Term Paper

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns



Representations, notions of risk, and the role of science





Ignacio Casielles
70840137
Sociology 360
Professor Tesluk
November 28, 2013

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 1

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project has certainly attracted much public
attention, with intense debates and confrontations that can be seen constantly on the media. This
can be explained by the magnitude of the project, the risks it poses, or by the diversity of
stakeholders involved. When looking at this last point, it is possible to identify the interests of oil
companies, international buyers, environmental advocates, local communities and Aboriginal
peoples, among others.
In this paper I will focus on the interests of one of these stakeholders, namely, Aboriginal
communities, how these interests have been portrayed and considered during the development of
the project. In order to do this, I will first show the major characteristics of this project, including
its economic impact and how it could affect the First Nations that dwell in this area. Then, I will
observe the discourses that have been wielded by the most relevant voices in this particular
debate, that is, Enbridge and First Nations people, as well as some of the most relevant topics
that appear in media representations of the project and these parties. After that I will attempt to
consider some key perspectives and topics that should be taken into account to understand the
complete impact that the Enbridge Pipeline might have over Aboriginal communities.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline is a project that plans to build a 1,777 km twin
pipeline running from Bruderheim, Northern Alberta, to the port of Kitimat, Northern British
Columbia (Enbridge, n.d.[a]). Its purpose is to carry petroleum from the oil sands extraction
place, near Edmonton, to the port, so it can be shipped to different countries including the United
States and other destinations in the Pacific Rim; on the other hand, it would also carry
condensate to Bruderheim, to be used on the production of oil products (Enbridge, n.d.[b]). The
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 2

pipelines would be mostly buried underground, although the water crossings would be
constructed to go above the water level (CBC News, 2012).
The $6,5 billion pipeline (Enbridge, n.d.[c]) would carry an estimate of 525,000 barrels of
oil every day (Enbridge, n.d.[b]), which is roughly one third of the oil production of the entire
Alberta province on 2010 (Alberta, n.d.). Also, the construction of the pipeline would require
about 3,000 construction workers, and its operation would create 560 long-term jobs in British
Columbia, that would insert $32 million annually as salaries (Enbridge, n.d.[d]) into the local
economies. Also, during the 30 years of operation of the pipeline, it is estimated that about $1,2
billion would go as tax revenues for the provincial government (Enbridge, n.d.[e]).
The planned pipeline route goes through the traditional territories of 64 First Nations
communities, many of which still have not solved their land and sovereignty situation (Bocking,
2012). Among Aboriginal peoples this project has generated strong reactions of opposition. In
response to this, Enbridge has launched a programme trying to engage with First Nations
demands and interests.
Discourses and representations
Due to the magnitude of the impacts that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project may
create, many groups have raised their voice to show their position on this issue. When observing
the discussion focused on Aboriginal peoples, it is possible to identify two major social actors,
namely, First Nations communities and the industry itself. In order to state their opinions about
this issue, these actors use a variety of representations of nature and the involved stakeholders to
understand the phenomenon, reproduce this understanding, and ultimately gather support for
achieving their own objectives.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 3

Following this, it is useful to take Hannigan’s work on discourses, where he uses this
concept as a set of concepts that are perpetuated through practices, giving meaning to reality
(2006, p. 36). With different discourses of environment, therefore, come different ways of
understanding how humans should relate with nature and which actions should be taken in this
relationship.
Also, for a better understanding of how these discourses and positions are transmitted, it
is suitable to take the concept of frame, considered as a structure of meanings that puts symbols
in relation to each other (Doyle, Elliott & Tindall, 1997, p.241). In particular it is important to
observe how these different views are placed in public opinion, through media frames that
organize how these meaning structures are shown (p.242).
Environmental discourses
Using the typology of environmental discourses proposed by Hannigan (2006, p. 39) on
the information provided on Enbridge’s official website for the Northern Gateway project
(Enbridge, n.d.[f]), it is easy to identify that their main form of representing nature is based on an
Arcadian view. By treating the environment as a natural legacy, they are stating that nature is
something external that should not be intervened, keeping human activity out of it, as in the idea
of complementarity. In the same sense they propose work with conservation partners for planting
and taking care of trees, avoiding that the activities of the project create any impacts.
By observing Enbridge’s Neutral Footprint Program, it is possible to identify an
Ecosystem discourse (Hannigan, 2006, p.42), based on the idea that there is a need to
compensate for what has been done (Enbridge, n.d.[g]). Key terms such as stabilization and
disturbed environment show that in this statement there is an underlying viewpoint that considers
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 4

nature as something external that is interfered by human activities and that, therefore, needs to be
repaired scientifically, as can be seen on the use of figures for the calculation of this reparation.
On the other hand, Aboriginal opposition to the pipeline rely on a different vision of
environmental activity to justify its views. As can be seen on the Save the Fraser Declaration
(Save the Fraser, 2013), First Nations wield an argument based mainly on the rights and
responsibilities they are entitled to, and stating that the project would be violating their values
and laws. Also, there are clear references to the cleanliness of water and its health effects, and to
issues about governance and sovereignty. By doing so, they are engaging in an environmental
justice discourse (Hannigan, 2006, p.47), showing that their rights are threatened, rather than
nature itself.
In addition to that, the same document (Save the Fraser, 2013) shows traces of an
Arcadian discourse (Hannigan, 2006, p.38), with references to the risk that the pipeline would
pose for animals and plants. Besides this idea of complementarity there is also present the
concept of iconisation, referred to the stereotyped images that rest on cultural memory. By
making reference to the ancient and profound relationship with the environment, First Nations
are wielding a discourse marked by the Arcadian mode.
Public representations of the project and stakeholders
Since the Northern Gateway Pipeline project has generated a strong debate, the involved
stakeholders had had to engage in a discussion that not only requires a vision about nature, but
also representations of the project itself, its consequences, and even the other participants. By
doing so, each one of the stakeholders is attempting to create an image of itself and its opposition
that benefits its own interests. In order to do so, they have to engage in practices of media
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 5

representation that can be analyzed and understood using the framing approach proposed by
Doyle, Elliott and Tindall (1997).
Taking this into account, I will first engage in an analysis of Enbridge’s public
representation of its project and Aboriginal communities. Considering the video Working
Together with First Nations (Enbridge, 2013), there are many features that have to be mentioned.
In this video the Chief of the Birdtail Sioux First Nation talks about previous pipelines as if they
had no effect whatsoever. By doing so, the company is trying to state that Aboriginal
communities would not be really affected by the project. Also, Enbridge is portrayed as a friend
of the community, because of the support it provides and the agreements that have been reached.
It is also important to notice that the project is depicted as the only option for First Nations, that
whose future would be doomed if they were to reject the project. This is reinforced to many
references to employment, money, economic development, opportunities for children, and
Aboriginal education, while the camera focuses a classroom chalkboard with the word future on
it. It is also interesting that, while speaking, Chief Ken Chalmers is driving a big truck, with a
subtle reference to the everyday importance of oil products and, therefore, the relevance of the
project. Cultural worries are also assessed by highlighting the support that Enbridge has granted
to Aboriginal education, and the fact that an ancient site was found. For addressing political
concerns, it is stated many times that rights will not be given up, and that land titles would not be
touched. In general terms, the project is represented as something that First Nations not only
want, but also need.
By looking at Enbridge’s website on Aboriginal concerns (n.d.[h]), and the video that can
be found here, it is also possible to find what Doyle, Elliott and Tindall (1997, p. 251) call
identity-framing, where an image of the other party is constructed and reproduced so that the
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 6

personal image can be kept in a better relative position. By characterizing First Nations as
communities that suffer alcoholism, high school dropout rates, hopelessness and elevated suicide
proportions, the company is trying to dismantle what Nadasdy (2005) portrayed as the image of
the Ecologically Noble Indian, a stereotype of Aboriginal peoples as living connected to the
environment, in harmony with nature. Based on this archetype many claims have assumed that
First Nations possess a particular wisdom over environmental topics that can be used as an asset
on different claims over the use of resources. By trying to depict Aboriginal life as a chaotic
catastrophe Enbridge is attempting to destroy this illusion of wisdom, and stating that they know
better what to do to improve their life conditions. Also, this can be seen as an attempt to prove
that the environment has lost its Native cultural component, becoming an empty space that can
be analyzed through a resources logic, as Willems-Braun proposes (1996, p. 15).
It is also possible to find numerous forms of Aboriginal public statements, as the
coverage of the Drums of the Great Bear gathering. In this short documentary (Gillis, 2012) the
idea of the pipeline as the only future for Aboriginal communities is challenged when a child
speaks opposing it the project. Even more, the fact that this girl recognized how ridiculous the
project is a way of showing that there is no need of science to understand that the project should
not be done. Also, with manifestations of traditional culture, like the chants and the use of
Aboriginal costumes, First Nations are trying to state that this opposition is not something
ephemeral, but that it is part of an ancient relationship with land and nature, appealing to the
image of the Ecologically Noble Indian (Nadasdy, 2005). In addition to that, showing the support
of politicians, as well as references to being heard all around the world is an attempt to frame the
Aboriginal position in this conflict as one that has a broader support, with parties that go beyond
First Nations and those near the pipeline.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 7

Another important notion that appears systematically through First Nations
representations of the conflict is that of risk. As can be seen in different videos (Gillis, 2012;
ForestEthics, 2010), Aboriginal communities show their concern for the unexpected
consequences of the Enbridge pipeline. Due to its particularities, this issue will be analyzed by
itself.
Notions of risk and uncertainty
The speech of those who oppose the Enbridge pipelines from an Aboriginal point of view
is usually marked with references to the risk of the terrible consequences this project might
unleash if something went wrong (Gillis, 2012; ForestEthics, 2010; Save the Fraser, 2013). This
discourse needs to be addressed particularly, because its background has other implications on
this debate.
For understanding the concept of risk, it is useful to use the approach drawn by Beck
(1992), who explains that modern science and technology has led to a suspension to its early-
modern industrial logics. Nowadays, Beck claims, it is no longer possible to calculate the
magnitude of a possible disaster, making the process of assessing the benefit-risk ratio, as well as
quantifying the eventual compensations, more difficult and complex, if not impossible. When
faced with the Worst Imaginable Accident, there is no company, governmental organization, or
social movement that can be held responsible or accountable for the consequences (p. 101-102).
When risk is calculated through a function considering the odds of a disaster happening and the
impacts of it (Service et al., 2012, p. 368), an accident of this kind goes out of range.
Still, every project that is to be developed has to go through an environmental assessment
that includes risk analysis on different levels. In order to deal with the uncertainty and
possibilities of future events, risk assessments become relevant as an input for making decisions
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 8

(Service et al., 2012, p. 368). However, this calculation is not trustworthy, because human
disturbances start to accumulate (Service et al., 2012, p.372) and the environment becomes
embedded in a network of artificial activities. Considering the complexity of these systems,
science loses some degree of certainty and the statements made based on its authority have to be
contested (Yearley, 1992, p. 519).
The limits of science on a context of cultural diversity
In addition to the uncertainty that covers these calculations, it is important to look at how
the scientific system is used as a decision making tool to decide on the construction of projects
such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Usually these decisions are based on economic
calculations that work as a function of the potential benefits of the project, and the costs that it
would pose, including, in both categories, both social and private figures.
This scientific attempts, however, are based on a particular epistemology, that is, a certain
way of understanding the world. When these calculations are applied to a different culture, based
on unshared values, it is no longer possible to base decisions without giving it a second thought.
This is a key issue on the discussion of the Enbridge pipelines. Putting apart the considerations
about the potential damages that the pipeline may pose, what generates conflict is that the
company has only looked at the economic value of the project, without taking into account
Aboriginal values. It is clear that Enbridge did not consider First Nations relationship with the
environment, nor land claims (Save the Fraser, 2013) in its project calculations. Even though it
tries to engage in Aboriginal interests, Enbridge’s management system cannot operate regarding
the same inputs as First Nations culture. As Hernandez (2013, p. 19) puts it, the meaning of
being indigenous is constructed in a struggle that has an economic counterpart, and while big
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 9

corporations are a manifestation of domination, other forms of organization, such as community
economic development, might work as an advance on self-determination.
Conclusions
Considering what has been explained above, it is clear that the discussion of Aboriginal
communities’ issues of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project is a complex and
intricate matter. Not only the interests of the parties involved are diverse, but the ways that the
company and First Nations understand the project is diametrically different. This mismatched
understanding of the project, based on unshared values, leads to a situation where conflict cannot
be avoided.
In addition to that, the superiority granted to the scientific system due to its objectivity is
starting to become contested, making it less reliable as a source of authority and as an input for
decision making. The discussion of the role of science certainly needs to be addressed in order to
build the capabilities that will allow us to organize development priorities, as well as the criteria
for deciding on whose should be affected by economic activities.
Finally, it is important to highlight the relevance of cultural values and differences in the
discussion about science, since the effects of decisions that are made based on its criteria do not
only concern scientists, but all of us. As Beck (1992) clearly states it:
Where the monopoly of technology becomes a monopoly on concealed social change, it
must be called into question and cancelled by the principle of division of powers […]. In
all central social issues and committees relative to technological development, systematic
alternatives, dissenting voices, dissenting experts and an interdisciplinary diversity would
have to be combined. (p. 109).

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 10

References
Alberta. (n.d.). Economic Benefits. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/economicinvestment.html.
Beck, U. (1992). From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of survival, social
structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture & Society 9, 97-123.
Bocking, E. (2012). Enbridge too far. Alternatives Journal, 38(3), 5.
CBC News. (2012, January 10). Northern Gateway pipeline: benefits vs. concerns. Retrieved
November 22, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/northern-gateway-pipeline-
benefits-vs-concerns-1.1135312.
Doyle, A., Elliott, B., & Tindall, D. (1997). Framing the Forests: Corporations, the B.C. Forest
Alliance, and the Media. In Carroll, K. (Ed.), Organizing Dissent: Contemporary Social
Movements in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.) (pp.240-268). Toronto, ON: Garamond
Press.
Enbridge. (n.d.[a]). Route video. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/route-video/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[b]). Project at a glance. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
https://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/project-at-a-glance/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[c]). Project overview. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/about-the-project/project-overview/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[d]). Jobs and training. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/benefits/jobs-and-training/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[e]). Economic FAQs. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
https://www.northerngateway.ca/economic-opportunity/economic-faqs/.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 11

Enbridge. (n.d.[f]). Natural legacy program. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.northerngateway.ca/environmental-responsibility/natural-legacy-program/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[g]). Neutral footprint program. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.northerngateway.ca/environmental-responsibility/neutral-footprint-program/.
Enbridge. (n.d.[h]). Birdtail Sioux: Inspirational First Nation. Retrieved November 22, 2013,
from http://www.northerngateway.ca/aboriginal-engagement/birdtail-sioux-inspirational-
first-nation/.
Enbridge. (2013, November 7). Working together with First Nations. Retrieved November 22,
2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptPRIbewSJs.
ForestEthics. (2010, August 5). First Nations opposition to Enbridge Northern Gateway
Pipelines. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fHAtCHgzyY&list=PLB2DEF20C29C09D73.
Gillis, D. (2012, February 20). Drums of the Great Bear: Exclusive video of historic gathering
against Enbridge. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/video-drums-of-the-great-bear-historic-
gathering-against-enbridge-damien-gillis/.
Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology. New York: Routledge.
Hernandez, G. (2013). Indigenous perspectives on Community Economic Development: A
North-South conversation. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economic
Research 4(1), 6-24.
Nadasdy, P. (2005). Transcending the debate over the Ecologically Noble Indian: Indigenous
peoples and environmentalism. Etnohistory 52(2), 291-331.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and Aboriginal Concerns 12

Save the Fraser. (May, 2013). Save the Fraser Declaration. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from
http://savethefraser.ca/Fraser-Declaration-May2013.pdf.
Service, C., Nelson, T., Paquet, P., McInnes, W. & Darimont, C. (2012). Pipelines and Parks:
Evaluating external risks to protected areas from the proposed Northern Gateway oil
transport project. Natural Areas Journal 32(4), 367-376.
Willems-Braun, B. (1996). Colonial Vestiges: Representing Forest Landscapes on Canada’s
West Coast. BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly, 112, 5-39.
Yearley, S. (1992). Green ambivalence about science: Legal-rational authority and the scientific
legitimation of a social movement. The British Journal of Sociology 43(4), 511-532.