Oil is a burden to First Nations who want development stopped.

Context#

Media coverage often portrays Indigenous peoples as universally opposed to oil and gas development. This narrative erases the voices of the many First Nations who actively support, partner with, and profit from the energy industry.

Evidence#

Indigenous Support for Oil & Gas

The numbers tell a different story:

• 130+ First Nations invested in the Coastal GasLink pipeline
• Indigenous communities own equity stakes in major pipelines
• Thousands of Indigenous people work in oil and gas
• Billions in contracts between industry and Indigenous businesses

First Nations who supported pipelines (partial list):

• Trans Mountain: 120+ Indigenous communities signed benefit agreements
• Coastal GasLink: Indigenous ownership stake, 130+ agreements
• Enbridge Line 3: Multiple tribal nations supported the project
• Keystone XL: Many First Nations in Alberta supported it

Indigenous-Owned Energy Companies

Examples:

• Indian Resource Council: Represents 130+ First Nations with oil and gas interests
• First Nations-owned companies operate wells, pipelines, and services across Western Canada
• Indigenous equity ownership in Trans Mountain pipeline expansion
• Joint ventures between First Nations and major producers

Economic Impact on Communities

What oil and gas provides:

• High-paying jobs in communities with limited opportunities
• Business contracts worth billions annually
• Revenue sharing and royalty payments
• Infrastructure investment (roads, facilities)
• Training and skills development programs
• Economic self-determination

Real outcomes:

• Communities have used energy revenues to build schools, health centers, housing
• Youth employment and reduced outmigration
• Funding for cultural programs and language preservation
• Reduced dependence on government transfers

The Paternalism Problem

Who speaks for Indigenous peoples?

• Environmental groups often claim to represent Indigenous interests
• Activists fly in for protests, then leave
• Urban-based Indigenous organizations may not represent resource communities
• Elected band councils frequently support projects their members voted for

The uncomfortable truth:

• Some of the loudest "Indigenous" opposition comes from non-Indigenous activists
• Hereditary vs. elected leadership disputes are complex internal matters
• Media prefers conflict narratives over Indigenous business success stories
• "Indigenous opposition" often means a small group, not entire nations

What Communities Actually Say

Chief Roy Fox, Blood Tribe (Kainai Nation):

"Oil and gas development has provided opportunities for our people that didn't exist before."

Chief Tony Alexis, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation:

"We support responsible resource development. It provides jobs for our people."

Dale Swampy, National Coalition of Chiefs:

"We are tired of being used as a pawn by environmental groups who don't speak for us."

Indian Resource Council:

"First Nations have been involved in the oil and gas industry for over 50 years... this relationship has created employment and wealth."

The Protests vs. The Reality

What makes headlines:

• Small protest camps
• Activist blockades
• Court challenges by specific groups

What doesn't make headlines:

• Hundreds of benefit agreements signed
• Thousands of Indigenous workers in the industry
• Billions in Indigenous business contracts
• Communities voting to support projects

Who Benefits from the "Burden" Narrative?

Environmental groups:

• Use Indigenous opposition to legitimize their campaigns
• Rarely mention Indigenous support for projects
• Often led by non-Indigenous activists

Foreign funders:

• U.S. foundations fund Canadian anti-pipeline activism
• "Indigenous rights" framing advances anti-oil agenda
• Keeps Canadian oil landlocked, benefiting U.S. producers

Not Indigenous communities:

• Delayed projects mean delayed jobs and revenue
• Paternalism denies Indigenous economic agency
• Communities that want development are silenced

The Choice Should Be Theirs

Indigenous communities should decide for themselves whether to:

• Partner with industry
• Oppose specific projects
• Pursue their own development

What they shouldn't have is:

• Outside activists speaking for them
• Media assuming they all oppose development
• Governments blocking projects communities support
• Their economic aspirations dismissed as "selling out"

Analysis#

This claim is mostly false because it presents a one-sided narrative that erases Indigenous support for oil and gas development.

The reality is that Indigenous peoples hold diverse views—just like any other population. Many First Nations have chosen to partner with industry, recognizing that resource development offers economic opportunities that few other industries can match in remote and northern communities.

Over 120 First Nations signed agreements supporting the Trans Mountain expansion. Indigenous communities are equity owners in major pipelines. The Indian Resource Council represents over 130 First Nations with oil and gas production on their lands. These voices are systematically ignored in media coverage.

The "Indigenous peoples oppose oil" narrative is often pushed by environmental groups who find it politically useful—regardless of whether it's true. It's a form of paternalism that denies Indigenous peoples the agency to make their own economic decisions.

Some Indigenous communities do oppose certain projects, and those concerns deserve respect and consultation. But portraying all First Nations as wanting "development stopped" is factually wrong and insults the many Indigenous leaders, workers, and entrepreneurs who have built successful partnerships with the energy industry.

The real burden isn't oil—it's activists and politicians who presume to speak for Indigenous peoples while ignoring what those communities actually want.