Coastal Gaslink Impact Benefit Agreement

The unsigned agreement also raises the question of the possibility of transforming the pipeline for other purposes. Previously, First Nations in the region were almost unanimously opposed to Enbridge`s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline because it posed significant environmental risks, such as oil pollution in coastal waters. Coastal GasLink received much more support, in part because its pipeline would carry natural gas, not bitumen. Extensive discussions were held with the community on the choice of the proposed route. In addition, we conducted joint socio-economic studies to identify the potential cultural, social and economic benefits or benefits of the project. 42 members of the Wet`suwet`en community were closely involved in the project to better understand important sites of traditional activities. McKinnon also sees this agreement as a means of ensuring that Coastal GasLink is open to the Community`s environmental protection concerns. The uns submitted agreement states that “Coastal GasLink will not transform the pipeline component of the project without [First Nation`s] agreement to transport crude oil, bitumen or dilbit.” The Impact and Well-Being Agreement (IBA) and other documents were developed in 2016, two years before the first payments were made to the First Nation. Since formal agreements are not publicly available due to confidentiality clauses, these documents provide a valuable record of Coastal GasLink`s negotiating objectives.

TransCanada notes that contract and employment opportunities as well as long-term performance programs have been developed specifically for each municipality along the route. .