Category Archives: LNG

BC LNG: Boon or Boondoggle? 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.

Woodfibre LNG proponent has history of fraud, tax evasion

January 9, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Woodfibre LNG proponent has history of fraud, tax evasion — Sukanto Tanoto (right), the man behind the proposed Woodfibre LNG project

Permit me to make some observations about the LNG situation in Squamish. What the people of Howe Sound do is their affair. I can only give them the benefit, if any, of my experience over the years.

We are not dealing here with honest people – it is not hyperbolic to call them crooks. The powers behind Woodfibre LNG have been convicted of large tax evasion and substantial environmental degradation. Sukanto Tanoto, his family and associates have been consorts of the worst sort of financial manipulators in Indonesia – right up to the former President Suharto.

This from The Guardian:

[quote]

…one of the world’s largest palm oil companies, owned by Sukanto Tanoto, was fined US$205m after being shown to have evaded taxes by using shell companies in the [British Virgin Islands] and elsewhere. The company has agreed to pay the fines.

Documents arising from the case show that Tanoto’s company, Asian Agri, systematically produced fake invoices and fake hedging contracts to evade more than $100m of taxes.

According to evidence contained in more than 8,000 papers, the company, which employs 25,000 people in 14 subsidiaries and owns 165,000 hectares of plantations, was engaged in “routine and systematic fraudulent accounting and book-keeping practices” using British jurisdictions.

[/quote]

Premier Clark and her poodle, Rich Coleman, expect this outfit to pay the piddling taxes imposed by the government on LNG plants.

The fix is in

I am by no means the only person to notice that the permit request by Fortis BC to upgrade its pipelines in order to feed the proposed Woodfibre plant precedes permission to build the plant. That’s because the “fix is in”.

From childhood we’re taught to respect the law and the “policemen” who enforce it. It rubs against the grain to think of breaking even a minor law.

What happens, however, if the laws are stacked in favour of the powerful and against ordinary citizens? What if the laws are so unfair as to be travesties of justice?

The place we, the public, look for protection is environmental assessment laws. So let’s look at The National Energy Board, in the news much recently, and see how they look after us.

Hearings called a “farce”

Some of the most damning evidence of the National Energy Board’s Kinder Morgan hearings came from a former BC Hydro CEO and deputy minister of energy for both Manitoba and Ontario, Mark Eliesen. He says this about the proceedings of the National Energy Board in the Kinder Morgan hearings, from which he resigned as an official intervenor:

[quote]

In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator.

In addition to gutting the oral-cross examination feature of a public hearing process that supports proper questioning and an adequate level of due diligence, there are other Board decisions that have been made over the course of this hearing that reflect a pre-determined outcome.

The evidence on the record shows that decisions made by the Board at this hearing are dismissive of Intervenors. They reflect a lack of respect for hearing participants, a deep erosion of the standards and practices of natural justice that previous Boards have respected, and an undemocratic restriction of participation by citizens, communities, professionals and First Nations either by rejecting them outright or failing to provide adequate funding to facilitate meaningful participation. (Emphasis added)

[/quote]

He closed his letter resigning as an intervenor thusly:

[quote]The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest. (Emphasis added)[/quote]

(Along with the presidency of BC Hydro, Eliesen sat on the board of Suncor Energy and was former CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority and Ontario Hydro. In total, he has worked for seven governments and nine ministers of the crown.)

MP, MLAs avoid public meeting

What about expecting justice on the political front?

John Weston, the local Conservative MP, was not in attendance at Tuesday’s council meeting to discuss the controversial permit application from Fortis BC, which involves test drilling in a wildlife management area for its its planned pipeline expansion. He had no reason to be absent – the Commons is not in session and, besides, as with all government backbenchers, he doesn’t do anything anyway. Surely he should’ve at least troubled himself to be there to report back to the government on the feelings of the people present, his constituents.

I understand that neither of the Liberal MLAs were there either. Same criticism as Weston. They have nothing else to do of any use but to report back to the government what they see and hear.

Did I go to unpleasant meetings such as this when I was in cabinet?

You bet your life I did. If I hadn’t, Premier Bill Bennett would have quite rightly tossed me out on my ass. Perhaps standards were different then but I can tell you about meetings I was at that would curl your hair!

Not only has there been no canvassing of public opinion by the provincial government, they have fallen all over themselves to support the project and in fact staked a phoney claim to the 2013 election based on $100 billion coming from LNG.

I could go on but suffice it to say that not only has the public not been consulted, there is no fair process by which it can be consulted unless it’s through local Councils. In every case in the Howe Sound area, the Councils have rejected the notion of an LNG plant in Squamish and concomitant tanker traffic. However, these Council decisions evidently don’t count with either the provincial or the federal governments.

Civil disobedience on the horizon

My own personal opinion is that nothing will be accomplished except by civil disobedience. I have held that opinion for a long time and it is certainly not because I am a violent person. My whole political life has been fighting elections not policemen.

The fact remains, however, that times come when the citizen has no other option. When all of the cards are stacked, when the hearings are fixed, when politicians are in bed with the powerful, when all the laws favour one side of a dispute, then what choice do people have?

The people of Burnaby did a fantastic job fighting Kinder Morgan. That battle is far from over, thanks to the courage of the citizens of the area. The entire country saw the weak take on the strong and at least hold their own.

I must be careful here – I am not physically able to do that which I preach. I’m sorry about that. I will, however, continue to say my piece and I presume that if I continue to press for civil disobedience I’ll be in contempt of something sufficient to be in trouble with the authorities.

Squamish Council faces lawsuits from both sides in LNG pipeline dispute

January 8, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Squamish Council faces legal action from both sides in LNG pipeline dispute — Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)

Former District of Squamish Councillor Meg Fellowes addresses current mayor and council over Fortis BC’s controversial application to conduct test drilling in a wildlife management area. The drilling is in connection to a planned pipeline expansion to feed gas to the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant near Squamish. At a Tuesday meeting, council deferred its decision on the drilling permit issue, to be revisited in 2 weeks.

Mayor and Council – District of Squamish (Dos):

Council is caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a possible Fortis legal suit if Council doesn’t approve drilling in the [wildlife management area]; and, the hard place is a possible legal suit by one or more taxpayer/resident if council does approve the drilling.

During the council meeting of January 6th, 2015, a disconnect was identified between the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the authorizing bylaw. Awareness of the disconnect provides grounds for a community legal challenge should Council approve the permit. The prudent solution, for a risk adverse council, is to officially amend the OCP to reflect the bylaw; or, amend the bylaw to reflect the OCP.

A legal challenge coming from the community happened in 2000 when [anti-woodchip transfer facility group] CHIPS took on DoS in the wood-chip transfer facility debacle where Squamish council was taken to court by concerned citizens. Despite the assurance of municipal lawyers, the District of Squamish lost the court case, the proposed wood-chip transfer facility wasn’t built, and one of the enterprising citizens was subsequently elected mayor of Squamish.

Seeming procedural technicalities cost taxpayers money, developers time, and communities their reputation when local governments try to take short-cuts on contentious issues.

Meg Fellowes
Former DoS councillor (1993-99)

2015: Year of reckoning for Canada’s fossil fuel economy

January 5, 2015Economics, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar SandsfeaturedDamien Gillis

On Monday, as Canadians got back to work following the holidays, the price for crude oil dipped below $50/barrel for the first time since 2009, offering a glimpse of the profound changes in store for the country in 2015. With some $60 Billion in oil/tar sands projects now in peril – harkening back to “dark days” of decades past – this federal election year promises to put the fossil fuel-dominant economic vision of Canada’s political leaders to the test.

Good news, bad news

Image: Dan Pierce — Burnaby Mountain protests (Dan Pierce)

If 2014 was the year of the pipeline protest, 2015 may advance the cause of environmentalists and First Nations even further, without a single placard being waved or arrest made. In a country where the economy increasingly drives political policy and media commentary, something as simple as the halving of oil prices will likely do more to reshape the future than years of ardent protests. Cynical but true.

Yet these changes are complex and fraught with contradictions. Lower oil prices stall new oil/tar sands projects and pipelines while chilling investment in LNG projects. Yet they also drive consumer demand through lower prices at the pump.

And although this setback for Canada’s fossil fuel sector should be a wake-up call as to the need to diversify our economy and energy options, in some ways it hampers renewable energy development, by eroding recent gains in cost competitiveness for clean technologies. When oil costs over $100/barrel and natural gas is $8/unit, increasingly cost-effective wind and solar look pretty good these days. Cut those fossil fuel prices in half, and not so much.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynn tours an Airbus helicopter plant (CNW) — Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynn tours an Airbus plant (CNW)

Another important contradiction to note is the benefit to Canada’s economy from a weakened fossil fuel sector. As a new study from RBC reminds us, lower fuel costs to consumers free up cash that can flow into our economy through other avenues. More importantly, lower oil prices mean a lower Canadian dollar and lower energy costs to manufacturers, both greatly benefitting Canadian exports.

In other words, the jobs we lose in Fort McMurray may be replaced – and then some – by a strengthened manufacturing sector in places like Ontario.

What this moment – and potentially extended period – of depressed fossil fuel prices offers Canadians is the opportunity, in a pivotal election year, to rethink our economic future. And this applies at both the federal and provincial level – from BC’s proposed LNG industry, to the Yukon’s debate over fracking, to Alberta’s oil/tar sands, to several pipelines planned to carry dilbit eastward.

To get the conversation started, here are a few big ideas we should be considering in 2015:

1. Invest in renewable energy

First of all, let’s get something straight. Government intervention exists in virtually every economic sector – especially the oil and gas industry. In BC, we’ve seen everything from half a billion dollars a year in royalties returned to gas companies to the slashing of proposed LNG export taxes and the planned construction of a $9 Billion dam, which, at various times has been justified to power the LNG industry.

Estimates of government subsidies for the oil and gas industry range from a billion and a half dollars a year to as much as 6 billion, depending on how you calculate them and whom you listen to. So to those “free marketeers” who would balk at subsidizing clean tech innovation, just be sure to apply the same standards to the fossil fuel sector, which, we’re frequently threatened, would up and walk away if we didn’t maintain the lowest royalty and tax regimes in the world.

As our contributor Will Dubitsky has documented over the past year, Canada is the exception when it comes to major industrial nations investing in clean tech. While Stephen Harper cut our only federal clean tech innovation funding in 2013-14 (which stood at a paltry $82 million), China invested $68 Billion in clean tech in 2012, with the US not far behind. Both countries, along with Germany, Denmark, Spain, Brazil, and many others, have reaped the rewards with millions of new green jobs. Canada’s tax incentives and subsidies for clean tech lag far behind these other nations.

BC sitting on enough geothermal to power whole province, say new maps — Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)

Even in Canada, despite a wildly unfair balance of public investment in fossil fuels compared with renewables, the employment balance is shifting. Trying to assess the real job benefits of the oil and gas industry is a tricky business, because so many different numbers and definitions are thrown around (“direct”, “indirect”, “related”, Canada, Alberta, etc.). The Alberta Ministry of Energy, for instance, pegs “oil sands related direct employment in Alberta” at 146,000; whereas a 2011 study by the the Petroleum Resources Council of Canada acknowledged just 20,000 jobs in the Alberta oil sands sector, with 130,000 total oil and gas jobs across Canada.

Renewable energy proponent Clean Energy Canada subscribes to the latter measurements and made headlines with a report last year suggesting we now have more jobs in clean tech than we do in the oil/tar sands. The comments on this Globe and Mail story discussing the report range from skeptical to apoplectic at the audacity of these dimwitted eco-pinkos. But the key take-away is that clean tech jobs are growing in Canada – and rapidly – with very little help; whereas the future of oil sands construction jobs is suddenly looking pretty bleak.

If you believe the derision of oil sands boosters, these green jobs pose no real threat to their sector, so what are we waiting for? What are we not seeing that China, America and Germany are? If jobs are the name of the game, then it’s high time we got behind these sustainable alternatives.

And that doesn’t just mean wind and solar. As we’ve learned from a number of recent reports, Canada – particularly these western provinces doubling down on fossil fuels and big, antiquated dams – are sitting on top of huge geothermal potential. This is a clean, renewable energy source which, unlike wind and solar, is as predictable and consistent as coal or natural gas – without the wild market fluctuations.

While lower oil and gas prices may inhibit investment in clean tech and consumption of renewables, as noted above, that’s precisely what government intervention is for. This is where a government with long-term vision can step in an catalyze private sector investment and job growth for the future, laying the groundwork for an economy that is not strapped to the roller coaster of fossil fuel prices.

2. Take advantage of lower oil prices

As I noted earlier, lower fossil fuel prices can be a very good thing for Canada’s economy. There is strong evidence – from the likes of Industry Canada, no less – that higher oil and related currency prices have cost our nation more jobs than they’ve created.

As contributor Mark Taliano explained in a must-read piece from last year:

[quote]…from 2000-2011, the oil and gas sector created about 16,500 jobs, while, at the same time, Canada lost 520,000 manufacturing jobs. Much of the manufacturing losses are tied to the rise of the petro-dollar which tends to rise and fall with the price of petroleum…Even Industry Canada acknowledges the problem. Their report notes that between 2002 -2007, from 33-39 per cent of Canadian manufacturing job losses were due to “resource-driven currency appreciation.”[/quote]

“Resource-driven currency appreciation”: that’s code for the “Dutch Disease”, a concept that has been necessarily ridiculed by Harper Conservatives, but is nevertheless widely accepted amongst global economic thought leaders, like the OECD.

Sure, many Canadians will feel the pinch in their stock portfolios as our overly energy-bound TSX falters, but the opportunity for benefits to Canada’s economy from lower oil prices is significant – reinforced by a recent report from RBC, which notes:

[quote]Our current Canadian forecast assumes that both consumers and exporters will respond to these incentives that will slightly more than offset the expected weakening in oil-sector investment.[/quote]

What this all boils down to is a choice: Either export raw, unrefined bitumen and syncrude – generating few local jobs – or export finished goods, manufactured in Canada. Since the latter brings more jobs and value-add to Canadian resources, shouldn’t that be a no brainer?

3. Pull the plug on pipelines

Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image — Keystone has strained Canada-US relations (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Keystone XL, for both political and economic reasons, appears less and less likely by the day. Even an expected bill from a dual-majority Republican congress can and likely will be vetoed by Barack Obama. Clinging to this vision will only further strain diplomatic relations with our southern neighbour. It’s time for Stephen Harper to throw in the towel on Keystone.

As for Enbridge and Kinder Morgan, on top of all the law suits, the widespread public opposition – culminating in highly effective civil disobedience at the end of 2014 – and the well-justified environmental concerns, these plummeting oil prices mean the demand for increased export capacity is simply not there. Many oil/tar sands projects can’t make a buck at $50 oil (which is substantially lower when you factor in the Western Canadian Select discount on bitumen) – evidenced by the cancellation of numerous expansion projects in recent months.

According to a Financial Post story from a four days ago:

[quote]Canadian oil and gas projects worth a total of $59-billion may be deferred during the next three years as the ‘collapse’ in capital investment in the global oil industry echoes the dark days of 2009 and 1999.[/quote]

The same thing is happening with risky, expensive shale oil from the Bakken in North Dakota, with production and train shipments plummeting in recent months. These unconventional fossil fuels are the first to lose their lustre in low-price periods. Upstart American shale oil producers are a victim of their own success – flooding the market with too much supply. Now, with OPEC unwilling to back off with its cheaper, light crude supply, it is forcing these more costly new sources out of the market.

Meanwhile, controversy is heating up over Enbridge and TransCanada’s eastbound pipeline proposals, which are also subject to the same economic challenges as the BC projects. A slew of mounting headaches for TransCanada’s Energy East project – from endangered belugas to the Quebec government’s long list of tough conditions – prompted Alberta Premier Jim Prentice to travel east in December for a round of palm pressing and damage control.

Added environmental hurdles and calls for increased provincial benefits and reassurances, piled on top of a weakening business case, spell trouble for these projects – once considered a cake walk compared to getting through BC.

Times change, new facts emerge. Canada needs to evolve its thinking accordingly. If Stephen Harper wants to hang onto his majority – even stay in power with a minority government – he should rethink his dogmatic devotion to pipelines unpopular with many voters and for which the economic justification is simply no longer there. The oil/tar sands isn’t the only avenue to create jobs and be strong on the economy.

4. For God sakes, abandon LNG

Christy Clark-BC LNG The Cleanest Fossil Fuel on the Planet — Christy Clark pitching LNG in 2014 (Damien Gillis)

Christy Clark’s LNG vision is the biggest loser of them all.

With most Asian LNG contracts tied to oil prices, the current climate has scared away even the most intrepid LNG proponents. That includes Malaysia’s Petronas, which cited this reason for further waylaying its final investment decision (again) last year. (Let’s remember too that even if it did go ahead with its pipeline and plant, Petronas has indicated that it would import Malaysian workers to build them – while the BC government signs deals with India and China to supply foreign temporary workers for the LNG industry…so there goes the whole “jobs” argument!)

Petronas’ stalling comes on the heels of many other big players getting cold feet, including Encana, EOG, Apache, and BG Group.

And with good reason. Even after Clark gave away the farm to these companies – slashing down to nothing the export tax at the root of the Liberals’ grand “$100 Billion Prosperity Fund” promises in the last election – this dog still won’t hunt.

Here’s why: With all the added costs to produce and ship LNG to Asian customers, the break-even point is between $10-13/unit of gas. When Asian prices momentarily spiked to $16-18 a few years ago, it seemed like BC exporters could make some real money exporting LNG. But as we and other pundits correctly predicted, this price bubble wouldn’t last. Now, with spot prices hovering at or below $10 – and expected to continue falling throughout 2015 – that Asian price premium is gone, taking BC’s LNG pipe dream with it.

Sure, oil prices may pick up and with them LNG prices, but the lesson here remains: LNG is expensive and volatile – not characteristics that make big energy companies likely to fork out the tens of billions of dollars and half decade in pipeline and plant construction required to get this industry up and running. Which is why the sooner we abandon this delusion and start focusing on real, sustainable economic alternatives for the province, the better off we’ll all be.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” That’s the refrain environmentally-minded folks are browbeaten with, their pipeline and climate change protests patronizingly brushed aside by wise economic pragmatists.

But in 2015, with $50 oil, we should all be on the same page for once.

“The environment IS the economy” says Tory MP Weston…Really?

December 19, 2014Canada, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, PoliticsfeaturedRafe Mair

The environment IS the economy says Tory MP Weston — Tory MP John Weston (from his annual Christmas video message/Youtube)

There is surely nothing quite as ridiculous as a Tory pretending that he cares. Money and rich friends they understand but when it comes to the values that ordinary people revere they’re at sea. In fact they’re bewildered by those who think that the poor ought to be considered by society or that such things as lakes and mountains and animals and parks and neighbourhoods have any serious meaning to people.

This doesn’t mean that they don’t understand that they must make believe and always speak in loving terms about the things that I’ve mentioned.

There’s another sure thing to be added to Benjamin Franklin’s “death and taxes”. It’s that by reading the bullshit in a Tory MP’s annual newspaper to his constituents you can determine, with only the minimum of thinking, what the Tories are really planning and what their electoral word games are going to be all about.

LNG in Howe Sound

I hate to be seen as picking on my MP, John Weston, but because I know him, I’m bewildered that he would prostitute his brains and compromise his honesty to the extent he has over the last three years.

Now, John is a very earnest sort of a chap and I’m sure honestly feels that he is front and centre in Canadian public life and of considerable importance to the governance of the nation. I fact, he is inconsequential and in three years has contributed nothing and couldn’t if he wanted to. Nor can any of his backbench colleagues. I would respect that and leave him alone if it weren’t for the fact that he pretends importance where there is none, as do his colleagues. It must be an awful thing to have to fake self-importance in order to keep up one’s self respect.

Let’s get down to cases. I live on the Sea-to-Sky in wonderful Lions Bay. I have not always lived here, of course, but I’ve always felt much attached to Howe Sound, having spent so many of my boyhood hours happily fishing and swimming and cruising in this area. It’s sacred.

Squamish, at the top of Howe Sound, is a growing town and it’s proposed that it be “blessed” with an LNG plant. I think I can say safely that the vast majority of citizens along Howe Sound oppose this vigorously. Squamish, in a stirring upset, recently elected a mayor who is also much opposed.

Weston attacks West Van Council over LNG ban

Last summer the West Vancouver City Council – among others in Howe Sound and on the Sunshine Coast – passed a resolution condemning this project. Mr. Weston took umbrage at this and went to Council with a spokesman for the Malaysian LNG outfit and demanded time for him to be heard. He was determined to have this decision overturned but the council, which understood the public mood much better than he did, remained firm.

If you read Mr. Weston’s annual rag, you might think that he had won a stunning victory. The bold headline sings praise for Council’s commitment to “Good Process”, even though it politely told him to get stuffed. In the body of the article, Mr. Weston plays down the disappointment the entire constituency knew he had and made believe that he was thrilled that he managed to get a hearing for his client.

Not satisfied with leaving after one paragraph, Mr. Weston prattles on for seven more dealing with the wonders of development. One paragraph probably tells the story

[quote]As MP, I am increasingly required to consider the impact of industrial projects on our economy and our environment. Throughout the summer, conversations [at] backyard barbecues and coffee gatherings [are] often related to responsible resource development. “The Environment IS the Economy” [emphasis his] is the message I am increasingly taking to cabinet and other leaders.[/quote]

That is, of course, rubbish. Mr. Weston is not taking any messages to cabinet nor to any leaders, nor does any other Tory backbencher. Who in hell is he kidding? They’re overpaid ciphers who do what they are told and speak when they’re spoken to.

IS the environment the economy?

But let me deal with this slogan “The Environment IS the Economy ” – to which Weston recently dedicated a column on his website directed at yours truly. That’s a very helpful slogan indeed and reminds me of “Conscription if necessary but not necessarily Conscription”, “The Land is Strong” and “Please adjust your clothing before leaving the Lavatory”.

This all leads up to Mr. Weston’s favourite word – and I assume it is the favourite of his colleagues, – “process”. As long as you have “process” you can do anything.

When the Tory government took away protection for fish under an omnibus bill, Mr. Weston, in my presence, enthusiastically supported this move on the grounds that now there was “process”. In other words where it was once forbidden to bugger up fish habitat, now you could do it if you went through the proper “process”.

Mr. Weston goes on to say, “If a project respects the factors just mentioned, I am likely to support it. Otherwise, I will not support it.”

Again we see the ridiculousness of a Tory backbencher trying to act important. The plain fact is that Prime Minister Harper doesn’t give a fiddler’s fart what John Weston thinks about a project. The truth of the matter is that backbencher Weston was instructed to try to get the West Vancouver Council to reverse itself – after all, Harper and his poodle, Christy Clark uncritically support LNG. He failed and now must save face.

“Process”

I have spoken of this before but I think it’s worth revisiting. The “process” involved in environmental matters is a fraud. Now that’s admittedly a nasty word to use, I agree, but let’s examine the position taken by Mark Eliesen who was, until he resigned, an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan hearings before the National Energy Board.

Mr Eliesen is former Chair of BC Hydro, CEO of the Manitoba Energy Commission, CEO of Ontario Hydro, CEO of Manitoba Hydro and a director of Suncor.

In his lengthy resignation letter, Mr. Eliesen concluded:

[quote]In effect, this so-called public hearing process has become a farce, and this Board a truly industry captured regulator…The National Energy Board is not fulfilling its obligation to review the Trans Mountain Expansion Project objectively. Accordingly it is not only British Columbians, but all Canadians that cannot look to the Board’s conclusions as relevant as to whether or not this project deserves a social license. Continued involvement in the process endorses this sham and is not in the public interest.[/quote]

John Weston no doubt believes his own bullshit, but that’s what it is. Without hesitation, I would take the word of Mark Eliesen over Weston’s and most certainly over that of Prime Minister Harper or any of his cabinet toadies.

“The Environment IS the Economy” (or is it the other way around?) simply means, in Tory Talk, “Always speak in hushed, respectful terms about the environment – but, for God’s sake, don’t ever let environmental considerations get in the way of our friends making money.”

Gerry Hummel's cartoon on John Weston support of private river power projects — Gerry Hummel’s cartoon on John Weston’s support of private river power projects (IPPs)

Latest Harper Omnibus bill guts regulations for coal, LNG ports

December 10, 2014Canada, Coal, Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, PoliticsfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Neptune coal terminal (Image: Dan Pierce/Wilderness Committee)

By Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston – republished with permission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association.

On October 23, 2014, the federal government introduced Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures (also called the “Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2”). Buried in Division 16 of the 475 page omnibus bill are proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act that, if adopted, would pose a serious threat to legal protection from environmental threats and public oversight of activities that occur in ports.

The proposed amendments raise a number of concerns for British Columbians, especially as they relate to controversial shipping industries like coal and LNG – indeed one of the most troubling amendments could be viewed as a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed by Voters Taking Action on Climate Change against the environmental assessment of the controversial Fraser Surrey Coal Docks. For detailed information, see our legal backgrounder Bill C-43: A threat to environmental safety and democracy, but two of the most concerning changes are:

Allowing the federal Cabinet to exempt port lands from key requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and Species At Risk Act that regulate “federal lands” by turning those lands over to port authorities.
Giving Cabinet extensive powers to write new laws for ports, and to delegate law-making powers for ports to any person, without many checks and balances.

Exempting “federal lands” from federal environmental laws

Some federal environmental statutes create special environmental requirements for activities taking place on “federal lands.” Examples include:

Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012– the requirement to consider the environmental impacts of projects – even where they would not otherwise require an environmental assessment;
Species At Risk Act– The requirement to protect land-based endangered and threatened species and their habitat on federal lands.

Bill C-43 gives the federal government the ability to get around these legal protections by converting federal lands into port lands. Specifically, Cabinet would gain the ability to sell its lands in a port to the port authority. Once it does so, even though the port authority is supposed to act as an agent of the federal government, those lands will no longer be considered “federal lands.”

And, presto, as if by magic those nasty environmental protections disappear.

A controversial coal port proposed for Surrey, BC gives a tangible example of what this might mean. As we write in the backgrounder:

[quote]…Fraser Surrey Docks LP’s proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility in Surrey, BC was required to undergo a federal environmental assessment by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority because the project occurs on federal lands under Port Authority supervision. The Port Authority’s approval of the facility has been challenged in court by a group of citizen and non-profit applicants represented by Ecojustice and Beverly Hobby (with funding from West Coast) for failing to follow the requirements of CEAA 2012. If the Bill C-43 changes to the Canada Marine Act come into effect and the federal government were to sell the property on which it is located to the Port Authority, it would be possible for controversial projects like this one to bypass reviews under CEAA 2012 altogether.[/quote]

Trust us, we’re law-makers

The second thing that Bill C-43 does is to turn over exceptionally wide law-making powers to Cabinet, including giving it the ability to turn broad powers over to port authorities, provinces or even industry. While Cabinet often has the power to make regulations under a statute, these powers are exceptionally broad, and include powers to:

hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial (court) control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself;
powers to incorporate industry or other documents in the regulations without necessarily making those documents publicly available;
create rules for the retention or destruction of documents.

The Bill provides few explicit constraints over how these powers could be used, and the government hasn’t given any real indication as to its plans, but:

Powers that can be delegated include responsibility for making laws and policies regarding specified industrial activities in ports, administering activities under those instruments, and hearing disputes that occur regarding port activities. For example, Cabinet could in principle allow an industry association to write the rules regarding the assessment and permitting processes for LNG facilities and coal storage, and the shipping of both. It could then incorporate those rules into federal law without public notice or opportunity to comment.

The Bill even purports to allow Cabinet to take oversight of the new rules away from the courts by creating a tribunal to hear any disputes regarding those activities in ports, including challenges by the public. It could appoint industry representatives as the tribunal’s members and authorize port authorities to write the rules governing port activities and for hearing disputes (including who would have standing to bring a challenge).

Canadians understand the value of checks and balances and transparency in laws. These amendments do away with both.

Secret amendments

What are these amendments doing in a budget bill? This is the latest of a series of amendments to environmental laws that have been hidden in voluminous budget bills and debated by the House Finance Committee (instead of environmental committee). This is not the way democracy is supposed to work, and now is the time to say no.

Andrew Gage and Anna Johnston are staff counsel at the West Coast Environmental Law Association. They are calling on concerned citizens to write to Finance Minister Joe Oliver about this proposed omnibus budget bill.

Clark govt, Science World selling LNG Kool-Aid to kids

December 8, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

BC Liberal ministers Rich Coleman and Shirley Bond look on at a recent demonstration about the "science of LNG" (BC Govt) — Ministers Rich Coleman and Shirley Bond watch a recent demonstration on the “science of LNG” (BC Govt)

The BC Liberal government’s all-out push to build an LNG industry is extending into the province’s classrooms and the minds of its students. The latest partner in this effort, Science World, is co-hosting a series of community seminars in rural communities to educate students “about the fundamentals of energy science.”

Alongside presentations by Science World, an October government media advisory promises:

[quote]…young people will be able to talk with government and industry representatives and take part in Find Your Fit, an interactive event where grades 6-to-10 students get hands on experience with the skills needed for in demand jobs throughout the province.[/quote]

Events have already taken place in Prince George, Fort St. John, Terrace and Prince Rupert – with upcoming dates in Squamish, Nanaimo, and Kamloops.

Science World CEO defends “neutral” program

On CBC radio’s Daybreak North last month, Science World CEO Bryan Tisdall deflected concerns about the controversy surrounding the LNG industry and its environmental and social impacts. Said Tisdall, “Our shows will be quite neutral and they will be based on the belief that order to be able to make those decisions, to address those very challenging questions that are in front of us, the residents of the province need to have a basic level of knowledge about what is energy – where does it come from?”

But the events Science World is partnering in can hardly be construed as “neutral” or strictly science-focused. They’re clearly designed to promote the industry to youth through big job promises – a message with which Tisdall appears to be fully on board, noting:

[quote]There will be the opportunity not only to learn more about the science of energy generally – and more specifically about LNG – but careers that might be involved in that…all the trades and professions that will be essential for the future energy industry in the province.[/quote]

LNG policy creeps into classrooms

This development is merely the latest example of the troubling creep of the government’s energy agenda and the oil and gas industry’s influence into BC’s classrooms.

From the massive shifting of post-secondary education funding away from academia towards “skills training” for the LNG industry to Chevron’s controversial attempt to donate $200,000 to the Vancouver School Board, BC’s youth are increasingly being targeted to advance oil and gas development.

Liberal MLAs attend BC Lions-endorsed "Skills for Life" session (Photo: MLA John Yap) — Liberal MLAs attend BC Lions-endorsed “Skills for Life” session (Photo: MLA John Yap website)

It’s not just post-secondary students who will be encouraged to abandon dreams of social work or nursing careers for LNG training. Clark has acknowledged this focus on trades must extend to high school students as well.

A recent example was the student delegation the government brought to its global LNG summit earlier this year, wooing high schoolers with promises of jobs in the trades.

Even the kid-friendly BC Lions have been roped into this sales pitch – partnering in the government’s “Skills for Life” program, along with Petronas’ Pacific Northwest LNG project.

These Science World community sessions are reaching even younger students with this pro-LNG message – some as young as elementary school.

Let’s talk about science…really

Mr. Tsidall’s Science World is supposed to be in the science business. So here’s some of the science that’s missing from their seminars.

How about estimates that suggest even a modest number of LNG plants could more than double the entire carbon footprint of the province? Or does Science World not concern itself with climate science?

How about the science of fugitive methane emissions – 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period – that stem from shale gas (a.k.a: fracking)? Or the geology that tells us BC’s LNG industry would be fed by a massive increase in fracking.

Or the science of tens of billions of litres of fresh water being removed from the hydrological cycle and contaminated with a cocktail of chemicals – some of them known carcinogens?

Or the science of earthquakes caused by fracking?

These are all fascinating topics, surely of interest to inquiring young minds. If Science World wanted to engage with youth on the subject, they could do it independently of the government and let our youth weigh the jobs they’re being promised against a full picture of the negative impacts of this industry. As it stands, Science World is allowing itself to be used as the lackey huckster of the government’s Kool-Aid.

What jobs?

Speaking of jobs, how many of these students will actually see employment in the industry while company after company backs out? While the very BC government making these promises signs deals with China and India to import foreign temporary workers to build LNG infrastructure at cheaper wages…

Meanwhile, Christy Clark, hardly a fan of education herself, is full of lessons for BC’s youth – and their parents, both beneficiaries of her recent lecture on protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Is this LNG program about providing kids with opportunities – or about using kids to get to their parents, the voters who elected this Liberal government on an LNG platform that is disintegrating beneath its feet?

If the Liberal government wishes to continue hawking the Kool-Aid of its failing LNG industry, that’s its prerogative – but to Mr. Tisdall and Ms. Clark, I say: Leave the kids out of it.

Rafe: What’s the NDP thinking jumping on Liberals’ sinking LNG ship?

December 6, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

afe--What's-the-NDP-thinking-jumping-on-Liberals'-sinking-LNG-ship — BCNDP Leader John Horgan talking LNG at UBCM meeting (Photo: BCNDP)

I suppose it’s not unusual for an electorate to feel swindled. It sure as hell happens often enough.

The BC electorate has every right to feel swindled in the election of 2013 by the Christy Clark government’s solemn promise to make us all wealthy through LNG plants. This was a very specific promise and even went as far as promising a “prosperity fund” of $100 billion, plus all of our provincial debt soon paid off. This was crap, they knew it, we fell for it.

Now, for God’s sake, the NDP opposition has joined in the swindle at a time when the Liberals, now that their promises cannot possibly be fulfilled, are frantically looking for a way out for the 2017 election.

NDP support comes as LNG industry falls apart

It’s incomprehensible that the John Horgan opposition would support the Liberals on their LNG endeavours, particularly since Petronas has all but admitted defeat, and they are supposed to be the first out of the box!

What’s even more distressing for those who want LNG plants as soon as possible and as many as possible, is the statement by Petronas that nothing will be going until the end of the decade (which is three years after the next election). Even more troubling for LNG lovers is experts like Bloomberg suggesting that Canada’s LNG industry is highly vulnerable to intense global competition.

It’s really difficult to see just how the campaign promises for 2017 are going to shape up.

The Liberals, like Mr. Micawber, are hoping “something will turn up”.

What is the NDP’s plan for BC?

There has been nothing from Mr. Horgan or the NDP to suggest that they have a new plan for BC. That may come, but it’s pretty late to start setting the stage for an unknown program to be their campaign 2 1/2 years from now.

As it now stands, we have the Liberals looking for a way to avoid dealing with LNG in 2017, with the NDP, not caught in the Liberals’ trap but one of their own making, really not knowing what the hell to do. At least the NDP have plenty of experience in that regard.

It is a new world out there, something that the media has not cottoned onto and, apparently, something that has escaped the notice of Premier Clark and opposition leader Horgan.

Public hungers for environmental leadership

The public are in a strong environmentalist mood. The municipal elections in November demonstrated that but, I think more importantly, the comments to The Common Sense Canadian and The Tyee demonstrate that there is a hard-core, and growing opposition to pipelines, LNG plants and the like which is much different than the cries of years gone by.

There is no doubt that the public’s appetite for preserving our environment got a great boost back in the days of Clayoquot Sound and before, but these things take time to mature and in my belief the environmentalism of the public has reached new heights and more is yet to come.

I don’t for a moment think that the public is against all development or anything of the sort. This is why the “right” has so much trouble dealing with the issue. They can’t think beyond their political philosophy that whatever is dug, cut down, mined, drilled, or transported must be good and those who ever, even for a moment, oppose those things must be evil. For the “right”, unrestrained capitalism is a religious tenet and non-believers deserve contempt.

Citizens fed up with being ignored by politicians, media

Rafe: Critics of Burnaby Mountain citizens are out of touch with public will for change — 84 year-old retired librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)

In fact, a growing number of citizens don’t see the mindless greed of industry and their bought-off governments as their salvation. Moreover, more and more voters are pissed off at not being consulted and not having their views represented by their politicians.

The media’s mindless and dedicated adherence to the desires of big business make them not only unbelievable, and all but devoid of influence, but damn near unreadable to boot.

When ordinary, decent, British Columbians see their fellow citizens threatened with jail because they want to preserve their parks and neighbourhoods, they’re disgusted.

In a way, it all rather goes back to Lincoln’s aphorism:

[quote]You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.[/quote]

One might respectfully add to that, once the people know that they have been fooled, they get very cross indeed.

Reform is coming

The political systems, federal and provincial, make it very difficult for parties of protest, such as the Green Party, to make headway. The present system suits party lines and party discipline, not individual thinking and representation of the voter. 2017 will be, however, a time when the Green Party will demonstrate whether, even under a lousy system, they can gain public support. It will be, for them, a watershed election.

There will be reform both of the system and the way we are governed. That may take time, although what needs to be done is pretty obvious to most of us.

No matter how big a majority a government has, it can’t govern if the people don’t support it. The public will continue to protest environmental degradation of which they do not approve. That the traditional parties don’t understand that means only that it’s going to take the people a little longer to make their views materialize in reform.

Be all of that as it may, reform is coming, sooner or later, and you can make book on that.

$Govt scared it's losing messaging battle over fracking, LNG in social media - documents reveal$

Govt fears losing LNG, fracking social licence to social media: Internal briefing note

November 17, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Govt scared it's losing messaging battle over fracking, LNG in social media - documents reveal — Rich Coleman tries to conjure up some good LNG PR with this youtube video (BC govt youtube page)

The BC government is worried it can’t control the way fracking and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are being criticized through social media, documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request reveal.

As a result, the Liberal administration fears losing the “social licence” required to advance its LNG strategy – the core policy of its recent election platform and economic vision.

The June, 2014 briefing note (view full document here) was dug up by Propeller Strategy, a non-profit group with a focus on environmental and public interest issues in BC. Prepared by staff for Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman, it compares criticism of fracking with the kind of fake news and tweets that surrounded the Boston Marathon Bombing several years ago.

“Misinformation about hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology, water usage and greenhouse gas emissions relating to natural gas extraction and LNG production facilities is rampant in the community, particularly in social media,” the briefing note states.

[quote]Allowing this kind of “framing” to occur is not in the public interest as social licence is eroded. [/quote]

“Cascade of misinformation”

The document uses the Boston Marathon Bombing as an example of how quickly misinformation can spread through sites like twitter and facebook. In that particular incident, thousands of false tweets muddied the public’s initial understanding of the situation.

“Part of it is people wanting to be part of the story, but part of it is spammers and hoaxers trying to cash in on the fact that people are talking about this,” UBC media professor Alfred Hermida recently explained to The Georgia Straight’s Charlie Smith in a story on social media hoaxes.

The Ministry of Natural Gas memo describes how quickly a single tweet, being picked up by twitter celebrities with large followings, can spread through “thousands of re-tweets” – creating a “cascade of misinformation.”

In the words of Winston Churchill…

Bringing it back to the government’s messaging challenges around fracking, the briefing note warns, “It’s rather difficult to win back the public once the misinformation is etched into the memory of British Columbians.”

[quote]As Winston Churchill pointed out: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”[/quote]

But is that a fair description of the social media discourse surrounding fracking and LNG in BC? The way the document reads, it’s as though the government takes for granted that any discouraging words said about these industries must inherently be construed as “misinformation.”

Why all the secrecy?

It’s difficult to know how much weight the government’s concerns hold, since much of the document supplied to Propeller Strategy was redacted. The entire second page, containing specific discussion and conclusions, was whited out, leaving not a single, tangible example of the kind of false claims the ministry alleges surround fracking and LNG.

Says Stan Proboszcz, who filed the FOI request, “I’m disconcerted about what the province may be planning to do to improve the industry’s failing image, given the redactions. Why all the secrecy?”

[quote]It’s clear the province is concerned with the industry’s evaporating social licence.[/quote]

Cleanest fossil fuel on the planet?

Meanwhile, The Common Sense Canadian has been tracking and publishing on social media the evolving, peer-reviewed science related to fracked shale gas, which increasingly contradicts the government’s branding of BC LNG as the “cleanest fossil fuel on the planet”. (This proposed LNG industry would be fed by a major increase in fracking in northeast BC.)

Fracked wells leak 6 times more methane-New Cornell study — Methane leaks are common with fracking operations

Cornell University climate scientist Dr. Robert Howarth – an acknowledged leader in the field of measuring the real climate impacts of fracking – scoffs at Premier Christy Clark’s “cleanest fossil fuel” claims. Based on his research into escaping methane gas, which is some 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period than CO2,“natural gas – and particularly shale gas – is the worst of the fossil fuels…Your premier has her facts wrong.”

That particular story was liked over 2,300 times on facebook and widely shared amongst BC users. Is this the kind of “misinformation” in social media that the ministry is referring to?

LNG would dramatically boost BC’s carbon footprint

In addition to the climate problems associated with fracked gas, “using it in LNG is probably the worst way to use it,” Dr. Howarth explains. “It takes a tremendous amount of energy to liquefy the gas to LNG, so a lot further methane emissions associated with transporting and storing the fuel.”

Studies from the Pembina Institute suggest that just the coastal LNG plants associated with the government’s plan could more than double BC’s entire carbon footprint – and that’s only factoring in a handful of the 15-plus terminals currently proposed for the province.

[quote]…even the lower end of that development scenario would produce a staggering 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year by 2020. For comparison, the oilsands are currently Canada’s fastest-growing source of climate pollution — but by 2020, B.C.’s LNG plans would produce three-quarters as much carbon pollution if development proceeds as hoped.[/quote]

Even the government’s own scientists have warned it about the climate consequences of its LNG vision – apparently to no avail.

Misinformation claims don’t hold water

The government is also clearly concerned about criticism of fracking’s impacts on water – criticism which, again, would seem to be prudent, based on the evidence.

In 2012, BC used close to 11 Billion litres of water for fracking – most of that drawn from the rivers, lakes and streams of northeast BC, a region already hard-hit by drought in recent years. And that’s just what was reported through government figures. Not all water extraction is properly measured or reported.

Shale gas expert David Hughes has run the numbers on what it would take to supply those LNG plants, and it means as many as 50,000 new fracked wells – close to double all the gas wells drilled in the 60-year history of the province’s gas industry.

In order to supply this LNG-driven ramp-up, he and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives researcher Ben Parfitt figure “a very conservatively estimated 582 billion litres of water would then be polluted and removed from the hydrological cycle.”

On an annual basis, that’s equivalent to all the water used by the city of Calgary.

Drinking the LNG Kool-Aid: Gas Minister Coleman and Environment Minister Mary Polak drink water spiked with LNG in an effort to show how safe it is (BC govt youtube page)

Coleman and Clark have also made bold claims as to the safety of BC’s fracking with regards to water, but cracks have begun to form in those arguments. In a 2013 Georgia Straight op-ed, Coleman made the following claim: “The net result of both our strong regulatory framework and our geology is that B.C.’s water supply is protected and safe. It has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing.”

Talisman frackwater pit leaked for months, kept from public — Arrow indicates leaking Talisman tailing pond (Two Island Films)

Yet, one week earlier, The Globe and Mail had broken the story of a leaking tailing pond near the community of Hudson’s Hope – owned by Talisman at the time (now by Malaysia’s Petronas). As The Common Sense Canadian went on to unearth, this pond, containing 30 million litres of contaminated frack water, was leaking into the surrounding soil and groundwater for up to six months before the company went public about it.

The eventual cleanup operation required the removal of some 5,000 cubic metres of contaminated earth.

Minister Coleman may argue on a technicality that there is no evidence of that contamination reaching BC’s public drinking water supply – though that is not even what he specifically said.

We also learned in August that unnamed companies had been illegally dumping contaminated fracking wastewater into the Dawson Creek municipal water treatment system.

All of these stories received considerable sharing and commenting through social media. Each of them based on thorough research and the best available scientific knowledge. And this is on top of a growing body of evidence from across Canada, the United Sates and other fracking jurisdictions of the risks of water and air pollution from shale gas.

Does public have better BS-detector on social media?

With over 1 billion facebook users globally and half a billion tweets sent each day – spanning a broad demographic range – it is becoming increasingly difficult for government and industry to control the public discourse around issues strictly through conventional media.

To this end, the BC Liberal Government is making an effort to engage with the social media space – deploying twitter feeds, hashtags, flickr photo streams, and youtube videos of their own.

Minister Coleman actively uses Twitter, but doesn’t appear to be gaining the kind of “message” traction he’d like. Perhaps it’s because his tweets smack of the very propaganda he accuses his detractors of engaging in.

“In conventional media, it’s the big media companies which get to decide whether messages get circulated or not, and the audience doesn’t have a say,” explains Shane Gunster, Graduate Program Chair at the SFU School of Communication. “So there isn’t really any feedback mechanism (other than yelling at the television) for people to express their opinion.”

[quote]In social media, however, the success of a campaign depends upon that feedback: people are the gatekeepers in terms of deciding if and when messages are circulated through their social networks. And in that context, PR – especially when it is recognized as PR – is just not going to have much traction because most people don’t want to be perceived as industry or government hacks…I think it’s fair to say there’s a fair bit of scepticism, and even hostility when people see government or industry spending millions of dollars to shape public opinion on issues like pipelines or fracking. [/quote]

A brief perusal of Minister Coleman’s twitter feed reveals a series of relatively one-dimensional PR statements and offhand dismissals of critics:

When legitimate questions began being raised about plans to outsource to India and China some of the jobs promised to British Columbians from the LNG industry – one of the key justifications for the whole program – Coleman fired back:

Social media driving social change?

Watershed Moment- How fracking, LNG, dams could reshape BC's future — Fracking operation in northeast BC (Two Island Films)

It’s clear from this briefing note that the government is worried about the impact social media are having on its LNG vision. And these fears may be well-justified. These media contribute to the erosion of social licence for the industry in several ways.

Not only do they furnish users with information and foster lively dialogue, but sites like facebook have become key tools for organizing public demonstrations, advertising town hall meetings and other forms of real-world protest of the government’s plans.

We have already seen where largely social media-driven campaigns for telecommunications reform and Internet privacy protection have forced policy changes from government. From viral petitions to facilitating public comment in environmental review processes, to calling out public officials, the range of powerful tools social media offers to citizens is only growing.

So while Rich Coleman and company appear to recognize the problem, solving it is very different matter, especially if the social media they dismiss as mere misinformation actually turn out to bear some truth – the inverse of Winston Churchill’s statement.

In other words, in this scenario, the truth gets halfway around the world before the government’s PR flacks get a chance to put their pants on.

Rafe: Shell promises “green” LNG…we can trust them, right?

November 5, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Christy Clark and Marvin Odum, President Shell Oil Company at recent BC LNG conference (BC govt flickr)

I’m sure, like me, you were excited to read in the Vancouver Sun for November 4 that LNG Canada (Shell and its Asian partners) will build a plant in Kitimat which will be very, very “green” and put even less greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere than the maximum prescribed by the BC government.

Oh, there will still be GHG escaping but just a teensy, weensy bit. And, of course, we all know that how strict BC government standards are. After all if you can’t trust Christy Clark and Mary Polak, the Environment Minister, whom can you trust?

Shell: your friendly, trustworthy oil and gas giant

Look, even the paint is green! (LNG Canada rendering)

It’s been suggested that Shell is not a very nice company, that amongst other things ruined Nigeria and the rivers therein. I don’t place much credence in this sort of whining from greenies! I’m told that wherever Shell goes it buys uniforms for the local Little League. Surely a company that does that is trustworthy!

I also was excited to realize that LNG Canada (Shell) would be carefully policed, and if necessary, be dealt with severely – just like fish farmers, private river power projects, or mines like Mount Polley mine have been.

Christy Clark: Always looking out for people of BC

In the same Sun issue, we learned that premier Christy Clark had a lovely meeting with the premier of Alberta and that all bits of unpleasantness were resolved. We know what a great bargainer our Christy is from her toughness with LNG companies and that, contrary to what those of little faith feared, BC will be getting lots of loot out of the Enbridge Northern Gateway and the procedure for a spill in the ocean will be “world-class”. Thank God!

Now here are two of Canada’s finest politicians, so we surely trust that all is well. After all, if you can’t trust people like Christy Clark, whom can you trust?

The Sun: Bastion of independent thought

I’m always grateful to the Vancouver Sun because it brings us independent thought – like The Fraser Institute, or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, or the BC Fish Farmers, or the president of the BC Chamber of Commerce or the Vancouver Board of Trade. If you can’t believe independent thinkers like these unbiased folk, whom can you believe?

Doubling down on fossil fuels

I must confess, dear readers, that I have been a ninny. I thought that we decided, both in the United States and Canada, we would “wean ourselves” off fossil fuels. We had to, we were told.

How could I have been so wrong! “Weaning off” apparently means something quite different to politicians and oil barons. Or perhaps it was sometime in the future?

Since then, we’ve opened up new coal mines all over the continent, new oil wells are being drilled, especially where new techniques allow us to recapture left-over oil – and we are “fracking” everywhere we possibly can for oil and gas.

BC: the new oil and gas enabler

Horn River fracking — A BC fracking drill (Two Island Films)

In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to have hydroelectric power but our job in the new scheme of things, evidently, is not to be a user but an “enabler”. We are to transport bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands, put it on 100s of tankers and send them down our narrow fjords off to the Far East. Since we don’t actually that much of this stuff ourselves, we leave it to others, who can blame us if others pump the crap into the atmosphere?

We’ll not only put LNG plants in BC to enable overseas customers to send our stuff into the atmosphere, we’re going to “frack” away to our hearts content to produce as much as we can and fuel those plants. No small-time enabling for us, by golly!

Now, here’s my most egregious sin. I rejected the assurances of our government and the companies that “fracking” is harmless. I took the word of scientists who talk about how “fracking” sends poisonous methane gas plus the usual GHGs aloft and that, when everything is considered, in the longer run, natural gas, “fracked” or otherwise, may be just as harmful as oil or coal. Silly me!

Rafe turns over new leaf

Readers can expect me to turn over a new leaf and accept that our wise and thoughtful premier is really an environmentalist at heart and that all her thoughts are to that end. I’ll pay rapt attention to what independent commentators like the Fraser Institute say in independent papers like the Sun and Province. After all, doesn’t big business always have our best interests at heart?

How could I have been so stupid as to accept the word of 97% of climate scientists in the world and the studies done, particularly very recently, by the White House and the United Nations, that GHGs are destroying our atmosphere? That we don’t have much time left?

Surely “experts” like environmental turncoat Patrick Moore are much more reliable. Moreover, I’ve overlooked the gut instincts of climate change deniers. Hell, what could be more accurate than that?

I promise to reform. I can only hope that our publisher, Damien Gillis, doesn’t stick to his tiresome, outdated theories that we really are in trouble on this planet, that fossil fuels make a huge contribution to GHGs which are destroying our atmosphere, that we must reform our way of life and find ways to get clean energy, and all that nonsense.

I am sure that all faithful readers of The Common Sense Canadian will apply the necessary pressure to make our publisher have faith in our betters and hereafter behave himself, and make this publication even-handed like The Fraser Institute and its ilk.

And the Vancouver Sun.

94% opposition to Woodfibre from municipal candidates answering LNG survey

October 31, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

94 per cent opposition to Woodfibre from municipal candidates answering LNG survey — Rendering of proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, BC

Of the 31 candidates who responded to a recent questionnaire on the controversial Woodfibre LNG proposal for Howe Sound, 29 – or 94% – were opposed.

The survey, conducted by Propeller Strategy, was presented by phone or email to all 98 candidates in the region of the project’s proposed Squamish plant and tanker route – encompassing Howe Sound and the Sunshine Coast. Of the 88 still known to be in the race as of this week – representing the communities of Squamish, West Vancouver, Bowen Island, Gibsons, Lions Bay and Whistler – many chose not to put their positions on the record.

Only two Squamish candidates firmly stood up for the project, which has drawn strong opposition from outgoing municipal councils – including votes for tanker bans by West Vancouver, Lions Bay, and Gibsons.

Chief among the concerns of these municipal leaders have been environmental and safety risks associated with the project and what is seen to be a negative economic trade-off for an area building a modern economy based on tourism, academia, and the growing presence of the recreation technology sector and entrepreneurs attracted by the lifestyle offered by the Sea to Sky region.

At a September meeting where representatives of the project – owned by Indonesian Billionaire Skuanto Tanoto – pled their case to West Van Council, Councillor Mary-Anne Booth openly scoffed at the paltry job promises from Woodfibre:

[quote]For the risk that’s associated with this and the impact to that area, for…dozens of jobs – that’s the best you can do? And we’ve got to to stand for that? You haven’t convinced me.[/quote]

Yet despite the high rate of opposition amongst candidates who answered the survey, Stan Proboszcz, a director of Propeller Strategy, was surprised at the reluctance of many candidates to put their opinions on the record, after being contacted up to 3 times.

“Woodfibre LNG is one of the biggest election issues in the region, yet it seems some candidates aren’t eager to provide a straight-up yes or no answer about whether they support it or not,” says Proboszcz.

The survey will remain open to any candidates who still wish to make their opinion of the project known prior to the November 15 election.

The most common reasons for opposing the project, in order of priority, were:

environmental risks
economic risks
human safety concerns
navigational hazards of tankers

The two candidates backing Woodfibre are doing so because of economic benefits and a lack of known negative impacts to the community.

Based on the focus placed on the proposal by departing councils over the past year, whether or not candidates are putting their positions on the record now, they are bound to have to do so soon after they assume office.