section of the water,
yes, modern man with all their technology, can
clean that quite adequately, quite fast, but as they
clean the oil away, they’ll also take the food from
the tops of the water that these fingerlings eat as
they go into the ocean. So if they spent a day
without food, it would make them weaker, it will
bring them to a point where it will be a lot easier
for them to die out in the ocean.”
Arnold Ritchie, Lillooet.



THE KITIMAT CONNECTION

LOOK OUT!

There’s the old saying that it’s hard to hit a moving target:
if only it would take a clear position, you could pin it down.

You know the target’s there. You can hear it and,
if you're lucky, sometimes catch a glimpse of it through
the weeds.

It took nearly three weeks at the Oil Ports Inquiry for
the people of this province to get a good sense of what
Kitimat Pipelines Ltd. really looks like.



THE PLAN

The Kitimat plan, first and foremost, benefits Ameri-
can oil companies. There’s been no convincing argument
before the Inquiry that Canadians need a west coast oil
port. (Even Commissioner Thompson says as much.

The Kitimat oil port is proposed by companies whose
refineries have been supplied with Canadian oil for over a
decade. But since the National Energy Board has found we'll
be short of oil ourselves in the 1980's, we're shipping less
and less oil every year south of the border. By 1981, exports
will be no more.

The US backers of KPL own refineries in the Northern
Tier states (Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota and Wis-
consin). They’ve known our exports will be reduced since
the early 1970’s. They've also known that by the time the
Canadian gravy train comes to a stop, more than a million
barrels of oil will be coming out of Alaska every day.

Studies have shown Alaskan oil producers will make
the most money selling their oil in California. The problem:
they’ve got more to sell than the US west coast can handle.
That's where the Northern Tier comes in.

After California, Alaskan oil producers make the next
greatest return if they ship their oil across the Pacific
Northwest to refiners in the Northern Tier, Chicago and
beyond.

If a Pacific Northwest port and pipeline cannot be
built, companies in Alaska stand to lose more than a billion
dollars in the value (to them) of their oil.

The interest of these oil producers, notably Exxon,
Atlantic Richfield and Standard Oil of Ohio (BP), are a
major force behind the drive for a west coast oil port.

The backers of KPL, as you might expect, hope to
play both ends against the middle. While they need crude
oil for their refineries, there’s a lot more Alaskan oil for sale
than they'll ever need themselves.

Solution? Build the Pacific Northwest Pipeline con-
nection. They’ll have the support of the Alaskan producers,
as we’ve seen. By owning the means of transportation,
they'll get their own supplies at the lowest possible cost.
And there are millions to be made moving Alaskan oil to
markets beyond the Northern Tier.

With one hand in Kitimat, KPL would like their other
one in the huge market for crude oil centered on Chicago.
The refineries in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio can take more
oil than Canada has ever produced in a single day.

The Chicago market now connects by pipelines to
oil ports on the Gulf of Mexico. Second problem: these
pipelines are full. As the demand for oil grows, they’ll need
new pipeline capacity.

Should they invest in bigger pipelines from the Gulf
coast? KPL argues it'll be cheaper to come to the west coast.

In case Chicago doesn’t bite, KPL promises other
refining centres (in Wyoming, Ohio and even as far away as
Buffalo, New York) will take deliveries through Kitimat.

That’s a thumbnail sketch of the KPL plan as it, was
revealed at the Oil Ports Inquiry. We learned more.

ALTERNATIVES

Witnesses appearing for KPL-member companies ad-
mitted under questioning that, as refiners, they do have
alternatives to a Kitimat port and pipeline.

Montana, for example, is said to have the most urgent
problems in oil supply. At the same time, nearly half
Montana’s own crude oil production is shipped out of state.
The US government is known to be considering ways it
could re-arrange that situation.

There are active proposals to ship oil into the Northern
Tier by train or by hooking up the Northern Tier refineries
to Gulf coast pipelines.

(Ashland Oi! Inc., one of the iargest shareholders in
KPL, testified they own and want to expand a substantial
part of one major pipeline running north from the Gulf of
Mexico.)

The third major problem: these alternatives will sim-
ply cost Kitimat proponents more money.

KPL’S SUPPORT

The Kitimat consortium has received new support in
the US Congress. Senator Udall, chairman of the powerful
Senate Committee on Energy, proposes legislation that
would force the US government to decide on a Northwest
pipeline by October 15, 1978. If the United States chooses
Kitimat at that time, Udiall’s bill requests President Carter to
negotiate a fast approval in Canada,

KPL has support here as well. Already, federal Energy
Minister Alistair Gillespie has come out in favour of the
Kitimat project.

With the cutback in Canadian oil exports to the
United States, pipeline companies that have carried those
exports in the past now look to the Kitimat proposal to
pick up the slack.

Canadian pipeline companies would provide the con-
necting line between the Kitimat-Edmonton pipeline and
markets in the lower 48 states. Their owners are all members
of the Kitimat consortium.

There’s a rule in the oil game that says if you build one
pipeline, you get out of it all that you can before you build
another.

Interprovincial Pipelines Ltd., the biggest Canadian
pipeline company and a member of KPL, has just announced
that KPL is negotiating a partnership with two major pro-
ducers of Alaskan oil.

When that alliance is confirmed, as it surely will be,
the result will be more ominous for the coast than ever
before: a bigger pipeline, more tanker traffic and twice the
amount of oil moving through Kitimat than originally
intended.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on the weeds. The target is
there. And it’s moving.



The Oil Port Inquiry . . . cont'd. from page 1

The proposal to build an oil superport at Kitimat is
still the number one choice of the Canadian Government,
the American Government and the oil companies.

In fact, in recent weeks the Kitimat plan has been
getting larger and larger. Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIQO),
a large multi-national company, has been negotiating with
Kitimat Pipelines Co. to invest dollars in the Kitimat Port,
but only SOHIO gets its share of oil. If SOHIO puts its
support behind the Kitimat proposal, this will mean that
twice as many supertankers will be travelling our coast... .
twice as many supertankers will go down... . twice as much
oil will be spilled into our waters.

The threat to our fish is still real. Supertankers are not
going to stop just because the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry
stops for a while. The Union of British Columbia Indian
Chiefs are not going to stop protecting our aboriginal rights
to the land and waters, just because the West Coast Oil
Ports Inquiry stops for a while.

( )