​Correction to Coastal GasLink Pipeline series

Image: TC Energy

In late November, JWN published a series of articles analyzing the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, which is currently under construction to connect natural gas production in northeast B.C. with the LNG Canada project for export. Our intent was to offer insight into the project's unique social, environmental and political characteristics, which serve to demonstrate some of the reasons why pipeline approval and construction has become so difficult in modern Canada.

A key premise of this series was that the proponent of Coastal GasLink, TC Energy, erred by not consulting with hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en First Nations, whose traditional territory is along the pipeline route.

As is documented in two public reports by Coastal GasLink (May 2013 and April 2014), this is incorrect.

Since the project began in 2012, the Coastal GasLink team has engaged in a wide range of consultation activities including with Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs from all 13 Houses.

Coastal GasLink provided the Office of the Wet’suwet’en (governed by some Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs) with capacity funding for consultation activities regarding the project.. This funding was provided for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en to engage in meetings and other activities related to the project, to identify relevant effects of the project on the Wet’suwet’en people, which includes archeology and heritage sites and identify and consider relevant mitigation measures to address those effects.

TC Energy spokeswoman Suzanne Wilton says that "over time, our discussions have included routing and biophysical field data; regulatory documents for review and comment of Indigenous groups; mitigation options; the process and content of the Environmental Assessment Application. The OW was also represented on the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) working group regarding the project, which provided the opportunity to communicate about their archeology and heritage sites directly to the Environmental Assessment Office."

We sincerely apologize for this error.

Advocacy & Opinion


U.S. & International


Renewables


Special Report