LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is one of biggest energy stories to hit Western Canada. It is promoted as a clean bridge fuel that will create thousands of jobs and turn British Columbia into a trillion-dollar global energy leader. The idea is to cool natural gas into liquid, so it can be shipped to higher-price markets in Asia. But is it really all it’s cracked up to be? And what are the trade-offs and impacts associated with LNG and the fracked gas that would feed it?
The Common Sense Canadian is your go-to source for in-depth analysis of the potential benefits and risks of this “game-changing” industry.
The Friday night trash dump is a well-known trick of governments looking to dispense with bad news as quietly as possible. Controversial announcements are made in the last hour of the last day of the week to avoid public scrutiny.
This year, the holiday season has served the same role, only on a much grander scale, with multiple environmental hearings and major resource project announcements occurring at the time of year citizens and media are least able to engage with them. The list is truly breathtaking – here are just a few of the presents we got in our stocking this December:
BC Hydro scheduled the public hearings for the $10 Billion Site C Dam over the holidays, and only in northern BC, deliberately limiting participation from the general public – even though they will pay dearly for the project if it proceeds. Making matters worse, Site C is not for the public – rather it is to help power the enormously energy-intensive, proposed LNG industry in BC.
Port Metro Vancouver conducted its public comment period over the highly controversial, proposed Surrey Fraser Docks coal handling facility. The Port received some 3,500 submissions – all but 6 of them speaking against the plan – yet, it shows no real signs of listening to the public and experts, choosing instead to downplay the overwhelmingly negative response in its post-review comments last week.
The litany of such announcements and hearings makes it clear this is more than just a coincidence. It demonstrates a blatant disregard for the public interest in these hugely formative decisions for the future of our health, environment and economy.
If this bunch of Scrooges really believed in the value of their projects, they wouldn’t feel the need to hide them between office parties, holiday baking and eggnog with the family.
This is in the same week we expect to hear the NEB approve the Enbridge Heavy Oil pipeline proposal with “conditions” that reflect the social license posturing of the BC Liberal Government – and, once again, much media debate will ensue.
However, it is important that we do not let this overshadow the NEB’s approval of four more LNG export licenses, reaching 7 total approved licenses, involving a mind-boggling 109.18 million tonnes per annum (mtpa.) of natural gas. That’s a staggering total gross volume of 2905.5 million tonnes over 25 years, requiring a massive increase in hydraulic fracturing in BC to feed these LNG plants and tankers.
Details for the three largest are as follows, with the much smaller Woodfibre application linked to in the complete table below, which includes all 11 export applications, four of which are pending approval and thus not included in the above totals.
Pacific NorthWest LNG – Proponents are Petronas, Progress Energy Canada Ltd. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Located in Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB on July 5, 2013, to export 19.68 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
Prince Rupert LNG– Proponent is BG Group plc. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 21.6 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
WCC LNG Ltd. project – Proponents are Imperial Oil Resources Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. Will be located in the vicinity of Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 30 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
Taken in total and converted to the “oil equivalent”, these LNG licences and applications dwarf current Tar Sands production. At the low figure of 80 mtpa, BC Premier Christy Clark has boasted these license applications are the oil equivalent of 1,960,000 barrels per day, every day, for as long as 25 years.
The 80 mpta that Christy Clark admits to is only about 3/4 of the actual NEB-approved volume of 109.19 mtpa.
That would be the oil equivalent of 2,674,910 million barrels a day, every day for up to 25 years, of APPROVED volumes – remember, 4 more licenses are awaiting for approval, totalling an additional 49.3 mtpa.
Some have estimated that to supply the volumes approved in these licenses would require upwards of 50 thousand fracked natural gas wells. For perspective see this image of a few hundred gas well pads in Texas.
BC LNG plans: Gas equivalent of 4 million barrels of oil/day
Again, the 101.19 mtpa approved total does not count the 49.3 mtpa awaiting for approval, bringing the grand total to 158.49 mtpa or the oil equivalent of 3,883,005 barrels per day. One of those proposals is Sinopec’s Aurora application, which was just received and is the second largest behind WCC’s approved license.
The license volumes in these applications, if approved, would launch BC to the forefront of the world’s LNG export market, surpassing the current world leader Qatar.
Window of opportunity for public input
As a result of recent changes, driven by the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the Harper Cabinet will be making the final decision on these export applications.
At the same time, the Harper Government is negotiating the final details of unprecedented trade agreements in terms of their magnitude, scope and impact on BC’s emerging LNG industry. Those include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China (FIPPA).
These agreements will dictate the terms of BC’s emerging LNG industry for generations – which is why this is a pivotal time to register your concerns.
Take the time and use this contact information below to register your concerns with Natural Resources Canada about BC LNG export volumes, trade agreements and the impact on our economy and environment.
If you could impact the unbridled exploitation of the Tar Sands BEFORE they were “locked in” and well underway, would you? If so, now is your chance to act and influence the BC “Tar Sands”, as defined by Christy Clark’s vision.
In announcing the approvals Monday, the national energy regulator noted that recent developments in gas production technology have resulted in a significant increase in the Canadian gas resource base and the North American gas supply.
“One of the major impacts of this increase is lower demand for Canadian gas in traditional gas markets in the United States and Eastern Canada,” it said.
“As a result, the Canadian gas industry is seeking to access overseas gas markets through exports of LNG.”
The board said it had determined that the quantity of gas each company proposed to exported “will be surplus to Canadian requirements,” and that the large North American natural gas resource base can accommodate “reasonably foreseeable Canadian demand.”
Meanwhile, federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver confirmed that the federal government would be reviewing the approvals before licences are issued.
“. . . The Harper government supports energy projects that will create jobs and generate economic growth in Canada for future generations,” Oliver said.
However, the government will only allow energy projects to proceed “if they are found to be safe for Canadians after an independent, science-based environmental and regulatory review.”
Asian investment explodes in BC’s LNG market, rivalling the scale of resource development in the tarsands, as new trade deals threaten to entrench foreign state ownership of Canada’s key energy assets.
For the last number of months, politicians, media and the talking heads have repeated the story that foreign investment – read Chinese – has fallen of a cliff and bi-lateral relations are frosty due to Harper’s “tough” new, yet undisclosed, policies on investments from foreign state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) in particular.
Chief among the irritants causing the Chinese-Canadian bilateral “suffering” is the “delays” in ratifying the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA).
But how does that square with reality?
Yes, overall “investment” from Chinese specific SOE’s has fallen slightly, but that is largely because politicians and media compare it to when the largest investments in Canadian history occurred with the Progress Energy and Nexen takeovers – totalling over $20 billion.
Were they expecting a never-ending flow of SOE dollars at that rate?
Foreign investment still going strong
Well, as it turns out, that is exactly what has occurred despite the rhetoric. Asian SOE investment has at least doubled and more private Chinese investment was just announced this week!
What’s more, it’s been happening regiularly since the big takeovers, as investment from PetroChina in western Canadian natural gas plays occurred immediately after Harper announced his “new tough laws,” as we reported on their partnership with Canadian energy giant Encana at the time.
And foreign SOE investment has never really stopped since. Despite Harper’s bold claim at the time that the takeovers marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one,” and his infamous hard line:
[quote]To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments (Petro Canada), only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead.[/quote]
The Floodgates have opened despite media, government claims
Earlier this week, it was announced that in addition to PetroChina and CNOOC, Sinopec was in discussions with Rich Coleman about their LNG intentions for our coast, all negotiations are under non-disclosure as we were the first and ONLY ones to report.
Also this week came the news that ENN, China’s largest natural gas distributor, intends on building two LNG processing facilities, one in Vancouver the other in Edmonton, to supply “gas stations” across the country with our LNG – making them the first, largest and only Canadian domestic retail distributor.
This all puts the lie to Harper’s claim that “it’s the end of a trend” and that we’re not divesting Petro Canada only to have foreign governments replace it..
Asian SOEs have lock on both export markets, domestic distribution
Thus far, of the approximately 80 million tonnes in 25 year LNG export licenses the Harper government has approved, or intends to, four Asian SOEs are on the receiving end. (PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC and Petronas)
To put that in perspective, 80 million tonnes of LNG is the oil equivalent of over 2 million barrels a day, every day, for twenty five years.
In this recent NEB filing, a total of six LNG project proposals in BC have received, or have submitted an application for, an export licence. According to a BC government press release, these projects include:
Douglas Channel Energy Project – Proponents are LNG Partners and Haisla Nation. Located in Kitimat (floating facility). Received a 20-year export licence in February 2012, authorizing the export of 1.8 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Kitimat LNG – Proponents are Apache Canada Ltd. and Chevron Canada Limited. Received a 20-year export licence in October 2011, authorizing the export of 10 million tonnes of LNG a year.
LNG Canada – Proponents are Shell Canada Ltd., Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS), Mitsubishi Corporation and PetroChina Company Limited. Located in Kitimat. Received a 25-year export licence in February 2013, authoring the export of 24 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Pacific NorthWest LNG – Proponents are Petronas, Progress Energy Canada Ltd. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Located in Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB on July 5, 2013, to export 19.68 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
Prince Rupert LNG– Proponent is BG Group plc. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 21.6 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
WCC LNG Ltd. project – Proponents are Imperial Oil Resources Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. Will be located in the vicinity of Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 30 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
These figures were as of June of last year and totaled 105 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) for 25 years. There has been some shuffling since, and this does not include Sinopec who is scoping out a 30 million tonne project, and suggested this week it was making good progress with its BC LNG negotiations.
LNG plans rival tarsands in scale
But at the much lower 80 mtpa figure, that is still larger than the equivalent current tarsands production in oil. (conversion chart here)
Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant (artist’s rendering)
Or put another way, at 80 mpta, it is four times the entire existing Australian LNG export market, and they are third largest exporters of the product in the world behind Qatar and – you guessed it – Petronas (Malaysia).
There, the Haperites leveraged investment into the risky and marginal tarsands by handing over nearly the entire natural gas industry of BC. These deals are so sweet that Petronas has already begun selling off their piece by offering huge, lucrative partnerships in the whole LNG train from fracked well to regasification for their prospective partners to enjoy. Japan is already on board and we may see even more Chinese SOE involvement in this deal when all is said and done.
That covers off the export market, and this week’s ENN announcement that it intends to be the primary distributor across Canada means that foreign-based companies will have a head start on supplying retail LNG from coast to coast, as they intend to begin pumping by 2016.
BC Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman (Damien Gillis)
Apparently, negotiations with the mostly Asian companies involved are so complicated that not only are they done under non-disclosure agreements, but the results we have been promised this month are now delayed until his government tables its budget next year.
You will also learn that Coleman intends to lock down the world’s lowest royalty and taxation regime, streamline approvals and that peace and stability exist among environmentalists, the government and First Nations as a result of revenue sharing agreements and “world-class” environmental regulations, as I recently wrote about.
Trade Agreements and Democracy Collide with TPP
The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership will revolve around natural gas – BC’s in particular – as many of the proponents of the TPP are in on the BC LNG play that has been trumpeted as the largest deals in history.
There is still no word on the TPP text outlining the new paradigm for Canada’s natural resources, but it is clear we are not on the winning side, as we are treated to more secrecy and backroom deals.
FIPPA implications and why we need to act now
Which brings us back to FIPPA and how our relationship with Asia is “suffering” as a result of the delay in ratifying this deal. Minister John Baird recently claimed that ratification was imminent, and as we learn more and more about the significance of the Chinese FIPPA – given their majority ownership position in both our LNG export and domestic markets, in addition to the full basket of other natural resource investments and their huge stake in our retail markets – you can see why China is interested in closing this deal.
However, if we are interested in true prosperity for Canadians, it’s high time we take a sober second look at the huge, far-reaching impacts of the FIPPA Treaty. You may recall the work done here at The Common Sense Canadian to bring attention to how the FIPPA Environmental Assessment was carried out against the letter of the law, and how it dismissed any impact on the environment whatsoever as a result of Chinese investment.
These conclusions are patently ridiculous as we learn to what extent Chinese investment permeates the entirety of our economy.
It’s time to follow up with the Cabinet and Chief negotiator of the FIPPA treaty on our request to clarify how they completed a successful Environmental Assessment, based on the flaws we pointed out and I detailed in a submission through the public process.
The LNG export approvals alone are going to result in such a massive escalation of fracking that we cannot let the FIPPA EA conclusions stand based on that one issue alone.
GO HERE for the orignal letter and instructions on how to register your concerns with the Harper Cabinet on this vital subject.
Valhalla Wilderness Society is reporting that a pair of proposed natural gas pipelines connected to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals planned for Prince Rupert will no longer pass through two important grizzly bear sanctuaries. The changes come following public pressure from Valhalla and other conservation groups.
The two pipelines – one to be built by Spectra, the other by TransCanada Corp on behalf of Malaysian energy giant Petronas – were due to pass through the the Kwinimass and Khutzeymateen conservancies, created in 2006 to protect important bear habitat. Illegal survey work in the area by a TransCanada subcontractor drew repeated warnings from BC Parks this summer and provoked criticism in the media.
According to a Thursday newsletter from Valhalla:
[quote]The withdrawal of the proposed pipeline routes was apparently due to prompt action undertaken by VWS coastal campaigner, Wayne McCrory along with the protests of many others. Although we do not have 100% confirmation from the companies, themselves, our information comes from very reliable sources in government, and from our legal representative.[/quote]
The Petronas-owned Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project would be the largest pipeline in Canadian history at 4 feet in diameter, carrying 2-3.6 billion cubic feet per day of gas to a large LNG terminal north of Prince Rupert. The project would require the logging of pristine rainforest for a right-of-way of up to 200 metres wide – plus access roads and compressor stations.
McCrory referred to the plan in the media in September as “a shocking and unconscionable betrayal of the bears, the Park Act, and the Great Bear Rainforest decision of 2006.”
TransCanada had also applied for permits to do geotechnical studies that would involve drilling. According to Valhalla, “The park use permit application has now been withdrawn, as well.”
The other pipeline proposed for the area, belonging to Spectra, would be the same diameter and carry even more gas – up to 4.2 billion cubic feet per day. “Spectra has told people that it will not be going through the protected areas,” says Valahalla. “However, the company’s PR person has stated that the Khutzeymateen routing is not yet fully off the table.”
These two mammoth pipelines represent only a portion of those currently proposed to criss-cross the wilderness of northern BC, as this new map illustrates. There are five serious gas pipeline proposals, six more that have been floated, plus the Enbridge Northern Gateway twin bitumen and condensate lines – all part of the “gold rush mentality surrounding the BC government’s LNG promotion efforts in Asia,” says Valhalla.
A new map (scroll down to view) reveals the full scope of oil and gas pipelines proposed to criss-cross BC. Compiled by Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Skeena Wild, the graphic depicts the planned routes for a staggering six new pipelines – five designed to carry natural gas to proposed liquefaction (LNG) plants in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, plus the twin bitumen and condensate Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge.
Plans for an additional six gas pipelines have yet to be formalized.
These pipelines have sparked a variety of concerns for local residents and conservationists – including impacts on an important grizzly sanctuary from the proposed line to supply Malaysian energy giant Petronas’ LNG terminal near Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which TransCanada Corp has been hired to build, is slated to run through the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy. Preliminary work has already drawn multiple warnings from BC Parks over unpermitted helicopters and work crews in the area.
In other communities like Hazelton and the Kispiox Valley, residents are concerned about a flurry of invasive industrial activity by Spectra – looking to build its own pipeline to Prince Rupert – and TransCanada, long before permits have been obtained. “They are all over the place here,” resident and founder of the citizen information website NoMorePipelines.ca, Graeme Pole told the Globe and Mail in September.
[quote]There are literally armadas of trucks going up these roads with ATVs in the back. And they are flying helicopters overhead, going to places we can’t reach.[/quote]
The Northwest Institue’s Pat Moss echoed these concerns, exclaiming, “At this point, it’s a free for all…it’s a gold rush mentality.”
The companies have defended their practices, but it’s easy to see how concerns on the ground are mounting. Given the scope and potential impact of all these different pipelines across BC’s northern wilderness and related LNG plants, a key criticism of the review process has been the lack of any consideration of the cumulative impacts or big-picture planning and public engagement. More details on the individual pipelines and LNG plants below.
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.
“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.
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.”
A screen capture from Gordon Wilson’s youtube endorsement of Christy Clark
Some years ago I got into hot water for calling a federal cabinet minister of the female persuasion a “political whore”, a phrase that has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with having principles for sale.
Christy Clark is paying Gordon Wilson $12,500 a month for four months – probably a permanent gig if he keeps his nose brown enough. Wilson is going to be an advocate for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Wilson once highly critical of LNG
In April last, before this former BC Liberal leader and NDP cabinet minister endorsed Liberal Christy Clark in the May election, Wilson had this to say about LNG:
[quote]The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose is the fact that the markets we are told will buy all we can supply may not materialize as we think, and even if they do, the price they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.[/quote]
Quite, Gordon, quite. That was Gordon Wilson the skeptic talking but there is more. Here’s what Wilson the environmentalist had to say last April: “Expanded LNG production also comes with a significant environmental cost.”
Our lad went on to say:
[quote]The impact of an expanded hydrocarbon economy will certainly speed up global warming and cause us to build a dependency on a revenue stream that originates form processes that are poisoning our atmosphere.[/quote]
Precisely, sir, precisely. Given my most articulate moment, I could not have said it better.
The story changes
So what happened to Mr. Wilson? Does he have some contract in his pocket for LNG sales from BC to an Asian customer? Has there been some host of angels descend from Heaven, urging Mr. Wilson to get on the side of God and Christy Clark?
Or is he just a grubby political whore whose price is $50,000 a quarter?
To call Wilson that cannot come without evidence of past prostitutional behaviour. (Yes, I just invented the word, dictionaries please copy.)
Wilson’s first dance with BC Liberals
Mr. Wilson, back in the 80s was a Liberal, both federal and provincial. The provincial wing was in disarray and Mr. Wilson took over, severed its ties with the federal party and built the local Libs into a force to be reckoned with in the 1991 election, when they went from zero MLAs to seventeen and he became Leader of the Opposition.
It was downhill from there. By 1993 it was obvious that there were rumblings in the Liberal caucus that he was entirely too close to their House Leader, the gorgeous Judi Tyabji. The media kept quiet until the late John Pifer got his hands on a love letter from Ms. Tyabji to our hero. None of us, least of all me with my marital record, wanted to make anything of this except the political reality that the Opposition was clearly unraveling and doing a lousy job.
Lie led to ouster
Had Mr. Wilson stated that he and Judi were a thing, with Judi leaving her post, it would have been a 48-hour story at worst.
But Wilson lied – serially lied. He destroyed himself in an interview with CKNW’s Philip Till.
The party held a leadership convention and unceremoniously dumped Wilson for the calamity called Gordon Campbell.
Wilson’s finer points
Before going further, I must acknowledge my debt to Wilson on the Meech Lake/Charlottetown issue. We were very close on that issue, along with Gordon Gibson and the late Mel Smith, QC. Wilson introduced me to Clyde Wells, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who became all but a fixture on my show at CKNW.
Moreover, I have to say that a couple of years ago I urged him to try and form a new party of the “centre” where I perceive the political vacuum to be. I have never questioned his ability to articulate issues. In fact he may be the perfect political animal.
Trading principle for money
My quarrel is with his crass trading of principle for money.
Wilson, when Campbell was selected, most ungraciously quit the Liberal Party and formed, with the lady of his choice, Judi Tyabji, the Progressive Democratic Alliance.
This was not to last. As the NDP tottered towards its 2001 wipeout, Wilson was asked to join its cabinet, which he did, while making it abundantly clear that he would never join the party.
But he did. In fact, he ran for their leadership. And in terms that made him sound like he was as committed as if his Dad had worked the coalmines of Wales.
I was at that leadership convention and I was astonished to hear him speak as if socialism was burned into his soul. He demonstrated – dare I be so bold as to say – that he was a political whore who, quite clearly for personal aggrandizement, had gone from being an enemy of the NDP to a cabinet minister in an NDP government; from rejecting the party to an aspirant, and a serious one, for their leadership.
In deep financial trouble, Wilson takes money to shill for LNG
Now Wilson moves from being skeptical of LNG and all its obvious flaws into a position of solid support for it.
Are we supposed to believe that this volte-face had nothing to do with $12,500 a month, which could easily morph into $150,000 a year?
We learned from reporter Bob Mackin a week before the May provincial election that Wilson’s return to the Liberal fold came amidst mounting legal and financial pressures – including the court-ordered sale of the Sunshine Coast home he shared with his wife.
Am I, taking the risk of a lawsuit, not entitled to say that Gordon Wilson, for all his many talents, is indeed a political whore whose principles can be precisely valued at $12,500 a month – to be expanded, because Premier Clark will have no other choice, to $150,000 per annum and perhaps beyond?
I like Gordon Wilson. I am still an admirer of his many abilities.
But he is, price tag stamped on his forehead, a political whore.
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.
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.
Frack water pit in BC’s Horn River Basin (photo: Damien Gillis)
By Anna Novacek – republished from Energy Law BC
As the only province in Canada that does not regulate groundwater use, BC has been referred to as the “wild west” of groundwater.
Groundwater has and will continue to be relied on heavily by the LNG industry as a key source of the extensive amount of water necessary to conduct hydraulic fracturing. While the amount of water will vary between wells due to the changes in geology and the size of the reservoir, the volumes can be immense. EnCana Corp. states that between 200,000 and 1.2 million litres of water (roughly 1/10th to one half of an Olympic swimming pool) is needed to complete one well.
Surface water is regulated by short term water use approvals found under Section 8 of the Water Act [RSBC 1996] c. 483 (“the Water Act”). Surface water licensees are required to use water in accordance with the Water Act, the terms and conditions of their licence, and to pay annual water rentals. None of these requirements currently apply to groundwater users, even those using it on a large scale.
With a legislative proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act, however, this may be changing.
Updating century-old Water Act
BC’s current Water Act is 104 years old. The Water Act Modernization process began in 2009, and has included on-going workshops and consultations with the public, First Nations and stakeholders, resulting in a Water Act Modernization Report on Engagement in September 2010, and a Policy Proposal for the new Water Sustainability Actin December 2010. The original plan was to introduce the new Water Sustainability Actin 2012; however the “complexity of developing legislation with widespread implications for British Columbians” resulted in delay.
Public feedback sought
On October 18th, 2013 the province released a legislative proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act. A summary of this proposal can be accessed here. The proposal is open for public feedback until November 15th, 2013. It is expected to be submitted to the legislative assembly as a bill in 2014 for debate and final approval.
Key changes
The changes to provincial regulation of groundwater outlined in the legislative proposal for a Water Sustainability Act include:
Large volume users would be required to obtain authorization and pay application fees and annual water rentals to access groundwater. Groundwater use for ‘domestic purposes’ would generally be exempt from this requirement
Information will be collected from all well owners to help improve understanding of aquifers and how they interact with lakes and streams
A database of all groundwater wells in the province will be established to help inform future water allocation decisions
The minimal standards under the Ground Water Protection RegulationBC Reg. 299/2004will be expanded to require the mandatory submission of well records for new wells, as well as requiring testing and disinfection of a water supply well after drilling to reduce the risk of contamination, and guidelines for ensuring contaminants are stored away from water supply wells.
The requirement regarding well drilling and the protection of groundwater will be updated. It is proposed that the WSA would clarify that drilling into or penetrating an aquifer is a ‘disturbance’ and requires a qualified well driller.
The complete legislative proposal is available here.
Devil’s in the details
The key question is whether the new Water Sustainability Act will be designed to restrict or minimize groundwater use in any way, or instead focus more on initial approvals, the provision of information and increasing reporting requirements. The application of exemptions within the new legislation will also be an important factor determining how industry will ultimately be affected.
LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is one of biggest energy stories to hit Western Canada. It is promoted as a clean bridge fuel that will create thousands of jobs and turn British Columbia into a trillion-dollar global energy leader. The idea is to cool natural gas into liquid, so it can be shipped to higher-price markets in Asia. But is it really all it’s cracked up to be? And what are the trade-offs and impacts associated with LNG and the fracked gas that would feed it?
