All posts by Canadian Press

Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image

Harper government spending $40 million to clean up Tar Sands’ image

Share
Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image
Stephen Harper is trying hard to convince other nations not to shun Tar Sands bitumen (Adrian Wyld/CP)

by Bruce Cheadle

OTTAWA – The Conservative government is spending $40 million this year to advertise Canada’s natural resource sector — principally oil and gas — at home and abroad.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver revealed the figure Wednesday as his department seeks another $12.9 million to augment an international campaign designed to portray Canada as a stable and environmentally responsible source of energy.

That will bring NRCan’s 2013-14 ad budget to about $40 million — $24 million for advertising abroad and $16.5 million for the domestic market.

“The government has a responsibility to provide Canadians with facts to assist them in making informed decisions,” Oliver, under opposition questioning, told a Commons committee.

[quote]This engagement and outreach campaign will raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources.[/quote]

The entire federal government advertising budget last year was about $65 million, according to preliminary estimates, with $9 million allotted for Natural Resources.

In 2010-11, NRCan spent just $237,000 on advertising, according to the government figures.

Outside the committee room, Oliver justified the spending by linking it directly to winning over American public opinion in order to get approval of TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4-billion project to carry Alberta bitumen to the Gulf Coast has become a lightning rod for environmental activists as it awaits a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama. Said Oliver:

[quote]Let’s understand what is at stake here,” Oliver said. “When we’re looking at Keystone, for example, we’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs.[/quote]

Asked to justify ad spending for one industrial sector that’s swallowing up almost two thirds of last year’s total government ad budget, Oliver was emphatic: “You justify it by what it’s going to achieve and there are billions, tens of billions of dollars, in play.”

Peter Julian, the NDP natural resources critic who teased out the ad spending at the committee, isn’t buying the government rationale.

“I don’t see how the Harper government can justify spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to do something that the private sector could choose to do,” Julian said after the hearing.

The New Democrat said the ads won’t work because the Conservatives, through their policy choices, have “killed the possibility of social licence” — getting public buy-in, essentially — for major resource projects.

He said that by slashing environmental assessments and limiting “meaningful public consultation” on pipeline proposals, the government has sparked a public backlash.

The backlash, Julian asserted, is “worldwide. Canada has a black eye. There’s no doubt.”

He cited the Obama administration, which has openly urged Canada to up its environmental game, and the European Union, which is targeting higher emissions from oilsands production.

Rather than millions on ads, said Julian, “the way the Harper government can start to gain back the social licence is by starting to make better decisions on the environment, on the economy and on the whole process of approving these new projects.”

To that end, the government is making an effort to establish a baseline of research on cutting edge oilsands technology.

Natural Resources has asked a panel of experts to help catalogue and chart a way forward for technologies that can help reduce the environmental footprint of oilsands development.

Oliver has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to turn its gaze on new and emerging technologies for extracting bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.

A 13-member panel will study what’s currently working and has been asked to identify economic and regulatory hurdles that slow the spread of the most promising technologies.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric, there’s a lot of exaggeration,” Oliver said of the study.

[quote]People can come to different conclusions based on the facts, but let’s start all together. We should all start with the facts.[/quote]

The council was created in 2005 with a 10-year, $30-million government grant and is designed to provide peer-reviewed, science-based assessments to help inform public policy.

Canada is not on track to reach its international pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, but the Conservative government has frequently held out hope that technological breakthroughs will alter that trajectory.

A spokeswoman for the academy, a not-for-profit corporation, says expert panels typically take between 18 and 24 months to report and do not make policy recommendations — but instead provide a base of solid evidence to use in the policy mix.

The panel is to be co-chaired by Eric Newell, the former CEO of Syncrude Canada, and by the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan.

Share
US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

Share

US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The House approved a bill Wednesday aimed at speeding up drilling for oil and natural gas.

The measure was one of three energy measures the House was considering this week as Republicans controlling the chamber push to expand an oil and gas boom that’s lowered prices and led the U.S. to produce more oil last month than it imported from abroad.

Another bill expected to win approval later Wednesday would restrict the Interior Department from enforcing proposed rules to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on public lands. A third bill would streamline permitting for natural gas pipelines.

Supporters say the bills are needed to ensure that a drilling boom taking place on state and private lands extends to millions of acres, mostly in the West, under federal control.

Obama to veto bills

President Barack Obama has promised to veto the bills, saying they are unnecessary and run counter to protections put in place for oil and gas drilling.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who sponsored the bill to speed up permitting, said the current energy boom has mainly occurred on state and private lands, including the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana and the Marcellus Shale region centred in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Said Lamborn:

[quote]The only reason we haven’t seen that same dynamic growth on federal lands is because of excess regulations.[/quote]

Automatic approval, $5,000 bill for protestors

Lamborn’s bill would deem a drilling application approved if no decision is made within 60 days, set a minimum threshold for lands leased by the Bureau of Land Management and charge a $5,000 fee to groups that protest lease permits. The House approved the measure, 228-192.

Lamborn said the bill would reduce federal “red tape” and cut down on “frivolous lawsuits that act as stumbling blocks to job creation and energy development.”

Democrats and environmental groups called the bill a handout to the big oil companies and said it would gut important environmental protections and stifle efforts by the public to intervene in drilling decisions.

Democrat: Bills a “waste of time”

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the bills a waste of time, since they were unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate and faced veto threats from Obama.

The drilling bill and others being considered in the House “distract and delay this body’s critical attention to the issues of critical concern to all Americans,” including adoption of a federal budget and passage of a farm bill and immigration overhaul, Hoyer said.

The House was debating another bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would block the Interior Department from enforcing a proposed rule on hydraulic fracturing on federal lands in states where drilling regulations are already in place.

All about fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Improved technology has allowed energy companies to gain access to huge stores of natural gas underneath states from Wyoming to New York but has raised widespread concerns that it might lead to groundwater contamination and even earthquakes.

A draft rule issued this spring would require companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to publicly disclose the chemicals used in fracking operations. A final rule is expected next year.

Flores called his bill an important step to reaffirm states’ rights to determine energy production, as well as a way to create jobs.

Because of fracking and other techniques, the U.S. could be “energy secure” by 2020, Flores said.

[quote]This is a goal we should pursue, just as we did in the 1960s to put a man on the moon.[/quote]

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said state rules on fracking vary widely.

“That’s why it’s important that the Interior Department put in place a regulatory floor of safety measures to assure that there are at least minimal protections in place on all public lands in all states,” he said.

 

Share
Japan puts global climate change action in jeopardy, lowering targets

Japan puts global climate change action in jeopardy

Share

Japan puts global climate change action in jeopardy, lowering targets

WARSAW, Poland – Japan’s decision to drastically scale back its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions could hurt efforts to craft a global deal to fight climate change, delegates at U.N. talks said Friday.

The new target approved by the Japanese Cabinet calls for reducing emissions by 3.8 per cent from their 2005 level by 2020.

The revision was necessary because the earlier goal of a 25 per cent reduction from the 1990 level was unrealistic, the chief government spokesman, Yoshihide Suga, told reporters in Tokyo.

The new target represents a 3 per cent increase over 1990 emissions.

Given Japan’s status as the world’s third largest economy and fifth largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the decision to back away from the more ambitious target could be a significant setback for efforts to reach a new global climate agreement in 2015.

The European Union’s delegates at the climate talks in Warsaw “expressed disappointment,” while U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres summed up the mood by saying there’s “regret” over Japan’s decision.

However, she praised Japan’s advances in increasing energy efficiency and in solar energy investments, and predicted that the Japanese “will soon see that the current target is actually conservative.”

“I don’t have any words to describe my dismay,” China’s official Xinhua News Agency cited Su Wei, deputy chief of the Chinese delegation to the climate talks, as telling reporters in Warsaw.

Japanese delegate Hiroshi Minami acknowledged that “most of the developing countries are very disappointed” with the move.

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Japan pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent to 1.186 billion tons a year on average over the five years to March 2013.

It has since opted out of the agreement, though came close to meeting that goal before the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant prompted shut-downs of all nuclear plants for safety checks.

The resulting shift back toward reliance on coal, oil and gas for power, and use of diesel generators, has hindered further progress.

Emissions in the fiscal year that ended in March were up 2.8 per cent from the year before, and at 1.207 billion tons, the second highest after a record 1.218 billion tons in fiscal 2007.

Climate activists following the talks in Warsaw named Japan “fossil of the day,” a dubious honour meant to tag a country blocking progress on combating climate change. Dressed up in dark suits to look like Cabinet ministers, the activists ate sushi over colleagues pretending to be victims of the typhoon that has killed thousands of people in the Philippines.

Wael Hmaidan, director of Climate Action Network, called Japan’s move “outrageous,” saying in Warsaw that it will have a “serious and negative impact on the negotiations.”

Oxfam spokeswoman Kelly Dent said Japan’s “dramatic U-turn” is a “slap in the face for poor countries” struggling with climate change.

The new goal announced Friday doesn’t take into account possible emissions reductions if Japan restarts some of its nuclear plants, as the government is hoping to do. So it will be revised before the next climate pact is due to be set two years from now, said Masami Tamura, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Climate Change Division.

Tokyo also is planning to provide $16 billion in aid for emissions reductions in developing countries and to commit $110 billion to research on energy and the environment.

Before the Fukushima disaster, Japan’s carbon emissions were on a par with European industrial nations such as France, Germany and Britain.

They will hit 1.227 billion tons this year, the government-affiliated Institute of Energy Economics Japan estimates, up nearly 16 per cent from 1990.

AP Business Writer Elaine Kurtenbach in Tokyo and AP writer Karl Ritter in Stockholm contributed to this report.

Share
NWT developing regulatory model for oil fracking in advance of devolution

NWT developing regulatory model for oil fracking before devolution

Share
NWT developing regulatory model for oil fracking in advance of devolution
Controversial natural gas fracking operations in BC (Damien Gillis)

CALGARY – With the Northwest Territories preparing to take control of its resource development next spring, its industry minister has been busy looking at the best way to regulate its nascent shale oil industry.

A devolution agreement kicks in on April 1, at which point oversight of most oil, natural gas and mining activities will move from the federal to the territorial government.

That means David Ramsay — who manages the industry, tourism, investment, public utilities and justice cabinet portfolios — has a busy five months ahead of him.

The minister is in Calgary this week to speak to energy companies active in the north about what changes may be in store and get their feedback. He’s also been meeting with regulatory and Alberta government officials.

“We really just to let them know that it’s going to be as seamless a transition as possible,” he told reporters Wednesday.

Ramsay is looking at which regulatory model would best serve the territory, and a decision is expected to be made soon. Says Ramsay:

[quote]We need to be ready. We can’t afford not to be.

[/quote]

Ramsay said he likes how the Alberta Energy Regulator works. The recently created AER combines the functions of its predecessor, the Energy Resources Conservation Board, with those of other government departments, leading to less duplication.

He said the Northwest Territories has a “tremendous” opportunity in the Central Mackenzie Valley, where companies such as Husky Energy Inc. (TSX:HSE), ConocoPhillips and others are in the early stages of exploring for oil in the Canol shale.

Getting oil out of the Canol requires hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a method that entails breaking the rock with a high-pressure mixture of water, chemicals and sand.

While fracking has been controversial and many jurisdictions have declared moratoriums on the practice, Ramsay said he’s convinced that extraction method is safe.

One of the biggest challenges ahead will be staffing the new regulator to ensure it has the right expertise to oversee the type of energy development that’s new to the territory.

The devolution agreement does not cover the offshore and the National Energy Board will continue to oversee drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

However, Ramsay said the Northwest Territories government is in talks with Ottawa about sharing some of that responsibility — perhaps under a model similar to offshore petroleum boards in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia.

Most of the Northwest Territory’s royalty take will be used for much-needed infrastructure projects such as roads. But a yet-to-be determined portion will be set aside in a savings fund, he said.

Read about a new lawsuit against BC’s oil and gas regulator.

Share
BC struggles to reconcile carbon emissions with clean LNG claims

BC struggles to reconcile carbon emissions with “clean” LNG claims

Share
BC struggles to reconcile carbon emissions with clean LNG claims
Australia’s Colongra gas-powered electrical plant – BC LNG would be powered by carbon-intensive plants like this one

VICTORIA – Like the underground shale gas that Premier Christy Clark says will pave the way to a debt-free future, British Columbia appears caught between a rock and a hard place in balancing its hunger for a burgeoning liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and meeting its ambitious 2007 greenhouse gas pollution-reduction targets.

Liberals mum on LNG economic, environmental plans

If there is a definitive plan in place, the government isn’t laying it out yet: Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman says the Liberals’ LNG economic plan, which includes a tax structure developed with industry consultation, should be complete within thee next 30 days. It won’t be introduced to the legislature until next year.

Environment Minister Mary Polak says similar LNG environmental negotiations are underway, of which she indicates the options are limited and is refusing to fully elaborate.

But a process of elimination indicates B.C. will rely heavily on carbon offsets to meet its environmental goals.

Offsets in the offing for BC LNG emissions?

That means even if the actual pollution dumped into the atmosphere increases, rather than declines, B.C. will still be able to say the targets have been met because of the discounts offered by requiring industry to financially support environmentally-friendly initiatives to fight global warming.

Still, even if the offsets enable B.C. to claim it has met its pollution targets — targets trumpeted at the time as being among the most stringent in North America — the emissions levels Canada must report to the United Nations will tell a different story.

Those numbers are reported without the discounts of offsets and they are numbers environmentalists predict will rival the emissions of neighbouring Alberta’s oil sands industry. Even without the introduction of LNG plants, environmentalists argue, B.C. is already on its way to missing its legislated targets.

“There are only two ways to reduce emissions, you either actually reduce them or you find means of mitigation and many times that’s through offsets,” said Polak.

“We know many B.C. companies are carbon neutral — Harbour Air for example — but it’s not because they have no emissions. It’s because they purchase offsets.”

Full steam ahead with LNG: 5-7 plants targeted

Besides offsets, the government could reach the targets by taking its foot off the pedal on its ambitious LNG development goals.

That’s clearly not going to happen: Clark’s Liberal government says it wants to build the cleanest LNG industry in the world and continues to repeat election-campaign statements that B.C.’s natural gas will scrub clean China’s coal-darkened skies.

In the beginning, the Liberals pledged three LNG plants: Now, the proposal is for five to seven.

Greenhouse gas reduction targets to be dropped?

The government could back away from the targets committing it to cut greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent by 2020 — targets created under a different Liberal government, before Clark’s aggressive push towards a liquefied natural gas industry and all the extra emissions it is bound to create.

The government has refused to say it will do that, but it has left the door open.

A government official, on background, says the targets are just that: targets. If they aren’t met, government will simply try harder to meet them next time. Much like balanced budget legislation, the official says, there are no penalties for not meeting the goal.

Environmentalists and noted climate scientists, including Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver and Simon Fraser University’s Mark Jaccard, who both consulted for the Liberals on the climate targets law in 2007, have already repeatedly said the province isn’t going to meet its pollution reduction targets.

”It’s certainly our goal,” says Coleman without committing to actually doing it.

“There may be some challenges around that,” he says in an interview shortly after returning from Asia where he toured an LNG plant in Malaysia and met with executives from Petronas, the Malaysian energy company planning a $36 billion LNG investment near Prince Rupert.

[quote]We’re going to have the highest environmental standards that there are and we’re going to have the cleanest industry that there is in the world as well.[/quote]

Carbon capture in its infancy

A third option to require the industry to explore other emission reduction techniques that could involve storing carbon emissions underground is appealing, but the technology is in its infancy and no one expects B.C. can rely on it in the short-term.

“You could potentially require certain technologies be employed,” says Polak. “You could require certain purchase of offsets, but all of that is subject to negotiations, discussions, in much the same way as having the discussions now with taxation policy.”

So that leaves offsets as the most likely way to allow British Columbia to meet or at least reach for its emission goals.

The challenge is not small.

Report: BC LNG would emit 3x more carbon than plants in other countries

A recent report by Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, warned that without B.C. government policy leadership, LNG produced in B.C. could emit more than three-times the carbon produced at other plants around the world.

The B.C. government has not stated publicly what it expects its greenhouse gas emissions to be from the proposed LNG plants. But Clean Energy Canada examined a similar LNG plant under construction in Australia and concluded that B.C. LNG facilities can expect to emit about one tonne of carbon pollution for every tonne of LNG produced.

Clean Energy Canada estimates that will work out to 36 million tonnes of carbon pollution for the initially-proposed three LNG plants in the Kitimat area.

Gas still cleaner than coal?

Prof. James Tansey is a business professor at the University of B.C. who is also the chief executive officer and founder of Vancouver-based Offsetters, a global carbon-management company that helps organizations and individuals understand, reduce and offset their climate impact.

Tansey says the carbon pollution debate in B.C. is focused on legitimate concerns about increased provincial emissions.

But like the government, he notes a global move towards natural gas ultimately reduces GHG emissions worldwide.

Tansey says natural gas is a cleaner energy than oil and coal and has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 27 per cent (read a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report which argues the contrary).

He says he expects the government to introduce regulations that will require the natural gas companies to purchase the offsets as a cost of doing business in B.C.

Offsets can’t erase real pollution figures

“The companies will have to do it,” said Tansey. “People don’t like offsets in general, but it’s really the only way to say those millions of tonnes of extra emissions from running the LNG facilities can be addressed. If you don’t do that, then they’re going to appear as a black mark on the carbon accounts of the province.”

Offsets may allow B.C. to meet its targets or at least approach them while still reaping the economic benefits of LNG development.

But the actual pollution numbers — without adjustments due to offsets — must be reported to provincial, federal and international climate-change monitoring agencies.

Without LNG, BC making climate progress

Environment Canada’s national inventory submission last April to the United Nations Framework convention on climate change measured a decline of almost six per cent in B.C.’s GHG emissions since 2007, when the province passed its targets law.

The inventory measured B.C.’s carbon dioxide emissions at 59.1 million tonnes in 2011 — the most recent numbers — down from 62.6 million tonnes in 2007. The target for 2020 is about 20.6 million tonnes.

The Environment Canada report stated Canada’s total GHG emissions for 2011 were measured at 702 million tonnes, while Alberta’s GHG emissions were 242 million tonnes.

LNG would ramp up BC’s carbon emissions

Matt Horne, a climate change expert with the Pembina Institute, said he’s certain B.C.’s LNG dreams will increase the province’s GHG emissions well beyond Environment Canada’s most current totals.

“I don’t know where they are going to go with the targets,” he said.

“I haven’t seen any credible projections of how the province is going to meet those targets in particular around the idea of three to five LNG plants being developed. You can’t square that circle.”

Share
New dam planned for St. Lawrence River

New hydro project planned for St. Lawrence River

Share

New dam planned for St. Lawrence River

BECANCOUR, Que. – The Quebec government is helping to bankroll a $130-million project by RER Hydro, Hydro-Quebec and Boeing to generate clean energy on the St. Lawrence River, in what officials say would be the world’s largest river-generated turbine farm. The three-phase project could eventually culminate in nine megawatts of renewable power being generated in Montreal from 46 turbines that would be installed in 2016. The province could contribute up to $85 million on top of the $3 million it already spent for the initial $23 million testing phase.

Share
Farmland advocates fire back at secret plan to gut ALR

Farmland advocates fire back at secret plan to gut ALR

Share
Farmland advocates fire back at secret plan to gut ALR
ALR co-founder Harold Steves on his family farm in Steveston, BC (Damien Gillis)

VANCOUVER – A leaked cabinet document that proposes significant changes to British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve — millions of hectares of cherished farmland that have been largely protected from development for decades — prompted swift denials Thursday from the provincial government and left proponents of the program with uneasy questions about its future.

The Globe and Mail published a story based on cabinet documents that reportedly outline a proposal from Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm to “modernize” the Agricultural Land Commission, the Crown agency that manages the land reserve.

Gas before food

Among other things, the proposal would see the Agricultural Land Commission cease to be an independent agency, instead coming under the control of the Agriculture Ministry, while handing “primary authority” to authorize industrial activity on agricultural land to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the newspaper reported.

The documents were prepared as part of a so-called “core review” of government operations, launched earlier this year in a bid to trim the provincial budget, and the cabinet minister in charge of that review responded Thursday by ruling out many of the most controversial aspects of the leaked proposal.

Minister downplays concerns

Bill Bennett, who is also the minister of energy and mines, said the Globe and Mail story was based on an “older document” that has since been rejected. He said the government has ruled out shifting the commission’s duties to the agriculture minister or handing over more decision-making authority to the oil and gas regulator. Said Bennett in an interview:

[quote]We certainly have no plans to bring the commission inside government or tamper with the independence of the commission, and we have no plans to undermine the central principle of the reserve, which is the protection of good quality farmland.[/quote]

Bennett noted the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has had the power to approve certain applications on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve for nearly a decade through a document known as a “delegation agreement,” which was last updated earlier this year.

“If there were changes made (to the agreement), they would be quite minor; we’re not looking at anything close to what the reporter described in his article.”

Bennett downplayed the significance of Pimm’s proposal, suggesting it was little more than one of many ideas he and his Liberal government colleagues have considered as part of the core review process.

However, Bennett’s comments did little to assure supporters of the land reserve, which was created in the mid-1970s by the NDP government of the day amid concerns that the province’s farmland was rapidly disappearing.

40-year-old ALR fiercely defended

The reserve is made up of 4.7 million hectares of land throughout the province on which agriculture is given top priority. Strict controls are placed on non-agricultural uses and under what circumstances land can be taken out of the reserve.

The Agricultural Land Reserve is one of the most fiercely defended institutions in the province, with advocates routinely raising concerns that private businesses — whether through property development or oil and gas projects — have been able to whittle away at protected farmland.

Those fears have persisted despite the provincial government’s repeated insistence it has no plans to gut the reserve. Earlier this year, the government added $4 million to the Agricultural Land Commission’s budget over the next three years.

Father of the ALR weighs in

Harold Steves, who as an NDP member of the legislature in the 1970s is credited as one of the land reserve’s co-founders, said he’s convinced the Liberal government is searching for ways to weaken the reserve and the commission that protects it.

“I’m not confident at all,” said Steves, who is now a city councillor in Richmond, south of Vancouver.

[quote]Whether they’ve ruled these two particular proposals out, I would bet there’s another one some place, and we’ll just see them coming one after another.[/quote]

Steves warned any attempt to tamper with the land reserve would be fraught with political danger.

“If they called an election on this issue, they wouldn’t get a seat,” he said.

NDP fires back

The Opposition New Democrats were quick to seize on the leaked cabinet documents, holding them up as proof the Liberals are bent on destroying the land reserve in favour of big business.

NDP Leader Adrian Dix said the Agricultural Land Commission has done a good job protecting the land reserve, and he accused the Liberals of “attacking the independence” of the agency.

“It’s extraordinary — it’s really a betrayal of what the Liberals have said,” Dix said in an interview.

[quote]In secret, they’re talking about undermining it. It doesn’t make sense, it’s not needed, it’s not clear what problem they’re trying to solve, and it would be a victory of private interests over the public interest.[/quote]

Cattlemen’s beef with slaughtering ALR

Industry groups such as the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association and the B.C. Agriculture Council said they were concerned about the leaked cabinet proposal, but they acknowledged they still need to see more details about what changes, if any, the government is actually considering before coming to any conclusions.

They also expressed frustration their members haven’t been consulted about the future of the commission.

Rhonda Driediger, the chair of the agriculture council, said the government needs to come up with a detailed vision for the province’s agriculture industry before making any substantial changes to how the land reserve is managed.

“The Liberals have not really given us a long-term plan for agriculture,” said Driediger.

“If we had a long-term agriculture strategy, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”

Share
Nuclear plant spills chemicals into Bay of Fundy

Nuclear plant spills chemicals into Bay of Fundy

Share
Nuclear plant spills chemicals into Bay of Fundy
New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear plant

LEPREAU, N.B. – NB Power says the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant recently released water containing low levels of a chemical used in its steam generators into the Bay of Fundy.

The provincial Crown utility says the release of hydrazine occurred Sunday from a valve located on the non-nuclear side of the station.

NB Power says the release was contained and subsequent testing on Monday showed the chemical had dissipated to levels below detection.

The company says the release won’t harm marine life or ecological systems and nobody was injured.

Hydrazine is used to remove the oxygen from the water in the plant’s steam generators and helps protect tubes from corrosion.

Claire Harris, manager of health, safety and environment at Point Lepreau, said when the valve malfunctioned, the liquid containing hydrazine flowed into the Bay of Fundy rather than to a treatment system.

When employees conducted tests in the area of the spill, they found the concentration of hydrazine was less than one part per million of the water samples taken, she said.

Utility downplays risk

“The concentrations we’re talking about are not considered toxic,” said Harris. “It amounts in laymen’s terms to one drop of water in a 40-gallon drum.”

She said a team is still evaluating precisely how much of the liquid was released.

NB Power says it is continuing to monitor the spill area and has reported the incident to the Canadian Coast Guard and the provincial Environment Department. The company has repaired the broken valve.

“This was brought about by a small relief valve that failed as part of our startup processes,” said Harris.

[quote]From time to time we’re going to see equipment failure and we want to make sure we learn from this.[/quote]

It’s not the first time hydrazine has been released at the plant. In December 2011, water laced with hydrazine was released by accident into the Bay of Fundy.

Kathleen Duguay, a spokeswoman for NB Power, says that earlier incident was different and links should not be drawn between them. She said the first leak was caused by a drum that overflowed rather than by a piece of broken equipment.

Share
Newfoundland passes fracking moratorium

Newfoundland passes fracking moratorium

Share

Newfoundland passes fracking moratoriumST. JOHN’S, N.L. – Newfoundland and Labrador  is shutting the door on applications for hydraulic fracturing or fracking for oil and gas while it reviews regulations and consults residents.

Plans to frack wells near Gros Morne National Park pending government approvals had raised concerns about groundwater pollution and the impact on one of the province’s prime tourism draws.

Natural Resources Minister Derrick Dalley said Monday that no fracking applications will be accepted before the review is complete and made public. He set no deadline.

“We need to be cognizant of the consequences of the decision and we’ll move through that process in due time,” he said outside the legislature.

Dalley said the Progressive Conservative government’s top concern is health and safety, telling the house, which began its fall session Monday:

[quote]In making this decision, our government is acting responsibly and respecting the balance between economic development and environmental protection.[/quote]

Fracking concerns

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, involves pumping water, nitrogen, sand and chemical additives at high pressure to fracture shale rock formations and allow gas or oil to flow through well bores to the surface. It’s increasingly used across Canada and the United States as energy demands grow while conventional sources wane.

Fracking and UNESCO heritage

The province has not yet received formal applications to frack wells in western Newfoundland although exploration licences have been granted in what’s known as the Green Point shale near Gros Morne National Park.

The prospect of drilling near Gros Morne, a spectacular hiker’s paradise recognized by UNESCO world heritage status, set off intense debate. It has also raised alarms about groundwater pollution and other risks.

It’s believed Newfoundland’s west coast has deep shale formations that hold oil — unlike more shallow coalbed gas deposits in western Canada and parts of the U.S.

More independent research needed

Still, the Council of Canadians has warned that a lack of independent research before and after fracking means safety assurances ring hollow.

NDP Leader Lorraine Michael said her party has long urged the government to halt any fracking applications until the process is better understood.

“There are a lot of issues that are out there in the environmental world,” she told reporters. “Some of them are proven, some aren’t. And I think we have to make sure before we go any further that we have absolute proof that if there are environmental concerns, which there are, that they can be dealt with.”

Newfoundland taking its time

Dalley said the government will take the time it needs to assess the geology of western Newfoundland and compare its existing regulations to other jurisdictions.

Western Newfoundland’s shale-oil deposits have been described as a potentially huge resource. Shoal Point Energy Ltd. (CNSX:SPE) holds three exploration licences. It reached a farmout deal earlier this year with Black Spruce Exploration, a subsidiary of Foothills Capital Corp., for as many as 12 exploration wells to be drilled over the next few years in the Green Point shale, if the province approved.

No one with Black Spruce could be immediately reached to comment on Monday’s announcement.

In Quebec, a moratorium on fracking for natural gas under the St. Lawrence River is now the subject of a $250-million lawsuit by Lone Pine Resources Inc. (TSX:LPR). The company says it bought leases in good faith and is now being denied a chance to develop them.

Share
Protestors stage mock fracking on premier's lawn

Protestors stage mock fracking on premier’s lawn

Share
Protestors stage mock fracking on premier's lawn
photo courtesy of Maryam Adrangi’s facebook page

VANCOUVER – Opponents of the British Columbia government’s liquefied natural gas plans set up a three-metre mock fracking rig on the premier’s front lawn on Sunday, as Premier Christy Clark prepares for a trade mission to Asia to sell the province’s LNG potential.

A small group from Rising Tide Vancouver Coast Salish Territories set up the mock rig and promised more protests to come in the western province as the provincial government is set to pursue a massive expansion of the LNG industry.

Over 23,000 active fracking wells in BC

Maryam Adrangi, of the Council of Canadians, said there are already 23,000-plus fracking wells in operation in northern B.C.

“With Christy Clark touring North America to promote liquefied natural gas, fracking and gas extraction is set to take over the province,” Maryam Adrangi, of the Council of Canadians, said in a statement.

Opponents of shale gas extraction say the method of injecting high-pressure water into the ground to shatter rock and release the gas contaminates drinking water and causes other environmental problems, including increased greenhouse gas emissions and earthquakes. Said Adrangi:

[quote]No one should have to face the impacts of fracking, which include having all of their freshwater being used by industry and for corporate profit and then having unidentified, toxic chemicals put back into the water cycle.[/quote]

Promises of fracking “prosperity”

But proponents of the industry — including Clark — say it’s an industry with multibillion-dollar potential that could change the face of B.C.

Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman just returned from a trip to Asia, saying final investment decisions are expected on several projects in the next year.

Clark will undertake her own trade mission to the region this month with the aim of furthering the province’s LNG prospects.

Coleman spent 12 days in China, South Korea and Malaysia last month, where he met with eight companies interested in the province’s nascent LNG industry, including Petronas, a state-owned oil and gas company that announced last month that it will invest $36 billion in B.C. on an LNG plant and pipeline proposed in Prince Rupert (read a different perspective the Petronas deal, showing how it is actually a massive giveaway of BC’s gas resources, here).

“The spotlight on British Columbia’s LNG potential is shining bright and we are open for business,” Coleman said in a statement last week.

“Stakeholders in Asia want to diversify their energy portfolios and B.C.’s natural gas is in high demand. We are strengthening relationships and securing investments to make it happen, which will create unprecedented economic wealth and jobs for the people of our province.”

Fracking controversy looms

It is estimated that B.C. has 1,400 trillion cubic feet if natural gas — enough to support production and LNG exports for over 80 years, according to the province (read shale gas expert David Hughes’ rebuttal to these wildly inflated estimates). There are currently at least 10 LNG projects proposed in the province, three of which already have approved export licenses from the National Energy Board.

Clark has said the industry could be worth a total of $1 trillion by 2046, and could create over 100,000 jobs in the province, but critics vow to be vocal.

Sunday’s protest was brief, but a fracking protest in New Brunswick last month erupted in a violent clash between aboriginal protesters and police.

Share