Category Archives: Oil&Gas

Arctic offshore drilling preparations concern communities

Share
(Photo: Offshore Energy Today)
(Photo: Offshore Energy Today)

by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

Growing industry interest in the offshore oil resources of Canada’s Arctic is forcing northerners from east to west to confront hard questions about development.

No actual drilling is likely to happen for years.

But major decisions are being taken now as projects enter the regulatory system.

Governments, aboriginal groups and Arctic communities are considering issues such as how to plug possible blowouts, who benefits from development and whether some waters should remain closed.

“The first time this process goes forward, it’s going to set a template for others to follow,” said Louie Porta, science and policy adviser with Oceans North, part of the Pew Environmental Trust.

Plans for the eastern and western Arctic

In the western Arctic, an aboriginal regulator is setting up hearings into a plan led by Imperial Oil (TSX:IMO) to drill exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea in 2020. The wells would be about 175 kilometres offshore from Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., in water up to 850 metres deep, and are so complex and difficult to drill that the company estimates it would take at least two seasons to complete one.

In the eastern Arctic, the National Energy Board is considering a proposal for seismic tests off Baffin Island that has sparked fierce community opposition. In response to that proposal, the federal government has begun a strategic environmental assessment to consider which parts of a huge swath of ocean all the way down the island’s eastern coast could be opened up for exploration and which might stay closed.

The Beaufort project is being carefully examined by the Inuvialuit, the aboriginal group that has a land claim and self-government agreement in Canada’s northwest corner.

The group has long experience with the oilpatch on land. But this project is different, said Nellie Cournoyea, head of the Inuvialuit Regional Corp.

“When it’s onshore the benefits are much easier to grab ahold of, and the risks are less,” she said. “When you go offshore you have higher risks and less benefits because of the high infrastructure investment you have to get involved.

[quote]Plus, people are still concerned about the risks of oilspills or having a blowout.[/quote]

Relief wells

The National Energy Board has said companies working offshore in the Arctic must have the capability to drill a relief well in the same season to release pressure and stop oil flow in case of a blowout such as the one that happened with BP in the Gulf of Mexico. But the board said other equally effective methods would be considered.

Imperial has said it’s simply not possible to drill a same-season relief well in that region.

Cournoyea said the Inuvialuit are waiting for more information on how the company would respond to a blowout.

“We’re dealing with that right now, to see if we can get more information on what that option might be,” said Cournoyea, who added that Inuvialuit representatives have travelled to the Gulf of Mexico.

Regulatory decisions on Imperial’s plans to stop a blowout and limit the release of oil will be crucial for subsequent proposals, said Porta.

[quote]There’s this ideology that we can prevent our way out of spills.[/quote]

“But there’s a logical miscue to suggest that prevention technologies equal meaningful response when things go wrong. I think it establishes a dangerous precedent as Canada continues to figure out how to drill safely in an Arctic context.”

The effects on animal activity

“The proposed seismic testing and the resulting oil and gas drilling it would bring are not balanced development,” the hamlet wrote to the energy board. “The (hunters and trappers organization) and hamlet council are firmly opposed to seismic testing in Davis Strait and Baffin Bay.”

Aboriginal Affairs says no decisions have been made about whether those waters ultimately will be opened to oil and gas drilling, even if the energy board approves seismic testing.”The strategic environmental assessment for potential offshore oil and gas exploration in Baffin Bay/Davis Strait will recommend to the minister if, where and when the region should be opened for exploration activities,” say government documents.

Porta praises Ottawa for the attempt to get out in front of potential industry activity in the eastern Arctic.

“It’s a great way to look at a broad question and understand and deal with some of the big-picture issues,” he said. “To deal with those up front — things like what areas should be open for rights, what does a meaningful royalty package look like for Inuit — it’s the best way to make big, important decisions.”

It will be years before northerners see offshore drill rigs, if ever. But now is when the decisions about how that return will be managed are being made, said Porta.

“You don’t go from something to nothing quickly with Arctic oil and gas. The decisions happen now.”

Share
Energy East pipeline would be for export, not local refining

Energy East pipeline would be for export, not local refining

Share
Energy East pipeline would be for export, not local refining
Most of the oil from the proposed Energy East pipeline would be destined for export, says a new report

by Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press

CALGARY – The proposed Energy East pipeline won’t be the boon to Eastern Canadian refineries that supporters claim because the vast majority of the oil in it would be bound for export markets, environmental groups argued in a report released Tuesday.

Alberta bitumen bound for India Europe

The $12-billion project would likely use the lion’s share of its 1.1 million barrel per day capacity to send unrefined oilsands crude to markets like India, Europe and possibly the United States, says the report, penned by The Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence and Equiterre.

The pipeline would run 4,600 kilometres from Alberta to Saint John, N.B., using repurposed pipe already in the ground for roughly two thirds of the way.

The company planning to build it, TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP), aims to file a formal regulatory application this summer and has been engaging with communities along the route in an effort to build support.

Backers in industry and government have said Energy East will help ailing refineries in the East — reliant on high-cost crude from abroad — by connecting them with a stable, low-cost supply from Western Canada. The proposal also includes export terminals in Quebec and Saint John, N.B., from which some of oil can be sent overseas by tanker, getting producers a better price.

Only 122,000 barrels a day to local refineries

The report Tuesday said the three refineries along the Energy East route — Suncor Energy’s (TSX:SU) in Montreal, Valero’s near Quebec City and Irving’s in Saint John, N.B., — have a combined capacity of 672,000 barrels per day.

Of that, the groups figure 550,000 barrels per day can come from elsewhere — offshore crude in Atlantic Canada, booming U.S. shale resources and, eventually, via Enbridge Inc.’s (TSX:ENB) recently approved reversed Line 9 pipeline between southwestern Ontario and Montreal. That leaves just 122,000 barrels per day of refining capacity that can be served by Energy East, the report said.

“It’s very frustrating to watch a company trying to convince Canadians that they should accept these massive risks based on some perceived benefit that they may receive. When you dig into it, you find that it’s an empty promise,” said Adam Scott, with Environmental Defence.

[quote]It’s just not true that Eastern Canada’s going to benefit in the way that TransCanada’s saying they are. And when you look and see that this is a project about putting vast quantities of oil onto tankers and shipping them out of the country, people who are convinced that ‘this is going to mean more local jobs for me’ are going to be very disappointed.[/quote]

TransCanada makes big economic promises

TransCanada has said the project’s economic benefits would be massive and has described it as a nation builder on par with the Canadian Pacific Railway.

A study TransCanada commissioned last September, conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, noted Quebec and New Brunswick refiners would see big cost savings if connected with lower-cost western crude.

On a 100,000 barrel per day basis, Quebec refineries would save between $92 million and $336 million per year, while in New Brunswick the annual savings would be between $51 million and $377 million, the Deloitte report said. That’s assuming those refineries continue to use mostly light oil.

Suncor has been considering adding equipment to its Montreal refinery that would enable it to process heavier crudes, while the Irving refinery in Saint John, N.B., has the ability to process some heavy crude.

Deloitte report predicts 1,000 direct long-term  jobs

The Deloitte report predicted the equivalent of 10,071 direct full-time equivalent jobs across the country will be needed to develop and build Energy East until 2018. Once the pipeline is up and running, Deloitte sees the creation of 1,081 direct jobs.

The study also found the project would add about $35.3 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product in the development and construction phase and over the 40-year life of the project. As well, it’s expected to add $10.2 billion in tax revenues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels the over that time.

Those economic figures don’t include the impact of higher Canadian crude prices that would result from being able to sell the product in lucrative overseas markets. Nor does it incorporate the lower crude costs eastern refineries may enjoy.

Follow @LaurenKrugel on Twitter

Share
CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation

CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation

Share
CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation
Canadian Natural Resources Limited’s Horizon oilsands upgrader

By John Cotter in Edmonton

FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. – Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. is facing 11 environmental charges over the release of a potentially deadly gas near an aboriginal community in northern Alberta.

The Alberta government said the charges stem from the release of hydrogen sulphide gas on August 2012 from the CNRL Horizon oilsands upgrader facility north of Fort McMurray.

The province said it learned of the leaks after getting complaints from the Fort McKay First Nation and reports from air monitoring stations.

“These are definitely serious charges,” Nikki Booth, a spokeswoman for Alberta Environment said Friday.

“It is something that we felt we needed to do to ensure that there is environmental responsibility on the part of the company.”

The province alleges that CNRL (TSX:CNQ) released the gas, failed to use its equipment properly, failed to report what happened properly and provided misleading information to the government and the Fort McKay First Nation.

There was no information on how much gas was released.

Each charge carries a possible maximum fine of $500,000.

Environment Minister Robin Campbell was not immediately available for an interview. He instead issued a written statement that doesn’t mention CNRL or the charges, but says the government takes environmental protection seriously.

“Our ability to open new markets for our oil — or to maintain the markets we have today — depends on our credibility when it comes to responsible oilsands development,” the statement says.

“Alberta is a leader when it comes to having stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation. We are proud of this and remain committed to ensuring that we develop our resources in a responsible and sustainable way.”

Officials with Calgary-based CNRL and the Fort McKay First Nation were not immediately available for comment.

Alberta Environment says hydrogen sulphide can be highly toxic and smells like rotten eggs. Exposure at low concentrations can irritate the eyes, nose and throat or cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

Exposure at higher concentrations can result in sleepiness, blurred vision or death from respiratory failure.

Mike Hudema with Greenpeace Canada said the allegations show that the oilsands industry needs much heavier oversight, and the policy of simply trusting oil companies to do the right thing has to end once and for all.

He said what happened could have been very serious.

“The fact CNRL not only released a deadly gas but allegedly misled Fort McKay First Nation about it is deeply troubling and begs the question of whether monetary fines go far enough,” he said.

CNRL already faces three environmental charges over a similar release of hydrogen sulphide gas that occurred in May 2010.

Those charges allege the energy company released hydrogen sulphide gas into the atmosphere and failed to report it. These charges are still before the courts.

The company is to appear in Fort McMurray provincial court on the latest charges on April 14.

CNRL’s website says its Horizon operation includes surface oilsands mining, bitumen extraction and upgrading plants.

Share
Energy Board approves Enbridge Line 9 reversal

Energy Board approves Enbridge Line 9 reversal

Share

Energy Board approves Enbridge Line 9 reversal

The National Energy Board has approved energy giant Enbridge’s plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of a pipeline that has been running between southern Ontario and Montreal for years.

The green light for the Calgary-based company is subject to certain conditions and requirements.

A statement from the National Energy Board says “the board’s conditions require Enbridge to undertake activities regarding pipeline integrity, emergency response, and continued consultation.”

Enbridge will also have to submit a plan to manage cracking features in the pipeline, and manage water crossings.

The board says that with these conditions in place, the project will be “safe and environmentally sensitive.”

Pipeline hearings saw heated protest

The decision on the controversial Line 9 comes some four months after the federal regulator held public hearings on Enbridge’s proposal.

During those sessions, a three-member panel heard from a wide range of parties including First Nations, environmental groups, private citizens and representatives from municipal and provincial governments.

Enbridge’s own final submissions were delivered in writing after the board cancelled its final day of Toronto hearings over security concerns stemming from a planned protest.

300,000 barrels flowing East

Line 9 originally shuttled oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal, but was reversed in the late 1990s in response to market conditions to pump imported crude westward. Enbridge now wants to flow oil back eastwards to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

It plans to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day through the line, up from the current 240,000 barrels, with no increase in pressure.

Opponents — some of whom have staged protests and held sit-ins at pumping stations — argue the Line 9 plan puts communities at risk, threatens water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.

Critics disappointed, not surprised

Officials at Greenpeace Canada said they were disappointed, but not surprised, by today’s decision. Said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s energy campaign co-ordinator:

[quote]This decision is no surprise, given how the federal government and the oil industry have rewritten our environmental laws to fast track the approvals of tarsands pipelines. These drastic changes barred thousands of Canadians from participating in decisions that will affect their air, water and health for decades to come and banned any consideration of the climate change impacts of this project.[/quote]

Critics also worry that Enbridge will run what they claim is a more corrosive product through the 831-kilometre-long line — a move which they claim will stress the aging infrastructure and increase the chance of a leak.

Enbridge has insisted that safety is its top priority and has characterized the scope of the reversal as “actually very, very small.”

Previous bitumen spills erode confidence in Enbridge

It has said a reversed Line 9 will not be transporting a raw oilsands product, although there will be a mix of light crude and processed bitumen.

It has stressed, though, that the products that will flow through the line will not erode it.

The company has also said the refineries it supplies can currently only take a small portion of heavy crude and would have to invest significantly in infrastructure to take more.

Despite the company’s assurances, Line 9’s opponents have often pointed to an Enbridge spill in Michigan, which leaked 20,000 barrels of crude into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. There are concerns the same thing could happen in Ontario or Quebec in the future.

Some opponents have also suggested the Line 9 reversal is ultimately so Enbridge can transport oil to the Atlantic coast for export — something the company denies.

A portion of the line has already received approval for reversal and has been sending oil from Sarnia to North Westover, Ont. — about 30 kilometres northwest of Hamilton — since August.

Share
US judge blocks $9 Billion judgement against Chevron over lawyers' illegal conduct

US judge blocks $9 Billion judgement against Chevron over lawyers’ illegal conduct

Share
US judge sides with Chevron over $9 Billion Ecuadorian contamination case
Photo: Teun Voeten/Reporters/Redux

by Larry Neumeister, The Associated Press

NEW YORK – A federal judge on Tuesday blocked U.S. courts from being used to collect a $9 billion Ecuadorean judgment against Chevron for rainforest damage, saying lawyers poisoned an honourable quest with their illegal and wrongful conduct.

“Justice is not served by inflicting injustice. The ends do not justify the means,” U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote. The judge said it was a sad outcome to have to rule that the Ecuadorean court judgment “was obtained by corrupt means,” because it will likely never be known whether there was a case to be made against the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil company.

Wrote Kaplan in a nearly 500-page ruling that followed a trial last year:

[quote]It is distressing that the course of justice was perverted.

[/quote]

New York lawyer for plaintiff corrupted case

He said a New York City lawyer, Steven Donziger, and Ecuadorean lawyers corrupted the case in Ecuador by submitting fraudulent evidence, coercing a judge and arranging to write the multibillion-dollar judgment themselves by promising $500,000 to the Ecuadorean judge to rule in their favour.

Donziger, criticized heavily in the ruling, said he will seek an expedited appeal of “an appalling decision resulting from a deeply flawed proceeding.”

He said Kaplan was “wrong on the law and wrong on the facts.” He accused Kaplan of letting “his implacable hostility toward me, my Ecuadorean clients and their country infect his view of the case.”

In a statement, Chevron Corp. called the decision “a resounding victory for Chevron and our stockholders” and said any court that respects the rule of law will find the Ecuadorean judgment “illegitimate and unenforceable.”

The case resulted from a long-running court battle between Amazon rainforest residents and oil companies.

Ecuadorian court cut initial judgement from $18 billion to $9.5 billion

In February 2011, a judge in Ecuador issued an $18 billion judgment against Chevron in a lawsuit brought on behalf of 30,000 residents. The judgment was for environmental damage caused by Texaco during its operation of an oil consortium in the rainforest from 1972 to 1990. Chevron later bought Texaco.

Ecuador’s highest court last year upheld the verdict but reduced the judgment to about $9.5 billion.

Chevron has long argued that a 1998 agreement Texaco signed with Ecuador after a $40 million cleanup absolves it of liability. It claims Ecuador’s state-run oil company is responsible for much of the pollution in the oil patch that Texaco quit more than two decades ago.

The Ecuadorean plaintiffs said the cleanup was a sham and didn’t exempt third-party claims.

The decision came in a lawsuit Chevron brought in Manhattan against Donziger and two of his Ecuadorian clients to prevent any of them from profiting from what the oil company characterized as a fraud.

Kaplan on Tuesday barred Donziger and the other defendants from trying to collect the judgment through U.S. courts and said they may not take any actions to profit from the judgment.

A lawyer for Donziger — Richard Friedman — said the ruling was disappointing but not unexpected. He predicted it will be reversed on appeal.

Donziger’s appeals lawyer, Deepak Gupta, said Kaplan’s ruling amounted to “what is in effect a global anti-collection injunction that would preclude enforcement of a judgment from another country in every jurisdiction.” He said it was indistinguishable from a ruling by Kaplan in early 2011 banning collection of the judgment anywhere in the world. That was decision was struck down on appeal.

No ‘Robin Hood’ defence

During the trial, Donziger acknowledged that he stood to make about $600 million if the $9 billion judgment was approved.

Donziger said in his statement Tuesday that his clients will try to collect the judgment in other countries.

“The villagers deserve justice, and I am confident they will get it despite Chevron’s effort to flout the rule of law,” he said.

Kaplan said in his decision that it did not matter if the efforts by the villagers came in a just pursuit, writing:

[quote]There is no ‘Robin Hood’ defence to illegal and wrongful conduct. And the defendants’ ‘this-is-the-way-it-is-done-in-Ecuador’ excuses — actually a remarkable insult to the people of Ecuador — do not help them.[/quote]

“The wrongful actions of Donziger and his Ecuadorian legal team would be offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law, including Ecuador — and they knew it.”

Share
Peter Mansbridge tries to come clean on Oilsands talk

Peter Mansbridge tries to come clean on Oilsands talk

Share
Peter Mansbridge tries to come clean on Oilsands talk
CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge giving a talk paid by CAPP (image: facebook)

by Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press

TORONTO – CBC News anchor Peter Mansbridge defended himself Thursday after a report that he made a paid speech to petroleum producers, saying he has never publicly promoted or opposed oilsands development.

“If I leave a speech and those in attendance think they know where I stand on any controversial issue, then they’re guessing. Because they won’t find it in the words I’ve spoken,” he wrote in a blog post on the CBC website.

[quote]I would not, do not, and have not, given a speech either promoting oilsands development or opposing it.[/quote]

The anchor of The National said he gives about 20 speeches each year, about half of them unpaid. When he receives a fee, he often donates part or all of the money to charity, he said.

Mansbridge said the network’s senior management has always approved his speaking engagements and known when he is paid for them.

Some media watchers have suggested it’s not appropriate for journalists to accept money from groups or industries that are the subject of their reports.

CBC management vetted speech

On Wednesday, a CBC report on its president Hubert Lacroix’s appearance before a Senate committee said the anchor’s speaking engagements are vetted in advance.

“And each one is looked at to make sure there is no conflict of interest with respect … to editorial coverage and to make sure that our rules are respected,” Lacroix told the committee.

“He knows that he never offers up his opinion or takes a position on anything that is in the news when he makes those speeches.”

Murphy, Mansbridge both paid to speak by oil industry

This comes after a published report said Mansbridge was paid to speak to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 2012.

He is the second CBC personality recently to face questions for reportedly receiving payment in exchange for speaking at events organized by members of the oil industry.

The network has acknowledged that Rex Murphy, who hosts the show “Cross-Country Checkup,” has given speeches supporting oilsands development.

Murphy stood by his comments in a column published last week in the National Post, saying he always speaks his mind and his opinions can’t be bought.

To suggest otherwise is “an empty, insulting slur against my reputation as a journalist,” he wrote.

News Ombudsmen beg to differ

The executive director of the Organization of News Ombudsmen told CBC Radio that neither journalist should have accepted money — and that in doing so, they’ve undermined the broadcaster’s credibility.

“The problem is in the money received,” Jeffrey Dvorkin, a former managing editor for CBC Radio, told “As It Happens.”

“In the end, there is a suspicion laid on all of the CBC,” he said.

[quote]It’s about reputation here and what Rex has done, he has, frankly, I think, sullied the reputation of all CBC journalists by doing that and Peter Mansbridge hasn’t helped particularly in taking money from that source either.[/quote]

CBC defends Murphy

The CBC has defended Murphy’s actions, saying he is a freelance commentator paid to take a “provocative stand” on issues.

In a blog post published earlier this month and updated Thursday, CBC News editor-in-chief Jennifer McGuire said freelancers are given more leeway to express their views.

Full-time staff, however, must abide by an internal policy that states “CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue,” she said.

Share
NEB audit exposes gaps in TransCanada's pipeline safety

NEB audit exposes gaps in TransCanada’s pipeline safety

Share
NEB audit exposes serious safety flaws for TransCanada
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling announces Energy East pipeline on Aug. 1 (photo: (Jeff McIntosh / CP)

CALGARY – Problems flagged in the National Energy Board’s audit of TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline safety practices should have Canadians worried, a group fighting that company’s proposed Energy East pipeline said Tuesday.

The audit report, released Monday, found TransCanada (TSX:TRP) to be non-compliant in four of nine areas it examined: hazard identification, risk assessment and control; operational control in upset or abnormal operating condition; inspection, measurement and monitoring, and management review.

“It’s a real cause for concern considering that they want to build the biggest pipeline in Canada, the Energy East pipeline. People should be very worried about that,” said Mark Calzavara, Ontario regional organizer with the Council of Canadians.

Calzavara said the NEB has tended to be “lenient” when it comes to energy companies.

[quote]When they finally do come out and say ‘hey, you’ve got to get your act together,’ it’s an indication of some very serious, serious problems.[/quote]

Energy East would involve converting a portion of TransCanada’s existing natural gas mainline between Alberta and Quebec to oil service, and then laying down new pipe all the way to Saint John, N.B. TransCanada expects to file a regulatory application for the $12-billion proposal this summer.

The NEB audit was also released against the backdrop of a long-running and intense debate over TransCanada’s Keystone XL proposal, which would send 830,000 barrels per day of mostly oilsands crude to Texas refineries.

The energy watchdog said in Monday’s report that it’s looking into whether some steel pipe and fittings need to be improved on the existing Keystone system, which started delivering crude to the U.S. Midwest in 2010. It says that investigation is ongoing.

In an emailed statement Tuesday, TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata said: “Extensive field testing of the strength of the fittings we are discussing with the NEB has confirmed that there are no safety or integrity concerns with these fittings and there is no risk to the environment or the public.”

The NEB gave the company 30 days to file a plan detailing how it will fix the problems. TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said Monday that the company has already taken action to address many of the issues.

“We share the NEB’s focus on protecting public safety and the environment,” he said. “We take our responsibilities to anticipate, prevent, mitigate and manage any and all hazards and risks associated with our operations seriously.”

Share
Oilsands tailings ponds leaking toxic chemicals-federal govt study

Oilsands tailings ponds leaking toxic chemicals: federal govt study

Share
Oilsands tailings ponds leaking toxic chemicals-federal govt study
Syncrude tailings pond (David Dodge, Pembina Institute)

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

EDMONTON – New federal research has strongly backed suspicions that toxic chemicals from Alberta’s vast oilsands tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and seeping into the Athabasca River.

Leakage from oilsands tailings ponds, which now cover 176 square kilometres, has long been an issue. Industry has acknowledged that seepage can occur and previous studies using models have estimated it at 6.5 million litres a day from a single pond.

The soil around the developments contains many chemicals from naturally occurring bitumen deposits and scientists have never able to separate them from contaminants released by industry.

The current Environment Canada study, accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, used new technology to discover that the mix of chemicals is slightly different between the two sources. That discovery, made using a $1.6-million piece of equipment purchased in 2010 to help answer such questions, allows scientists to actually fingerprint chemicals and trace them back to where they came from.

“Differentiation of natural from (tailings water) sources was apparent,” says the study.

The scientists took 20 groundwater samples from areas at least one kilometre upstream and downstream from development. They took another seven samples from within 200 metres of two of the tailings ponds.

Samples were also taken from two different tailings ponds.

The analysis was focused on so-called acid-extractable organics, which include a family of chemicals called naphthenic acids.

“Their enhanced water solubility makes them prime candidates for possible migration beyond containment structures via groundwater,” the report says.

Those toxins were found in groundwater both near and far from development. But their chemical composition was slightly different nearer the mines — closer to that found in the water from the ponds.

“Analyses all demonstrate a close similarity between these two (near) samples and (tailings water), as opposed to the natural far-field groundwater,” the report says.

“The resemblance between the (acid-extracted organics) profiles from (tailings water) and from six groundwater samples adjacent to two tailings ponds implies a common source. These samples included two of upward-flowing groundwater collected (less than) one metre beneath the Athabasca River, suggesting (tailings water) is reaching the river system.”

The study doesn’t quantify the amount of tailings ponds water that is escaping. It noted that even at the sample sites near development, pond water was diluted by natural groundwater.

The research was conducted under the auspices of the Joint Oilsands Monitoring Program run by the federal and Alberta governments and funded by a $50-million levy on industry.

Industry is working to address the tailings issue, budgeting more than $1 billion in tailings-reduction technology.

Groundwater is monitored at all tailings sites to ensure it’s flowing as expected.

Operators use ditches and cut-off walls to capture seepage and runoff water, and install groundwater interception wells. Captured water is pumped back into tailings pond.

Mark Cooper, spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the quality of water in the Athabasca River remains good.

“Current tailings pond and groundwater monitoring in the oilsands shows no substances being released or predicted to be released in quantities or concentrations that would degrade or alter water quality,” he said. “This study does not change that.”

Cooper said the association supports research such as the Environment Canada study and echoed its call for more research in the same vein.

“While the research technique used in this study shows some potential, further detailed work is required to evaluate its accuracy and adequacy for tracking oil sands process water.”

Share
Exploding BC LNG Myths-Part 2

Exploding BC LNG Myths – Part 2

Share
Exploding BC LNG Myths-Part 2
BC Minister of Natural Gas Development, Rich Coleman (BC Govt photo)

“The opposition wouldn’t know LNG if it came up and bit them, they’re totally uninformed.” – Rich Coleman, BC Minister of Natural Gas Development.

For over three years, Rich Coleman has led the BC LNG charge; however, he has taken a back seat in recent weeks as his self-imposed deadlines for progress on LNG development have repeatedly blown up.

Very little mention has been made of the non-disclosure agreements Coleman has with 12 or so companies lined up to exploit BC’s massive natural gas reserves – but that apparently does not stop him from admonishing his critics for being “totally uninformed.”

After missing his third self-imposed deadline to finally let the rest of us in on his non-disclosed, high-level negotiations, Coleman continues to hold his cards close to his chest.

While this week’s Liberal budget finally included some details on the long-promissed tax regime for LNG, it has yet to become legislated or locked in. This should be viewed as trial balloon – a proposed “framework” enabling the Liberals to say they’ve “delivered” on something. And the terms themselves show what raw deal taxpayers can expect under the Liberals’ LNG scheme (more on that in a bit).

In this, the second part of “Exploding BC LNG Myths” (See part one here), we examine the few details we have to work with to try to understand what Coleman is doing and how BC intends to launch itself to the forefront of a trillion dollar worldwide LNG industry.

[quote]While Clark campaigns for a Debt Free BC, she alone will have booked over half of the debt accumulated since we started calling the place British Columbia.[/quote]

Yet another budget of promised “Prosperity”

Claim: BC Liberals are keeping their election campaign promises of a “Debt Free BC”, balanced budgets, job creation and a prosperous future due to LNG.

False: When Clark became Premier in 2011 and began her “Debt Free BC” Campaign, total Provincial debt was 45.2 Billion dollars. Despite her government’s claims of balanced budgets with surpluses – past, present and future – BC’s total debt will climb over 50%, from 45.2to 68.9 Billion dollars.

In other words, while Clark campaigns for a Debt Free BC, she alone will have booked over half of the debt accumulated since we started calling the place British Columbia! And she will do it all before the next election. And that’s not counting the $100 Billion in additional contractual obligations they’ve racked up for taxpayers, hidden from public view.

That is a staggering, unprecedented growth in debt and there will not be one nickel of promised prosperity funds booked  from LNG revenues before the next election.

Liberals fail in job creation too

The BC Liberal Government has also lost a staggering 21 000 full-time jobs since Clark was elected less than a year ago – despite the multi-million dollar “Job Creation Plan” that was the center of her campaign of a strong economy, secure tomorrow, smaller government and thriving private sector.

Most new job creation during the entirety of the now almost three-year-old “Jobs plan” has been in in the public sector.

BC Liberals Give away the Farm

Claim (Rich Coleman): “I think people will be surprised how smart we have been with the establishment of a taxation regime for the budding LNG industry.”

Partially True: It is true that Coleman and his repeatedly-promised, non-disclosed terms still have yet to be fully divulged and legislated but what little has been disclosed and floated by the finance minister is very clever indeed.

LNG in a NutshellEffectively, BC will not realize any serious revenue from LNG until – wait for it – not this mandate, nor the next administration, but beyond the election after that!

The two tier tax regime floated by the finance minister does not start until ships are leaving our coast full of LNG, and for 3-5 years after that it is “tier one” rates of 1.5%. However, the kicker is that every nickle paid to BC under the pathetic 1.5% tier one rate is given back to the companies once tier two is reached.

And tier two is not much better. Tier two taxation is achieved once the LNG companies we let set up shop have recovered 100% of their costs. (Remember, Petronas alone claims investment of 36 billion dollars!) And once they have recovered costs, the tier two taxation rate of “up to” 7% kicks in – at the same time all the tax paid under tier one is given back to the companies through rebates.

At this rate, economists and experts have claimed that erasing BC’s fast-growing debt, lowering taxes and filling a 100 billion dollar prosperity fund while also underwriting the services we have come to rely on is a total impossibility, based on reasonably expected LNG revenues. And even if it was achievable, it would not begin to happen for three elections after it was promised.

“Very smart” indeed Mr Coleman – to run and get re-elected on prosperity for British Columbians, but instead deliver massive giveaways to the largest most profitable multi-national companies on earth.

Time to act: Demand an inquiry and full disclosure

Our governments have already committed to export more natural gas than we have ever produced throughout all of Canada, through as many as 11 export permits, totalling 105 mtpa for twenty five years – an oil equivalent that doubles current Tarsands production. Seven of the eleven await cabinet approval, so now is the time to be heard.

Now, as of this most recent budget, they are promising to pick up the tab for large portions of total investments, with clever tax incentives and rebates that leave the resource owners holding the bag.

They have done all of this under non-disclosure and handed it all over without even so much as a commitment from a single potential investor – not even a non-binding memorandum of understanding has been produced for the largest deals in our history.

It’s time British Columbians put the breaks on this debacle, demand full disclosure and an inquiry into the secret negotiations that have resulted in taxpayer giveaways of such unprecedented, gargantuan proportions.

Our public purse, energy security, environment and economy depend on it.

Share
TransCanada gas pipeline breaks in Alberta

TransCanada gas pipeline ruptures in Alberta

Share
TransCanada gas pipeline breaks in Alberta
TransCanada gas pipelines

Updated 2 PM PST

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE, Alta. – The National Energy Board is investigating a natural gas pipeline rupture in west-central Alberta.

The federal regulator said the TransCanada (TSX:TRP) pipe broke Tuesday morning about 10 kilometres north of Rocky Mountain House.

It said the pipe was shut down and there were no immediate public safety concerns.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said the nearest home to the pipeline rupture is more than half a kilometre away. He said the company had been in contact with the landowner and no evacuation was required.

Howard said it was the company’s understanding that Transportation Safety Board and energy board personnel were on their way to the site to monitor TransCanada’s response.

“Before any repair or restoration of service work can occur, the (energy board) must approve the company’s plans,” he said in a release.

There was no disruption of natural gas service to the community of Rocky Mountain House, Howard added, although TransCanada was “working with some of our customers, who provide service to homes in rural areas, to assess their needs.”

Manager of the Rocky Gas Co-op, Vic Kelly, advised customers to use other fuel sources until the gas was turned back on.

There was no word on when that might happen.

A TransCanada pipeline explosion in Manitoba last month left about 3,600 homes and businesses without heat for several days in -20 C temperatures.

(CKGY, The Canadian Press)

Read: Regulator buried report on TransCanada pipeline explosion

Share