Latest news with #YellowheadInstitute
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
BC LNG project divides Indigenous nations, risks financial and environmental harm
A long-delayed and controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export terminal in northern British Columbia is now officially back on track and promoted as a new opportunity for Indigenous economic development. However, a report released last week warns that the risks — to land, community and even investors — are far greater than the promised benefits. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline and Ksi Lisims LNG terminal are poised to export up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, much of it destined for Asian markets. The pipeline's route cuts through Gitxsan and Tsimshian territories, but many hereditary leaders and community members remain opposed. Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Wale said. Financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts. Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable. The report highlights that Japan and South Korea — key prospective markets for BC LNG exports — are already experiencing surpluses. 'Given the glut in the LNG market, where is this going to be sold, to which market and how is it going to get there? Those answers are not yet clear and so that presents a risk to those in it, and then those that are impacted by it,' King said. Emily Lowan, who co-authored the financial risk analysis for the report, said typically, 80 per cent of a project's funding comes from loans and 20 per cent from direct investment. With this setup, sharing the equity portion equally between two parties (Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation) means each party must directly invest 10 per cent. 'Equity owners are paid after lenders, which means they are financially vulnerable if a project defaults or does not result in projected returns,' Lowan said. While Ottawa's $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program is seen as proof that the government wants Indigenous communities to have a real share in these projects will offer some financial cushion, Lowan said the program does not cover lost revenue if profits fall short or shield nations if a commercial partner collapses. Lowan said at the time the report was written, no loan guarantee programs protected the full corporate debt exposure. With project costs for the PRGT soaring and on track to reach $30 billion as outlined in the report, a hypothetical $3 billion equity stake for the Nisga'a Nation would absorb nearly 30 per cent of Canada's Indigenous loan guarantee fund. If costs overrun — as seen in previous megaprojects — lenders may demand more equity or refuse additional financing, potentially triggering defaults, she said. The report highlights how the floating LNG terminals and associated infrastructure will threaten marine ecosystems through dredging that destroys coral reefs and oyster beds, underwater noise pollution and shipping operations that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. 'It really is a watershed of impacts. When you start to impact one part of that system, the rest of the ecosystem will be impacted as well. These cascading effects are especially concerning as climate change stresses these environments,' Wale said. The pipeline crosses two of British Columbia's largest salmon-producing river systems, requiring clear-cutting through major waterways and drilling beneath critical spawning habitats. Wale warned the pipeline will bisect important salmon runs, huckleberry patches and moose habitat critical to Indigenous food security and cultural practices. Despite this, the pipeline's approval relies on a permit granted in 2014. In June, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office ruled construction was 'substantially started,' allowing developers to move forward without a new review. This permit bypasses contemporary environmental standards, even as climate impacts worsen — raising concerns among conflicting Indigenous voices. Socially, resource hub towns such as Terrace are expected to face higher housing and food costs and overwhelmed health services. 'There will be 1,200 people in a man camp just a kilometer away … our health care system here is hanging on by its threads, and we're going to be bringing in over 1,000 workers into a tiny community,' said Gina Mowatt, a Gitxsan member. The influx of transient workers in 'man-camps' also raises worries about increased risks of sexual violence toward Indigenous women, a pattern linked to such developments. Beyond these risks, the report details uncertainty linked to BC's shifting LNG policy. The 2024 commitment to 'net-zero ready' LNG projects by 2030 still allows ongoing fossil gas use if electricity isn't yet available, meaning emissions will persist and put additional strain on local environments. While the Nisga'a Nation has actively invested in and supported the project, many hereditary leaders and community members of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian nations oppose it, asserting they never gave free, prior and informed consent. King warned that this dynamic revives a colonial 'divide and develop' tactic that pits Indigenous Nations against one another. 'There are plenty of opportunities for First Nations to negotiate with BC or Ontario or Canada, but fewer opportunities for nations to negotiate and undertake this type of diplomacy amongst themselves and I think that's by design,' he said. 'I don't think Canada wants nations to be working together. I think they want them to be divided.' He said the governments and corporations cultivate division by labeling communities that support resource development as 'the good Indians' while portraying resisting groups as 'the bad Indians.' This 'cleavage that's created and cast,' King said, mainly benefits external actors and undermines Indigenous governance, long-standing diplomatic relations and collective power. He said the approval process itself risks deepening these divisions by advancing consultation and consent with only select Indigenous groups, while excluding others is further fracturing Indigenous unity. Mowatt frames the conflict as a struggle between Indigenous communities and external actors, rather than a dispute within Indigenous nations. '[Instead] the war is against PRGT; the war is against these massive international corporations that are coming into our territory, every intention to destroy our lives here,' Mowatt said. As the project moves forward amid fractured consent and complex risks, the social and environmental stakes continue to weigh on the communities whose lives and lands intersect with the pipeline's path. 'We need the whole picture … it's about the legacy left for future generations, and who actually gets to decide what that legacy will be,' Wale said. Sonal Gupta / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada's National Observer Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
a day ago
- Business
- National Observer
BC LNG project divides Indigenous nations, risks financial and environmental harm
A long-delayed and controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and export terminal in northern British Columbia is now officially back on track and promoted as a new opportunity for Indigenous economic development. However, a report released last week warns that the risks — to land, community and even investors — are far greater than the promised benefits. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline and Ksi Lisims LNG terminal are poised to export up to 12 million tonnes of LNG annually, much of it destined for Asian markets. The pipeline's route cuts through Gitxsan and Tsimshian territories, but many hereditary leaders and community members remain opposed. Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Wale said. Financial risks Financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts. 'There's been one kind of narrative presented — economic growth is good and LNG equals opportunity. But there are trade-offs and checks and balances. It's important to include those in the conversation,' Janna Wale said. Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable. The report highlights that Japan and South Korea — key prospective markets for BC LNG exports — are already experiencing surpluses. 'Given the glut in the LNG market, where is this going to be sold, to which market and how is it going to get there? Those answers are not yet clear and so that presents a risk to those in it, and then those that are impacted by it,' King said. Emily Lowan, who co-authored the financial risk analysis for the report, said 80 per cent of PRGT's funding comes from loans and 20 per cent from direct investment. With this setup, sharing the equity portion equally between two parties (Western LNG and the Nisga'a Nation) means each holds a 10 per cent ownership stake in the whole project. 'Equity owners are paid after lenders, which means they are financially vulnerable if a project defaults or does not result in projected returns,' Lowan said. While Ottawa's $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program is seen as proof that the government wants Indigenous communities to have a real share in these projects will offer some financial cushion, Lowan said the program does not cover lost revenue if profits fall short or shield nations if a commercial partner collapses. Lowan said at the time the report was written, no loan guarantee programs protected the full corporate debt exposure. The Nisga'a Nation's $3 billion equity stake would absorb nearly 30 per cent of Canada's Indigenous loan guarantee fund. If costs overrun — as seen in previous megaprojects — lenders may demand more equity or refuse additional financing, potentially triggering defaults, she said. Environmental and social concerns The report highlights how the floating LNG terminals and associated infrastructure will threaten marine ecosystems through dredging that destroys coral reefs and oyster beds, underwater noise pollution and shipping operations that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. 'It really is a watershed of impacts. When you start to impact one part of that system, the rest of the ecosystem will be impacted as well. These cascading effects are especially concerning as climate change stresses these environments,' Wale said. The pipeline crosses two of British Columbia's largest salmon-producing river systems, requiring clear-cutting through major waterways and drilling beneath critical spawning habitats. Wale warned the pipeline will bisect important salmon runs, huckleberry patches and moose habitat critical to Indigenous food security and cultural practices. Despite this, the pipeline's approval relies on a permit granted in 2014. In June, British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office ruled construction was 'substantially started,' allowing developers to move forward without a new review. This permit bypasses contemporary environmental standards, even as climate impacts worsen — raising concerns among conflicting Indigenous voices. Socially, resource hub towns such as Terrace are expected to face higher housing and food costs and overwhelmed health services. 'There will be 1,200 people in a man camp just a kilometer away … our health care system here is hanging on by its threads, and we're going to be bringing in over 1,000 workers into a tiny community,' said Gina Mowatt, a Gitxsan member. The influx of transient workers in 'man-camps' also raises worries about increased risks of sexual violence toward Indigenous women, a pattern linked to such developments. Beyond these risks, the report details uncertainty linked to BC's shifting LNG policy. The 2024 commitment to 'net-zero ready' LNG projects by 2030 still allows ongoing fossil gas use if electricity isn't yet available, meaning emissions will persist and put additional strain on local environments. Rifts between Indigenous nations While the Nisga'a Nation has actively invested in and supported the project, many hereditary leaders and community members of the Gitxsan and Tsimshian nations oppose it, asserting they never gave free, prior and informed consent. King warned that this dynamic revives a colonial 'divide and develop' tactic that pits Indigenous Nations against one another. 'There are plenty of opportunities for First Nations to negotiate with BC or Ontario or Canada, but fewer opportunities for nations to negotiate and undertake this type of diplomacy amongst themselves and I think that's by design,' he said. 'I don't think Canada wants nations to be working together. I think they want them to be divided.' He said the governments and corporations cultivate division by labeling communities that support resource development as 'the good Indians' while portraying resisting groups as 'the bad Indians.' This 'cleavage that's created and cast,' King said, mainly benefits external actors and undermines Indigenous governance, long-standing diplomatic relations and collective power. He said the approval process itself risks deepening these divisions by advancing consultation and consent with only select Indigenous groups, while excluding others is further fracturing Indigenous unity. Mowatt frames the conflict as a struggle between Indigenous communities and external actors, rather than a dispute within Indigenous nations. '[Instead] the war is against PRGT; the war is against these massive international corporations that are coming into our territory, every intention to destroy our lives here,' Mowatt said. As the project moves forward amid fractured consent and complex risks, the social and environmental stakes continue to weigh on the communities whose lives and lands intersect with the pipeline's path. 'We need the whole picture … it's about the legacy left for future generations, and who actually gets to decide what that legacy will be,' Wale said.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Report raises questions about First Nations ownership in major projects
OTTAWA — A new think tank report is questioning how the federal and provincial governments' sprint to build major infrastructure projects might affect Indigenous Peoples' rights — and warns that it could end up pitting Indigenous communities against each other. The report by the Yellowhead Institute, "Buried Burdens," takes a look at major projects through a case study of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project and the Ksi Lisims facility in B.C., which are expected to transport millions of tonnes of gas per year. Owned in part by the Nisga'a Nation, the project has seen staunch opposition from other First Nations communities that did not approve or consent to it. The Yellowhead report, released this week, comes amid a countrywide push to rapidly launch major projects, including pipelines, to shore up the economy against U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. The recently passed One Canadian Economy Act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects it deems to be in the national interest by sidestepping environmental protections and other legislation. Governments have been encouraging First Nations leaders to support such projects through loan guarantees and promises of financial incentives. But many First Nations leaders fear their ways of life could be irreparably harmed if governments evade environmental standards. "Right now, the narrative is full speed ahead on resource development," said Hayden King, a member of Beausoliel First Nation who serves as Yellowhead's executive director. "Increasingly, that includes Indigenous partners, but there's not a lot of discussion on the dynamics of investing in projects like these, and there's a risk that has to be considered … "First Nations are not necessarily the ones merely impacted by these developments, but they're being encouraged to invest in these projects, to be partners in these projects and grant social licence to enable these projects." Some provinces have enacted laws similar to the One Canadian Economy Act, including Bill 5 in Ontario, now the subject of a court challenge by nine First Nations. And in B.C., Premier David Eby's government passed Bills 14 and 15 — pieces of legislation meant to ramp up energy and infrastructure development that have come under fire from First Nations. Prime Minister Mark Carney has frequently pointed to Indigenous participation in major projects as a means to ensure their success and prevent delays. He has pointed to the $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program as proof of Ottawa's commitment to ensuring Indigenous communities have a meaningful stake. The report challenges that argument altogether, calling it an "industry-driven narrative." "While there are potential benefits from participating in equity ownership when compared to shorter-term impact benefit agreements and service contracts, there are also greater risks," the report says. "This particular philosophy of 'economic reconciliation' imagines Indigenous communities regaining control of their economies, aiming for self-sufficiency, sustainability, and self-determination. This is an industry-driven narrative that presents resource extraction as the singular pathway to achieve these ends." That narrative, the report says, could also cause rifts between Indigenous communities that support specific projects and those that do not. "While uncomfortable, conflict and disagreement are part of Nation-to-Nation relationships — and always have been. However, it is equally important to recognize that in true Nation-to-Nation relationships, the self-determining rights of one Nation cannot supersede the inherent rights of another," the report says. King said potential conflicts between pro-development communities and those more hesitant lends itself to conversations about the kinds of development that align with their values. But that conversation is also about rights, King said, and how courts will strike a balance among First Nations who don't see eye-to-eye on project proposals. "Let's not have the courts decide the answers to those questions, but let's actually work through diplomacy and figure those out on our own terms, using our own Indigenous law," he said. King said that discussion should "feed back into the conversation about what kind of economy … we want," pointing to the pre-contact economies that once sustained Indigenous Peoples. "We had these economies, and still do to a degree. So what would it look like to reimagine those, and rearticulate them in the face of the narrative that we only have one option, which is resource development?" he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025. Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
6 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Report raises questions about First Nations ownership in major projects
OTTAWA - A new think tank report is questioning how the federal and provincial governments' sprint to build major infrastructure projects might affect Indigenous Peoples' rights — and warns that it could end up pitting Indigenous communities against each other. The report by the Yellowhead Institute, 'Buried Burdens,' takes a look at major projects through a case study of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project and the Ksi Lisims facility in B.C., which are expected to transport millions of tonnes of gas per year. Owned in part by the Nisga'a Nation, the project has seen staunch opposition from other First Nations communities that did not approve or consent to it. The Yellowhead report, released this week, comes amid a countrywide push to rapidly launch major projects, including pipelines, to shore up the economy against U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. The recently passed One Canadian Economy Act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects it deems to be in the national interest by sidestepping environmental protections and other legislation. Governments have been encouraging First Nations leaders to support such projects through loan guarantees and promises of financial incentives. But many First Nations leaders fear their ways of life could be irreparably harmed if governments evade environmental standards. 'Right now, the narrative is full speed ahead on resource development,' said Hayden King, a member of Beausoliel First Nation who serves as Yellowhead's executive director. 'Increasingly, that includes Indigenous partners, but there's not a lot of discussion on the dynamics of investing in projects like these, and there's a risk that has to be considered … 'First Nations are not necessarily the ones merely impacted by these developments, but they're being encouraged to invest in these projects, to be partners in these projects and grant social licence to enable these projects.' Some provinces have enacted laws similar to the One Canadian Economy Act, including Bill 5 in Ontario, now the subject of a court challenge by nine First Nations. And in B.C., Premier David Eby's government passed Bills 14 and 15 — pieces of legislation meant to ramp up energy and infrastructure development that have come under fire from First Nations. Prime Minister Mark Carney has frequently pointed to Indigenous participation in major projects as a means to ensure their success and prevent delays. He has pointed to the $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program as proof of Ottawa's commitment to ensuring Indigenous communities have a meaningful stake. The report challenges that argument altogether, calling it an 'industry-driven narrative.' 'While there are potential benefits from participating in equity ownership when compared to shorter-term impact benefit agreements and service contracts, there are also greater risks,' the report says. 'This particular philosophy of 'economic reconciliation' imagines Indigenous communities regaining control of their economies, aiming for self-sufficiency, sustainability, and self-determination. This is an industry-driven narrative that presents resource extraction as the singular pathway to achieve these ends.' That narrative, the report says, could also cause rifts between Indigenous communities that support specific projects and those that do not. 'While uncomfortable, conflict and disagreement are part of Nation-to-Nation relationships — and always have been. However, it is equally important to recognize that in true Nation-to-Nation relationships, the self-determining rights of one Nation cannot supersede the inherent rights of another,' the report says. King said potential conflicts between pro-development communities and those more hesitant lends itself to conversations about the kinds of development that align with their values. But that conversation is also about rights, King said, and how courts will strike a balance among First Nations who don't see eye-to-eye on project proposals. 'Let's not have the courts decide the answers to those questions, but let's actually work through diplomacy and figure those out on our own terms, using our own Indigenous law,' he said. King said that discussion should 'feed back into the conversation about what kind of economy … we want,' pointing to the pre-contact economies that once sustained Indigenous Peoples. 'We had these economies, and still do to a degree. So what would it look like to reimagine those, and rearticulate them in the face of the narrative that we only have one option, which is resource development?' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
6 days ago
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Report raises questions about First Nations ownership in major projects
OTTAWA – A new think tank report is questioning how the federal and provincial governments' sprint to build major infrastructure projects might affect Indigenous Peoples' rights — and warns that it could end up pitting Indigenous communities against each other. The report by the Yellowhead Institute, 'Buried Burdens,' takes a look at major projects through a case study of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project and the Ksi Lisims facility in B.C., which are expected to transport millions of tonnes of gas per year. Owned in part by the Nisga'a Nation, the project has seen staunch opposition from other First Nations communities that did not approve or consent to it. The Yellowhead report, released this week, comes amid a countrywide push to rapidly launch major projects, including pipelines, to shore up the economy against U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. The recently passed One Canadian Economy Act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects it deems to be in the national interest by sidestepping environmental protections and other legislation. Governments have been encouraging First Nations leaders to support such projects through loan guarantees and promises of financial incentives. But many First Nations leaders fear their ways of life could be irreparably harmed if governments evade environmental standards. 'Right now, the narrative is full speed ahead on resource development,' said Hayden King, a member of Beausoliel First Nation who serves as Yellowhead's executive director. 'Increasingly, that includes Indigenous partners, but there's not a lot of discussion on the dynamics of investing in projects like these, and there's a risk that has to be considered … 'First Nations are not necessarily the ones merely impacted by these developments, but they're being encouraged to invest in these projects, to be partners in these projects and grant social licence to enable these projects.' Some provinces have enacted laws similar to the One Canadian Economy Act, including Bill 5 in Ontario, now the subject of a court challenge by nine First Nations. And in B.C., Premier David Eby's government passed Bills 14 and 15 — pieces of legislation meant to ramp up energy and infrastructure development that have come under fire from First Nations. Prime Minister Mark Carney has frequently pointed to Indigenous participation in major projects as a means to ensure their success and prevent delays. He has pointed to the $10 billion Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program as proof of Ottawa's commitment to ensuring Indigenous communities have a meaningful stake. The report challenges that argument altogether, calling it an 'industry-driven narrative.' 'While there are potential benefits from participating in equity ownership when compared to shorter-term impact benefit agreements and service contracts, there are also greater risks,' the report says. 'This particular philosophy of 'economic reconciliation' imagines Indigenous communities regaining control of their economies, aiming for self-sufficiency, sustainability, and self-determination. This is an industry-driven narrative that presents resource extraction as the singular pathway to achieve these ends.' That narrative, the report says, could also cause rifts between Indigenous communities that support specific projects and those that do not. 'While uncomfortable, conflict and disagreement are part of Nation-to-Nation relationships — and always have been. However, it is equally important to recognize that in true Nation-to-Nation relationships, the self-determining rights of one Nation cannot supersede the inherent rights of another,' the report says. King said potential conflicts between pro-development communities and those more hesitant lends itself to conversations about the kinds of development that align with their values. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. But that conversation is also about rights, King said, and how courts will strike a balance among First Nations who don't see eye-to-eye on project proposals. 'Let's not have the courts decide the answers to those questions, but let's actually work through diplomacy and figure those out on our own terms, using our own Indigenous law,' he said. King said that discussion should 'feed back into the conversation about what kind of economy … we want,' pointing to the pre-contact economies that once sustained Indigenous Peoples. 'We had these economies, and still do to a degree. So what would it look like to reimagine those, and rearticulate them in the face of the narrative that we only have one option, which is resource development?' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
