All posts by Common Sense Canadian

Elizabeth May Raises Alarm in House Over Controversial Canada-China Trade Deal

Canada, Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, , , ,
Share

Check out this press release from Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, raising concerns over a new trade deal with China quietly signed by Stephen Harper last month. May rose in the House this week to state her objections to the deal and call for an emergency debate in the House. (Oct. 1, 2012)

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands, will rise today in the House of Commons following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings to request an Emergency Debate on the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). This follows the delivery of a notice of her intention to Speaker Andrew Scheer on Friday.

In her notice, May stated that the “grave and sweeping implications for Canada’s sovereignty, security, and democracy” posed by FIPA – signed by Stephen Harper on September 9, but kept from the public and Parliament until quietly tabled on Wednesday last week – warrants much greater transparency and debate.

According to the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament, FIPA must be tabled in the House for 21 sitting days before it can be ratified. Then, the Privy Council can, without any public or Parliamentary consultation or review, sign it into law.

“I pointed out in my notice to the Speaker that this isperhaps the most significant trade agreement since NAFTA,” May stated, “and the fact that it can be negotiated and ratified behind closed doors is very corrosive to our democracy.

“I also realize that an emergency debate is far from sufficient under the circumstances, but it might be the only opportunity Parliamentarians have to review and discuss FIPA before we are bound to it for the next 15 years, especially if neither the NDP nor the Liberals focus on it during their Opposition Days.”

Read more: http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/press-releases/2012/10/01/may-to-request-emergency-debate-on-canada-china-investment-deal/

Share

BC Liberal Floats Offshore Drilling Amid Enbridge Controversy, Dismissed by Premier

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , ,
Share

Read this story from CBC.caon BC Liberal MLA John Rustad’s recent attempt to inject the controversy around the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline with a new twist – resurrecting the argument for opening BC’s coast to offshore oil and gas development. The notion, first posted on the MLA’s facebook page, has drawn widespread criticism and dismissal from Rustad’s leader, Premier Christy Clark. (Oct. 2, 2012)

Despite the debate already raging between B.C. and Alberta over the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, one backbench Liberal MLA wants to start a dialogue about offshore drilling in B.C.

Nechako Lakes Liberal MLA John Rustad recently posted a message on Facebook about the merits of oil exploration.

“With the debate raging around pipelines I’m sure there isn’t much appetite for offshore oil and gas,” he wrote. “However, if B.C. is ever going to become debt free, one day this is going to have to happen.”

Rustad wants to put the idea of oil exploration off B.C.’s coast on the table — despite the political consequences.

“If it can be done environmentally sound, if it’s something that can meet our standards, if there’s a significant benefit, then we should have that conversation and it should be considered,” he told CBC News.

No Support from Premier Clark

But the proposition has no support from the premier.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark spoke with Alberta Premier Alison Redford Monday about the five conditions B.C. says need to be met before the province will support Enbridge’s bid to build the pipeline, which would run from the Alberta oilsands across B.C. to the port of Kitimat.

Clark is demanding compensation for the environmental risks involved in the pipeline project.

“I think that we’ve got our hands full with just this Enbridge pipeline,” Clark said, adding it’s not an idea she’s entertaining at the moment.

Still, the B.C. New Democrats have jumped on Rustad’s comments.

“Mr. Rustad is being irresponsible by re-opening a deeply divisive debate about bringing further risks to our coastline that would affect the environment, the economy, First Nations, and all British Columbians,” NDP environment critic Rob Fleming said in a release.

“While the premier has failed to truly stand up for British Columbia on the Enbridge pipeline, I hope she will at least clarify her government’s position on offshore drilling.”

The New Democrats are calling for a continuation of B.C.’s long-term commitment to a moratorium on offshore drilling.

Read original story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/02/bc-rustad-offshore-drilling.html

Share

Clark Turns to Blacktop Politics to Reverse Political Fortunes – Raising New Tunnel and Highway

Canada, Politics, Urban & Transport, Western Canada,
Share

Read this column from the Province’s Mike Smyth on BC Premier Christy Clark’s latest attempt to turn around her sagging political fortunes – this time with talk of a replacement for the George Massey Tunnel and widening the Canada 1 Highway to Alberta. (Sept. 30, 2012)

By promising to replace the congested Massey Tunnel and build a four-lane highway all the way to Alberta – with an asterisk next to the “promise,” that is – Christy Clark is going old-school on us.

Black-top politics! It’s a proud B.C. tradition, going back to the grand old days of Social Credit, and continuing with the Liberals and NDP, too.

Now Clark is proving she can buy votes with asphalt with the best of ’em.

Who wouldn’t want to escape the Massey Tunnel traffic-jam torture chamber once and for all? And a four-lane Trans-Canada Highway to the Alberta border would be sweet for drivers in the Interior.

Clark threw in a new 16th Avenue interchange for Surrey, and a whole bunch of new school and hospital projects too, in a spending-spree speech to B.C. municipal leaders.

Now, before you get too excited about all this, be aware there are a few catches.

For one thing, you’ll have to vote Liberal in the next election to get all the goodies, because none of this stuff will get built by May. In fact, you’ll probably have to vote Liberal in two or three elections, because these aren’t exactly short-term projects.

Clark said replacing the Massey Tunnel, for example, would take 10 years – yes, an entire decade – to achieve. (Never mind that they put men on the moon faster than that.)

Widening 280 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway from two lanes to four also would take a decade, she said. Speedy Gonzales, she ain’t.

Then there’s all the fine print and wriggle room attached to the “promises” as well.

On the Massey Tunnel, Clark only committed to “begin planning” the replacement of the tunnel. Would it be replaced by another tunnel or a bridge? How much would it cost? Would it be tolled?

Clark couldn’t answer any of those questions but, by God, she’s going to start planning to answer them at some point (after the election, that is.)

On the Trans-Canada, Clark said the government is prepared to spend $650 million on the project over the next 10 years. But she wants the federal government to cough up matching funds, and there’s no guarantee that will happen.

At the end of the day, you’re left with some very grand and catchy promises – and a very long and dubious road to achieving them.

And don’t forget that it was just over two weeks ago that Finance Minister Mike de Jong was telling a tale of woe about the province’s budget, and promising to cut spending to contain the deficit.

Now here’s Christy saying she’ll spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new highways, tunnels, schools and hospitals.

Does the public ever notice these contradictions?

Read more: http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/columnists/story.html?id=65fef882-933c-4d63-baf3-b6da106e5670

Share

US Geological Survey Confirms Fracking Contaminated Groundwater

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Water and Hydrocarbons, ,
Share

Read this story from Reuters on a new study from the US Geological Survey confirming earlier tests results that showed natural gas fracking operations contaminated groundwater in Wyoming. (Sept. 28, 2012)

SALMON, Idaho, Sept 28 (Reuters) – Government testing of a drinking water aquifer near a tiny Wyoming town has shown concentrations of gases like ethane and propane and diesel compounds, but a natural gas company said it did not cause the contamination.

A report by the U.S. Geological Survey showed petroleum-based pollutants in samples from a monitoring well in the aquifer adjacent to Pavillion, Wyoming, which is at the center of a national debate over hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

A draft study released in December by the Environmental Protection Agency linked fluids used in fracking, a drilling method that has unlocked vast shale gas deposits across the nation, to pollution in the underground formation that supplies drinking water to residents near Encana Corp’s gas production wells east of Pavillion.

The findings contradicted claims by gas drillers that fluids from fracking, which injects water, sand and chemicals underground to boost extraction of fuel, have never contaminated drinking water.

Criticism by the oil and gas industry and Wyoming officials of the methods the EPA employed to collect water quality data and regulators’ interpretation of the findings prompted recent retesting under a monitoring plan designed by the state, the USGS and the EPA.

Compared to the 2011 EPA study, the USGS results from testing of one of two monitoring wells in the aquifer indicated higher levels of gases like methane, lower levels of diesel-range organics and the absence of such solvents as toluene, an Encana analysis showed.

The EPA is expected in coming days to release its testing of water from two groundwater monitoring wells, several domestic wells and a public well. The data sets are to be submitted for peer review.

The EPA said the groundwater monitoring data in its 2011 report and USGS findings were “generally consistent.”

But Encana spokesman Doug Hock said the findings are not equal and singled out USGS for providing “credible data” in research whose “implications are not just for Encana but for the whole industry.”

Hock and Simon Lomax, research director of an arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, underscored a decision by USGS to discount samples from the second of two monitoring wells because of concerns that low water quantity and other factors might skew results.

“The USGS effectively disqualified one of the EPA’s two monitoring wells,” Lomax said in a statement.

He pointed to a March 1 letter by Donald Simpson, director of the Bureau of Land Management office in Wyoming, that recommended the installation of additional monitoring wells for a “larger and much more robust study effort and investment prior to drawing any conclusions, particularly in the case about the role of hydraulic fracturing use in development of the oil and gas resource.”

Encana’s Hock said the Canadian company denies the pollution in Pavillion is related to its operations.

But Rob Jackson, professor of environmental sciences at Duke University, said his review of USGS data shows it is consistent with EPA’s initial results, “which suggested the contamination at the site from fracking is a real possibility.”

Jackson, co-author of a peer-reviewed paper that showed fracking in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania did not pollute adjacent drinking water wells with brine, said the report by the USGS should quiet criticism of the EPA.

“You can’t say that EPA botched the job if USGS goes on and gets similar numbers,” he said.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/29/usgs-aquifer-tests-pavillion-wyoming_n_1924604.html

Share

Salmon Activist Don Staniford Wins Big Victory in Defamation Case Over Norwegian Aquaculture Giant

Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture,
Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory in the BC Supreme Court in a defamation case brought against him by Norwegian salmon farming giant Cermaq-Mainstream for a controversial campaign that equated the industry’s practices with Big Tobacco. (Sept. 28, 2012)

An anti-salmon-farming activist has won another victory against the global aquaculture industry, but also has been harshly criticized by a B.C. Supreme Court justice

Justice Elaine Adair has dismissed a defamation case launched by the salmon-farming company Mainstream Canada against Don Staniford over a 2011 campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

In her ruling published Friday, Adair said while the statements were defamatory and Staniford was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

The ruling left officials at Mainstream Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian company Cermaq, disappointed.

But the British-born Staniford, who was removed from Canada this past February for overstaying a visitor’s permit, was in a celebratory mood.

“I am over the proverbial moon and feel extremely vindicated,” he said during a phone interview from Spain. “All along I knew that Cermaq [was] whistling in the dark.”

“This is a victory not just for Don Staniford against Mainstream Canada. This is a victory for environmental campaigners, social-justice campaigners across the world.”

Laurie Jensen, a spokeswoman for Mainstream Canada, said the company will be reviewing the ruling, noting it’s too early to say if it will appeal, and she defended the court action, saying it was the right thing to do.

“What we’re seeing is a character of a person,” she said. “And because, you know, he’s not found legally responsible doesn’t mean that, you know, he’s getting away with things.”

She said Adair’s ruling supports many of the company’s allegations, but she’s disappointed the judge dismissed the court action over fair comment, a ruling she called “outrageous.”

The court action was not the first faced by Staniford.

His first legal threat came from a Scottish salmon-farming company in 2001 but that never went to trial. He also won a new trial that has yet to happen after appealing a defamation victory by B.C.’s Creative Salmon Company in 2007.

The latest defamation case was launched by Mainstream Canada based on a Jan. 31, 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign.

Court documents state a news release sent to media included four mock-cigarette packages, all modelled after the Marlboro brand, containing statements like, “Salmon Farming Kills,” “Salmon Farming is Poison,” “Salmon Farming is Toxic,” and “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health.”

Images also appeared on the global alliance’s website.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/28/bc-anti-salmon-farming-activist-ruling.html

Share

The Bakken Oilfield, the SEC and Why the Tar Sands May be on their Way Out

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar Sands,
Share

Read this blog from gold trade journal Bullion Vault on the powerful financial forces and competing oilfield that threaten to squeeze out the Alberta Tar Sands. (Sept. 24, 2012)

Why Alberta’s tar sands look set to be squeezed out…

FOR DECADES, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wouldn’t allow Canadian oil-sands promoters to call their assets “oil reserves.” Instead, the SEC required them to be classified as “mining reserves.” It was a distinction that cost them billions of Dollars, writes Porter Stansberry for the Daily Wealth. 

The SEC’s policy erased the equity on these promoters’ balance sheets, taking away most of the value of their resources. This regulatory roadblock made it hard for companies trying to extract petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to access capital and secure loans.

 The SEC had its reasons, of course. Extracting the extremely heavy oil trapped in the sand of places like Canada’s Athabasca region of Alberta is expensive. You have to dig the tarry sand out of the ground and super-heat it to separate the oil. Even then, it’s lower-quality than the light, sweet crude that flows from wells in Texas and the Middle East.

 Total extraction costs for oil sands can exceed $50 a barrel. Extracting regular oil can cost half that (or less)… So it seemed unlikely that the “oil mud” in Alberta would ever become a profitable source of oil. SEC rules say to count as “reserves,” the oil has to be economical to produce. If the promoters of Canadian oil sands couldn’t profitably produce the oil, why allow them to count it as a proven oil reserve?  

The logic held for a while. But by 2008, with oil trading for much more than $100 a barrel, these assumptions seemed obsolete. The Peak Oil theory had convinced everyone – even the SEC – that even the most marginal source of crude oil was now a crucial resource and could no longer be ignored from a financial and accounting standpoint. 

After intense lobbying on behalf of the Canadian oil mud industry, the SEC began to bend. And on June 26, 2008, the promoters got their fondest wish – official recognition from the SEC.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has proposed revised oil and gas company reporting requirements to help provide investors with a more accurate and useful picture of the oil and gas reserves that a company holds.

In anticipation of this change, shares of Suncor – the biggest and best-known publicly traded oil-sands company – hit $72 that May. The stock had appreciated 2,900% over the previous 15 years. Its vast reserves of mud… bought for pennies… were now worth billions of Dollars… if you believed the SEC. 

Not surprisingly… the SEC ruling marked the high water mark in the shares of Suncor.

Within a year… a real oilfield was discovered almost next door. A real oilfield, with real, liquid crude oil that didn’t require bulldozers and super-heated steam for production. 

They called it the Bakken. And we hope those SEC lawyers have gone out to see it, just so they’ll finally learn what a real oilfield looks like. 

The Bakken is potentially the largest oilfield in North America. It covers parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana in the United States. In Canada, it reaches parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. 

Bloomberg predicts that combined with the nearby Three Forks and Sanish formations, the great Bakken region could be the largest oil producer in North America over the next 30 years. 

Production is currently skyrocketing. As of June 30, 4,141 producing oil wells were at work in the Bakken. Production has gone from around 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2009 to 594,000 bpd today. We believe that production will double from here to more than 1 million bpd in the next 18 months. 

This same trend is happening all across the US in the new shale oilfields. For the first time since the 1970s, the amount of oil being produced in America is significantly increasing.   

Given the tremendous amount of higher-quality oil now being produced at a lower cost… what do you think the future holds for the oil mud of Canada?   

Here’s a hint: We believe the SEC will soon change its mind again and rule that Alberta’s muddy prairies aren’t actually oil at all. You will not want to own those stocks when that happens, as their access to capital and much of the equity on their balance sheets will disappear. 

And that’s not Canada’s only problem… 

If you believe the SEC and oil-sands promoters, Alberta’s muddy fields hold more than 174 billion barrels of proven crude-oil reserves. That’s the world’s third-largest reserve total after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. If it were really oil – the kind of liquid hydrocarbon that flows from traditional oil wells – that would be an incredible asset. But it’s not. It’s oil mud – known as “bitumen” in the industry – that’s difficult and expensive to extract and refine. 

Canada produced 3 million bpd in 2011. Western Canada produced 2.7 million bpd… and 59% of that came from the oil sands. Domestic demand in 2011 for western Canadian crude oil was 878,000 bpd. Canada exports the rest – approximately 2 million bpd to the US, making it our largest supplier… 

The Midwest is the traditional market for Canadian oil-sands producers due to the close proximity and pipeline infrastructure. But the price of oil is collapsing in this market because of the soaring Bakken and Eagle Ford production. 

Over the last year, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the benchmark crude oil in the United States, has sold at a discount of more than $20 compared to the international standard, North Sea Brent crude. Synthetic Crude Oil (SCO), another term for the heavy stuff from the Canadian oil sands, sells at an additional discount. Over the past year, the discount varied between $12 and $15 per barrel to WTI.   

In the past six months, those spreads are widening even more. For example, Suncor issued corporate guidance on July 24 that it expects the 2012 spread to be in the $13-$18 range. Historically, the discount between SCO and WTI has peaked at $30.   

You must remember… this is the discount to WTI. Think about that for a minute. If WTI oil sells at $100, SCO sells for around $80. WTI oil sells for around $96 today. That puts SCO at around $76. At $76 a barrel, that’s only about $10 above the all-in costs for the oil-sands producers. A 20%-30% price drop from here will absolutely kill any profits the Canadian oil-sand producers might make today. 

The United States is the world’s biggest market for crude oil, with a total refining capacity of almost 18 million barrels per day. 

As we mentioned above, the Midwest has been the oil-sands producers’ best customer. But domestic producers – like those from the Bakken – are creating competition. The oil-sands producers could ship the stuff to the Gulf Coast refineries. The only problem is… those facilities are more than 2,000 miles away. 

The Canadian supply hubs are at Edmonton and Hardisty. Four major pipelines connect these hubs to transport oil out of Canada: the Enbridge Mainline, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, the Kinder Morgan Express, and the Keystone Pipeline. 

These four pipelines report total capacity of 3.5 million barrels per day. The oil-sands producers’ access to that pipeline capacity is limited by demand from downstream locations. In other words… the more transportation capacity Bakken producers require, the less capacity available for the Canadian producers. 

As various transport agreements expire and the Bakken continues to increase production, more and more of this capacity will be taken over by those “real” oilfields, whose crude is more valuable and vastly cheaper to produce. 

How do we know? Because right now, Bakken producers are using trains to ship oil out of the fields. Rail transportation in the Bakken was used to ship out 8% of production in 2010. So far this year, that’s increased to 28% of production. 

Obviously, pipelines are far more efficient. As soon as pipeline capacity can be arranged, this new, higher-quality, cheaper-to-produce Bakken crude will squeeze out the SCO oil coming from Canada. So not only is Canadian oil mud likely to be uneconomic to produce… it could also become impossible to transport to refineries because of a lack of pipeline capacity. 

That would leave the oil mud industry with an uneconomic, largely obsolete product.

Read More: http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/end-of-canada-oil-sands-092420123

Share

Gwen Barlee Op-Ed: Lifting the ‘Green Cloak’ that Covers Private River Power Projects

WATER, ,
Share

Read this op-ed in the Vancouver Sun by Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee, pulling back the ‘green cloak’ that masks the economically and environmentally destructive nature of private river diversion projects in BC. (Sept. 17, 2012)

When I was growing up my mother used to warn me to look out for a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What she meant was to be cautious about people and situations that are not what they seem. This idiom aptly applies to the issue of independent power projects (IPPs) in British Columbia.

At first blush IPPs, notably river diversion projects, seem like a visionary and green solution to producing low carbon energy. Indeed, this is what the Wilderness Committee, a BC-based environmental organization, first thought when we were introduced to the concept a decade ago, and it is what the IPP industry vigorously advocates, as evidenced in Paul Kariya’s commentary to The Vancouver Sun on September 3rd.

Unfortunately, the reality is far different.

History shows that IPPs took root in BC when the provincial government introduced an energy policy in 2002 which forbade BC Hydro from producing new sources of hydroelectricity. This led to over 800 creeks, rivers and even lakes being “staked” by private power companies who were eager to capitalize on the rich electricity contracts BC Hydro was forced to issue. The move to stimulate IPPs in BC had nothing to do with tackling climate change, as the BC government at that time actively opposed the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, it had to do with electricity privatization and deregulation – twin concepts sweeping North America at the time.

Today, because of a horribly misguided energy policy, BC Hydro is now on the hook for over $50 billion – yes, billion – in sweetheart energy purchase agreements to IPPs. It is important to remember that IPP electricity produced here was never meant for BC. It was slated for California, except California doesn’t consider river-diversion projects to be green and it won’t pay a premium for the power.

So here we sit, with a publicly-owned utility saddled with an enormous debt for power we don’t need. BC Hydro, once the envy of North America for providing our province with reliable low-carbon electricity, now hovers on the edge of bankruptcy unless it can pass on its considerable debt to ratepayers.

 

Share

Foreign Companies Circle Alberta Tar Sands and BC’s Gas Assets

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, , , ,
Share

Read this story from the Globe and Mail on the rush by Asian and European state and publicly owned energy players to scoop up Canadian oil and gas assets in advance of anticipated tightening of regulations on foreign direct investment. (Sept. 21, 2012)

A number of foreign companies are flocking to Canada’s oil patch in search of acquisitions and investments as Ottawa weighs the $15.1-billion takeover of energy company Nexen Inc. by China’s CNOOC Ltd.

While it is not unusual for companies to circle the oil patch, interviews with a dozen industry sources and deal makers over a month have revealed a picture of an industry set for a massive influx of foreign capital while the window to foreign investment remains open.

Industry executives and advisers say offshore buyers are currently in discussions or touring the operations of a wide variety of Canadian oil sands, conventional petroleum, natural gas, oil service and refining operations.

Some of these potential acquirers include state-owned entities such as Korea National Oil Corp. (KNOC) and others from China, Malaysia and Kuwait, sources said. A handful of private-sector oil and gas giants are also on the hunt, including France-based Total SA. Joining these suitors is a new class of Asian buyers believed to include privately held Chinese companies and one of China’s largest cities, Tsingtao.

The takeover interest has been sparked by a combination of recent declines in oil and gas prices and a perception in some international circles that Canada favours foreign investment to help finance production, particularly in the oil sands, where the cost of development is expected to crest $100-billion over the next decade.

“If you think Nexen is something of a big deal, you ain’t seen anything yet,” said Wenran Jiang, a special adviser to Alberta’s Department of Energy on Asian energy markets. “The new trend is large-scale Chinese private capital that will come into the Canadian market.”

A wide variety of international acquirers are looking for investments in the oil patch. France’s Total has been searching for – and making – oil sands deals for a few years. According to people close to the Nexen negotiations, Total was a bidder for the Calgary company, but stepped out of the race after CNOOC tabled an offer with a rich premium of more than 60 per cent above the Calgary company’s stock price. Sources said Total is still seeking a Canadian acquisition. A spokesperson for the company did not return calls.

State-owned KNOC is also on the hunt for a multibillion-dollar acquisition to expand its holdings in the oil sands, according to sources. Its search comes three years after it acquired Harvest Energy Trust in 2009 for $4.1-billion. A Calgary-based official with KNOC said he was unaware of any acquisition plans.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/foreign-suitors-circle-oil-patch-as-ottawa-weighs-nexen-deal/article4558270/

Share

Video: Record Artic Sea Ice Melt Defies Models, Dramatically Speeds up Predictions for Ice-Free Arctic

Climate Change
Share

Read and watch this story from CBC on the dramatic new records set this summer for arctic ice melt, defying even the most alarming scientific models and significantly speeding up predictions for an ice-free arctic. (Sept. 20, 2012)

Arctic sea ice has melted to a record low this year, say researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

According to scientists like David Barber from the University of Manitoba, what happens to Arctic sea ice is a huge indicator on what will happen to Canada and the world in terms of climate change.

“The thaw this year broke all the records that we had previous to this and it didn’t just break them, it smashed them,” Barber told CBC News.

“The Arctic is changing so rapidly right now and that is connected to our global climate system, so it’s really a precursor to what is coming for the rest of the planet and it really should be an eye-opener for people.”

Scientists say that at this rate there could be an ice-free Arctic as early as the summer of 2015.

Read story and watch video: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-melt.html

Share

Canada Eyes 9 Billion Cubic ft/day of Natural Gas Exports to Asian Market, Tokyo Conference Hears

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, ,
Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on plans promoted at an energy conference in Tokyo this week for Canada to export up to 9 Billion cubic ft/day of natural gas to Asian markets. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver traveled to Asia this week to build support for Canadian gas exports. (Sept. 20, 2012)

Canada could some day export nine billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas to Asia through five proposed plants on the West Coast, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told a Japanese audience this week.

Those major energy projects come with little of the opposition from politicians and native groups that threaten the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline.

In a speech to the Liquefied Natural Gas Producer-Consumer Conference in Tokyo this week, Oliver trumpeted Canada’s status as a rising “global energy leader.”

“[Canada is] already the third-largest producer of natural gas in the world,” Oliver told an audience that included Japan’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano.

Oliver is visiting Japan and South Korea on a mission to drum up business for Canada’s fledgling liquefied natural gas (LNG)industry and is travelling with business executives from AltaGas, Encana, TransCanada Corporation, Shell Canada and Nexen.

There is a global race to get LNG into the Asian market because demand — and therefore prices — are considerably higher there than in North America. In May of this year, its price was 10 times higher on the Asian market.

Adding five new LNG plants represents tens of billions of dollars in potential industrial development on B.C.’s north coast.

One plant is planned for Prince Rupert. Four would be in Kitimat, which is also the proposed terminus for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline. Two of the LNG projects in Kitimat already have National Energy Board-approved export licences.

By comparison, Gateway is a $6-billion project.

So, why all the fuss over Northern Gateway, which is tiny in comparison to all the LNG projects?

The difference is in the product each project brings to market.

Environment and Economic Arguments

“LNG is non-toxic, odourless, non-corrosive and less dense than water. It is a stable, low risk fuel. If it spills, LNG will warm, rise and dissipate,” said Rich Coleman, B.C.’s energy minister, in an interview.

“The risk to the natural environment is greater with [oilsands] bitumen than it is with natural gas,” said John Horgan, the B.C. NDP’s energy critic.

B.C. politicians of all stripes also see enormous economic potential in LNG.

Natural gas is a mature industry in B.C. and a major natural resource for the province. Horgan and Coleman both foresee jobs being created and royalty revenues pouring in, with the added bonus of minimal ecological hazard with LNG.

“No reward, high risk with one. And more reward, less risk with the other,” Horgan said.

B.C. native groups are also much less skeptical of LNG compared to oilsands projects.

The Haisla First Nation in Kitimat is equal partners in one of the NEB-approved projects and landlords for the other.

“It was one of our requests to Joe Oliver himself to actually start supporting natural gas at the higher levels and over in Asia. So we actually appreciate this initiative,” said Haisla Chief Councillor Ellis Ross.

The Haisla story, when it comes to natural gas, is similar to the rest of the province’s: they know the product, they’ve had experience with it, they’ve weighed the risks and benefits and they believe natural gas is the way to go.

“The safety record of natural gas overall over the last 30, 40 years is actually in direct contrast to the safety record of the crude oil industry,” argues Ross.

He adds that in the case of a spill, natural gas would evaporate into the air.

“Crude oil or diluant or bitumen stays in the environment for … I think the jury’s out on how long that actually crude oil or bitumen stays in the environment,” he said.

Read original story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/19/pol-natural-gas-exports-asia.html

Share