Category Archives: Oil&Gas

Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image

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

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

by Bruce Cheadle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share
MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan

MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan

Share
MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan
Fisheries expert Otto Langer and MLA Vicki Huntington take on Fraser River jet fuel plan (Tanya Zboya)

A group of BC politicians and community leaders held an emergency meeting yesterday near the mouth of the Fraser River, in the Richmond community of Steveston, to voice their concerns about the plan to build a jet fuel terminal, tank farm and pipeline on the banks of Canada’s largest salmon river.

Independent MLA for nearby riding Delta South, Vicki Huntington, a vocal critic of the project in the Legislature, was joined by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, retired DFO scientist Otto Langer, and the community group VAPOR in a final plea for the B.C. government to reject the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project.

Fraser River jet fuel project would mean tankers in salmon river

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office has been reviewing a $100 million proposal by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) to build an 80-million-litre fuel terminal and tank farm on the South Arm of the Fraser River in Richmond and run a 15-kilometre pipeline to Vancouver International Airport. A decision is expected soon from the Ministry of Environment. Critics of the jet fuel project are concerned about the consequences of a spill in critical salmon habitat and health risks to residents.

Said Brodie at the Tuesday press conference, “These are tankers that are 950 feet in length — that’s like three football fields long.”

[quote]They’re going to be loaded with jet fuel. They’re going to be regularly coming up the river, introducing an unnecessary risk to the people and to the city of Richmond.[/quote]

The new project would supplement or replace a current pipeline from Chevron’s Burrard Inlet refinery and the use of tanker trucks. Chevron has seen its crude supply from the Trans Mountain Pipeline  dwindle as owner Kinder Morgan moves to export more and more of its Alberta oil to other markets – something Chevron complained about to the National Energy Board last year.

The irony is that YVR is now seeking to import jet fuel from Asia, while Kinder Morgan exports unrefined oil to foreign markets.

Decision expected soon

A decision on the project, which has stalled at various points over the past several years, is expected from BC Liberal Environment Minister  Mary Polak by December 24. Huntington and other critics say alternatives to the plan have not been properly explored. Huntington charges:

[quote]Unfortunately, our rubber-stamp EAO process has presented the Environment Minister with a Faustian bargain: By Christmas she must decide whether to trade catastrophic environmental risk for tanker access to the Asia-Pacific jet fuel markets.[/quote]

The terminal, tank farm and pipeline would directly impact the local community, posing health risks and “introducing catastrophic risk to the globally-recognized Fraser River estuary,” says Huntington.

After several delays following its 2011 introduction, the proposal cleared a major hurdle with the October release of a pair of reports by the Ministry of Environment, outlining best practices and industry standards and presenting the province’s marine spill response framework.

“The marine report is already in the news for raising red flags about B.C.’s spill response capacity,” says Huntington.

[quote]Yet even if B.C. surpasses world-class standards, our government knows no procedure in the galaxy could fully contain a large jet fuel spill in heart of the fragile Fraser River estuary.  It would be a disaster…Just one gallon of jet fuel can spread up to 300 feet on the water’s surface. The Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project would feature Panamax-class fuel tankers carrying over 10,000 gallons of fuel.[/quote]

A pipeline or terminal incident would also threaten vital habitat from 5 million migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, Huntington notes.

A jet fuel spill in the Slocan Valley this summer served to heighten concerns about the risks of this proposal for the Fraser.

Share
Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests another attempt to silence environmentalists

Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests yet another attack on enviros

Share
Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests another attempt to silence environmentalists
Friends of the Earth-UK shows its solidarity with the Arctic 30

Early November marked the 18th anniversary of the tragic murder of outspoken writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight colleagues by the Nigerian government. Saro-Wiwa and the others had waged a long campaign to stop multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the lands of the Ogoni people in the Niger delta.

Nigerian military harassed and intimidated members of the Ogoni community for years because they opposed Shell’s drilling program. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues defended their communities and local environment from a notoriously toxic industry. In November 1995, a special court established by the military government illegally detained and tried them on spurious charges. Convicted without due process, they were executed 10 days later, despite enormous international outcry.

700 activists murdered over past decade

Sadly, this is not an isolated occurrence. A recent report by human rights organization Global Witness documents the murders of more than 700 environmental and indigenous-rights activists over the past decade – more than one killing a week, on average. They reviewed databases, academic studies and news reports, and consulted with the United Nations and other international agencies. They found citizens are often harassed, intimidated, beaten up, sexually assaulted and sometimes killed for opposing endangered wildlife poaching, illegal logging, dams and activities of foreign mining companies – including some Canadian firms.

I experienced this reality in 1988 when we interviewed rubber tapper Chico Mendes about his battle to save the Amazon rainforest in Brazil for The Nature of Things. He was assassinated two weeks later. The following year, Kaiapo Chief Paiakan asked me to help stop a dam proposed for Altamira, Brazil. My wife, Tara, and I helped raise $70,000 for a demonstration, and the World Bank was persuaded to withdraw its project loan. Paiakan was then subjected to death threats. We brought him and his family to Vancouver until the danger subsided.

Most attacks occur under democratically elected governments

Many instances of persecution and killing have occurred in countries with atrocious human rights records, such as Sri Lanka, Guatemala and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet surprisingly, most attacks on environmentalists have been in countries such as Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines, with democratically elected governments, independent judiciaries and other institutions intended to protect their citizens’ rights to voice concerns about the environment without facing harassment, intimidation and violence. These countries have also signed international agreements to protect human rights, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Arctic 30 confronted Gazprom’s drilling plans

As the recent incarceration of 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists by Russian authorities clearly demonstrates, human rights are vulnerable at a time when governments aggressively promote the interests of corporations over a healthy environment, and are willing to use heavy-handed tactics to ensure people who disagree don’t stand in the way.

In this latest case, Russian special operations forces arrested the Greenpeace International activists, including two Canadians, Alexandre Paul and Paul Ruzycki, for attempting to hang a banner off the side of an oil rig in Arctic waters. They were peacefully protesting Russian company Gazprom’s plans to drill for oil in one of the most ecologically sensitive regions of the planet, and raising awareness of the consequences of climate change. For speaking out in defence of the Arctic, they were imprisoned for two months under difficult conditions and all but one were only recently released on bail. They now face the possibility of long, harsh jail sentences if found guilty on trumped-up charges of piracy and hooliganism.

Canada silent on Arctic 30 – including two Canadians

Although leaders of the Netherlands, Brazil and Germany called for release of their nationals and other members of the “Arctic 30”, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird have so far been silent. You can sign letters at Greenpeace.ca asking Baird to bring the Canadians home and Greenpeace.org asking Russian embassies to urge their government to drop the charges.

Too often, governments are quick to use excessive force and even pervert the course of justice to keep oil and gas flowing, forests logged, wild rivers dammed and minerals extracted. As the Global Witness study reveals, citizens are often killed, too – especially if they’re poor and indigenous.

We must remember the sacrifices of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Chico Mendes and hundreds of other advocates and defend people’s rights to peacefully speak out for the environment, without fear of intimidation, arrest and violence.

With contributions from from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director-General Faisal Moola.

Share
The day I discovered the Harper Government is spying on me

The day I discovered the Harper Government spying on me

Share

The day I discovered the Harper Government is spying on me

by Emma Gilchrist – cross-post from Desmog Canada

Nov. 19th, 2013. A Tuesday. The day started out sunny, but hail fell out of the sky in the afternoon. It was a Victoria day like any other until I found out the Canadian government has been vigorously spying on several Canadian organizations that work for environmental protections and democratic rights.

I read the news in the Vancouver Observer. There, front and centre, was the name of the organization I worked for until recently: Dogwood Initiative.

My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for a long time, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me.

[quote]I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens.[/quote]

Harper Government spying on church gatherings

I told my parents about the article over dinner. They’re retired school teachers who lived in northern Alberta for 35 years before moving to Victoria.

I asked them: “Did you know the Canadian government is spending your tax dollars to spy on your daughter?”

Then I told them how one of the events detailed in e-mails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “Group Leader of Security,” was a workshop in a Kelowna church run by one of my close friends and colleagues, Celine Trojand (who’s about the most warm-hearted person you could ever meet). About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theory of change and creative sign-making (cue the scary music).

CSIS, RCMP, Enbridge working together

In the e-mails, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spying agency, CSIS.

To add insult to injury, another set of documents show CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what The Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.”

These meetings covered “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups.” Guess who is prominently displayed as a sponsor on the agenda of May’s meeting? Enbridge, the proponent of a controversial oilsands pipeline to the coast of British Columbia.

I asked my folks: “Isn’t that scary? CSIS is hosting classified briefings sponsored by Enbridge?” No answer. My parents are not the type to get themselves in a flap about things like this, but I prodded them: “Dad, this is scary, right?”

“It’s scary,” he admitted.

Is this Canada or Nigeria?

How much information is being provided to corporations like Enbridge? What about state-owned Chinese oil companies like Sinopec, which has a $10 million stake in Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal?

What kind of country spies on environmental organizations in the name of the oil industry? It seems more Nigerian than Canadian.

I fought the urge to react with indignation, a sentiment I find all too common in the environmental movement. I also didn’t want to be overwrought about it. Fact is though, the more I thought about those documents, the more I began to feel a sense of loss for my country.

Enemies of the State

I’m not the touchy-feely type. Everyone from my conservative cousins in Alberta to my former colleagues at the Calgary Herald could attest to that. I grew up in northern Alberta playing hockey and going to bush parties. I think our oil and gas deposits, including the oilsands, are a great asset to our country — if developed in the public interest. Yes, that’s a big “if” — but Canadians own these resources and the number one priority when developing them should be that Canadians benefit.

For speaking up for the public interest and speaking out against the export of raw bitumen through the Great Bear Rainforest, hundreds of people like me have been called radicals and painted as enemies of the state, as somehow un-Canadian. That last bit is what hits me in the gut.

Exporting raw bitumen, Canadian jobs

I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens. I’ve argued that after 25 years of oilsands development, Albertans should have something to show for it — not be facing budget crises and closing hospital beds; that Albertans aren’t collecting a fair share of resource revenues; that we should develop resources at a responsible pace that doesn’t cause rampant inflation, undermining Canadians’ quality of life and hurting other sectors of the economy; that we should prioritize Canadian energy security (half of Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil). And I’ve agreed with the Alberta Federation of Labour that exporting raw bitumen and 50,000 jobs to China doesn’t make sense for Canadians.

Enbridge hearings drew unprecedented public turnout

Now, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s a stretch to portray any of those statements as unpatriotic or radical. In fact, one of my proudest moments as a Canadian was encouraging citizens to register to speak at the public hearings on Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker proposal for B.C. With a team of committed people at Dogwood, in collaboration with several other groups, we helped more than 4,000 people sign up to have their say — seven times more than in any previous National Energy Board hearing.

It was this act of public participation that sparked the beginnings of the federal government’s attacks on people who oppose certain resource development proposals. Helping citizens to participate in an archaic public hearing process is a vital part of democracy— not something to be maligned.

Corporate media ignores Harper Government spying

What makes me sad is the thought that we’ve been reduced to being the type of country that spies on its own citizens when they speak out against certain corporate interests. Not only that, but our government then turns around and shares that intelligence with those corporations.

Disappointingly, a scan of today’s news coverage indicates Canada’s major newspapers never picked up the spying story, save for one 343-word brief on page 9 of the Vancouver Province. Is it now so accepted that the Canadian government is in bed with the oil industry that it doesn’t even make news any more? Now that’s really sad.

Whether you agree or disagree with my ideas about responsible natural resource development, I’d hope we could all agree Canada should be a country where we can have open and informed debate about the most important issues of our time — without fear of being attacked and spied on by our own government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis was also featured in an email from CSIS to the National Energy Board, spying on Enbridge critics, as revealed in this story from The Vancouver Observer.

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

US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

Share

US House passes bill to speed up oil and gas fracking

by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

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

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

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

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

Obama to veto bills

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

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

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

Automatic approval, $5,000 bill for protestors

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

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

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

Democrat: Bills a “waste of time”

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

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

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

All about fracking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

NWT developing regulatory model for oil fracking before devolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share
New map shows multiple proposed oil, gas pipelines for BC

Map shows multiple proposed oil, gas pipelines in BC’s carbon corridor

Share

A new map (scroll down to view) reveals the full scope of oil and gas pipelines proposed to criss-cross BC. Compiled by Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition and Skeena Wild, the graphic depicts the planned routes for a staggering six new pipelines – five designed to carry natural gas to proposed liquefaction (LNG) plants in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, plus the twin bitumen and condensate Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge.

Plans for an additional six gas pipelines have yet to be formalized.

While Enbridge has faced fierce opposition, the various gas pipelines have sailed largely under the radar thus far. One has already received approval – Chevron and Apache’s Pacific Trails line to Kitimat – while the others are at varying stages of design and environmental review.

These pipelines have sparked a variety of concerns for local residents and conservationists – including impacts on an important grizzly sanctuary from the proposed line to supply Malaysian energy giant Petronas’ LNG terminal near Prince Rupert. The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which TransCanada Corp has been hired to build, is slated to run through the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy. Preliminary work has already drawn multiple warnings from BC Parks over unpermitted helicopters and work crews in the area.

In other communities like Hazelton and the Kispiox Valley, residents are concerned about a flurry of invasive industrial activity by Spectra – looking to build its own pipeline to Prince Rupert – and TransCanada, long before permits have been obtained. “They are all over the place here,” resident and founder of the citizen information website NoMorePipelines.ca, Graeme Pole told the Globe and Mail in September.

[quote]There are literally armadas of trucks going up these roads with ATVs in the back. And they are flying helicopters overhead, going to places we can’t reach.[/quote]

The Northwest Institue’s Pat Moss echoed these concerns, exclaiming, “At this point, it’s a free for all…it’s a gold rush mentality.”

The companies have defended their practices, but it’s easy to see how concerns on the ground are mounting. Given the scope and potential impact of all these different pipelines across BC’s northern wilderness and related LNG plants, a key criticism of the review process has been the lack of any consideration of the cumulative impacts or big-picture planning and public engagement. More details on the individual pipelines and LNG plants below.

NWBC-Proposed-LNG-Pipe-Overview-October-2013

Fact sheet on proposed gas pipelines

 

Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project

  • Owner: Petronas/Progress
  • Destination: Prince Rupert
  • Estimated length: 900+ km
  • Builder: TransCanada
  • Size and volume: 48″ diameter / 2 – 3.6 billion cubic feet/day (bcf/d)

 

Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project

  • Owner: Spectra and BG Group (50/50)
  • Destination: Prince Rupert
  • Estimated length: 850 km
  • Builder: Spectra
  • Size and volume: 48″ diameter / 4.2 billion cubic feet/day

 

Coastal Gas Link

  • Owner: Shell (linked to Shell’s LNG Canada project with partners Mitsubishi, Korea Gas and PetroChina)
  • Destination: Kitimat
  • Estimated length: 650 km
  • Builder: TransCanada
  • Size and volume: 48″ diameter = 1.7 – 5 bcf/d

 

Pacific Trails Pipeline

  • Owner: Chevron, Apache Corp
  • Destination: Kitimat
  • Estimated length: 463 km
  • Size and volume: 42″ diameter /  1 bcf/d

 

PNG Pipeline Looping Project

  • Owner: Pacific Northern Gas
  • Destination: Twinning of existing pipeline between Kitimat and Summit Lake, BC
  • Estimated length: 525 km of new pipe
  • Size and volume: 24″ diameter

NWBC-Proposed-LNG-Plant-Sites-October-2013

Share
Support for First Nations critical following Clark-Redford pipeline deal

Support for First Nations critical after Clark-Redford pipeline deal

Share
Support for First Nations critical following Clark-Redford pipeline deal
Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

You would have thought that they would have had the decency to wait until the Joint Review Panel had made its report before the two western-most premiers made a deal on the pipelines. Of course there was no need to because the federal government that prizes “process” so much has already made it clear it wasn’t going to pay any to attention the panel unless it supports pipelines.

I wonder what my MP, Conservative John Weston thinks of this considering how he’s been so vocal about “process”, it being his constant buzzword for environmental matters. Will he stand up in the House and condemn his government and the provincial governments for cocking a snook at the “process” he praised as for the reason for gutting the protection of fish habitat?

There is no sense getting worked up about Christy Clark and Alison Redford’s pact – yet. I suspect all environmentalists will condemn this cynical bit of business, where BC trades its environment for pipelines. I can assure you that The Common Sense Canadian will do so and will keep it up as long as necessary.

What is more important now is support for First Nations as they formulate their battle plan and thereafter.

One can never be sure of steadfastness until it is seen in action. Reading between the lines, one would have to conclude that Enbridge, Kinder Morgan and the senior governments are satisfied that they can get over this hurdle. From my meetings with leaders and working the room at conventions, I don’t believe this. First Nations leaders are politicians too and must answer to their voters. Whether those voters can – pardon the bluntness – be bought off or not remains to be seen.

If First Nations – particularly the coastal nations who have been unshakable in their resolve – maintain their position hitherto, it will obviously do very little good to the governments and corporations who have to ship their grisly product once they get it to the coast.

I’m too damned old to be shocked or surprised at what a government or company will do for a vote or some money.

I don’t know what my colleagues in the environmental movement will do – I suspect we will know soon.

For me, this creaky crock will fight these pipelines and tankers as long as he has the breath to do so.

Share
Four months after Lac-Megantic rail disaster river highly contaminated

Four months after Lac-Mégantic disaster, river highly contaminated

Share
Four months after Lac-Megantic rail disaster river highly contaminated
Quebec’s Chaudière River (photo courtesy of Greenpeace Quebec)

Sediment from the Chaudière River, near the site of the Lac-Mégantic train derailment four months ago, shows high levels of contaminants according to testing done by Greenpeace Quebec and the Société pour vaincre la pollution (SVP). Despite months of cleanup operations sediments collected from the river show higher-than-acceptable levels of several chemicals, including cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Quebec Environment Minister Yves-François Blanchet said the department continues to monitor the safety of the water, reports the Montreal Gazette, and will take into consideration the two groups’ test results.

In late September Quebec’s environment department lifted a drinking-water ban for several downstream communities who rely on the Chaudière River for water.

lac megantic water sample greenpeace
Lac-Mégantic water sample (photo: Greenpeace Quebec)

“Sampling has not stopped, analyses have not stopped, the teams are still on the ground,” Blanchet said in the National Assembly Wednesday. He added “information is still publicly available on the Environment Ministry’s website, such that we know that there is no immediate threat.”

27 times acceptable pollution levels

Both Greenpeace Quebec and SVP say pollutant levels in samples taken 4.7km downstream of the lake are 27 times higher than accepted levels.

The Lac-Mégantic derailment resulted in the release of an estimated 5.9 million litres of oil that burned or spilled into the town’s lake and the Chaudière river.

Recently Quebec environment updated those oil spill figures from a previously estimated 5.6 million litres.

The precise amount of oil released into the lake and river is still under question. The environment department estimates around 100,000 litres of oil contaminated the river although Greenpeace’s Patrick Bonin questioned that amount given the high level of contamination present in their samples. Researchers could both see and smell oil in river at the time of testing.

According to Bonin this is the second round of testing the groups have undertaken. Results in both instances were sent to the environment department.

Government pressured to release its own test results

The groups are calling on Quebec to release the details of its water sampling to the public, including what methods are in use and all results.

In October the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report claiming lax federal regulation over the transport of petroleum products by rail led to the deadly Lac-Mégantic accident that killed 47 people.

“In my view, the evidence points to a fundamentally flawed regulatory system, cost-cutting corporate behaviour that jeopardized public safety and the environment, and responsibility extending to the highest levels of corporate management and government policy making,” wrote author Bruce Campbell, the centre’s executive director.

Shipments of oil by rail have increased by 28,000 percent since 2009.

Share
Justin Trudeau, the Oil Man

Justin Trudeau, Oil Man

Share
Justin Trudeau, the Oil Man
Justin Trudeau addresses a progressive think tank in Washington, DC (photo: Chip Somodevllla/Getty)

To Justin Trudeau, it’s not that Keystone XL is a bad idea, it’s that Stephen Harper can’t sell it.

For many Canadians, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau represents a fresh-faced, progressive alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government. And yet, in terms of energy policy, it’s increasingly clear that he and Harper differ little. Both support the development of the Tar Sands and are backing efforts to move bitumen to new customers in Asia. Both are championing the controversial, proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the US Gulf Coast.

Through a series of recent speeches advocating for Keystone and other projects, it appears the biggest distinction the Liberal leader offers between himself and his chief political rival is the manner in which he sells the Tar Sands.

Justin made Alberta his first destination after being minted as Liberal leader, suggesting at the time that Mr. Harper was doing a bad job of representing Kesytone and the Tar Sands.

Harper alienates both friend and foe

Mr. Trudeau echoed those sentiments in a speech last week (read in full here), on the eve of the Conservative Party convention, at Calgary’s Petroleum Club. There, he made the case to a room full of western energy power brokers that Mr. Harper’s political style is hamstringing their efforts. “Alberta’s interests have been compromised more than just about anyone else’s by Mr. Harper’s divisiveness,” he told them.

“It has made enemies of people who ought to be your friends, and turned what should have been a reasonable debate into an over-the-top rhetorical war. Most importantly, it has impeded progress.”

Mr. Trudeau’s comments follow those of Kinder Morgan Canada CEO Ian Anderson, also delivered at Calgary’s Petroleum Club a few weeks ago, criticizing Harper’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver for his heavy-handed tactics with pipeline critics. Anderson suggested the Harper Government’s approach has only made life more difficult for companies like his, which is seeking to build a controversial pipeline expansion to Vancouver.

Justifying Keystone

In his own speech to Canada’s oil men and women, Mr. Trudeau made no bones about his support for projects like Keystone:

[quote]Let me be clear: I support Keystone XL because, having examined the facts, and accepting the judgment of the National Energy Board, I believe it is in the national interest…On balance, it would create jobs and growth, strengthen our ties with the world’s most important market, and generate wealth…Most of all, it is in keeping with what I believe is a fundamental role of the Government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources, and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.[/quote]

So it’s not the idea of Keystone or potential east and west-bound pipelines in Canada on which Justin disagrees with the PM. It is simply that Mr. Harper lacks the diplomatic chops, the soft touch required to peddle this economic vision to Canadians and the world.

“Whether it is the bullying around Keystone and Northern Gateway, their one-sided approach to regulation with C-38, or the demonization of people who care about the environment, the message from Mr. Harper and his government has been clear: this is a black and white, us vs. them world, and you are either with us or against us,” Trudeau told his Calgary audience.

Mr. Trudeau goes to Washington

Justin is shopping his message abroad as well. Two weeks ago, he was in Washington, DC, delivering a speech to a generally anti-Keystone crowd at the Centre for American Progress. “The challenge is to demonstrate that it can be done in the sense that we’re protecting our environment and making sure that we’re making the right gains toward sustainable energy sources in the long run,” Trudeau declared.

And there is evidence that his approach is gaining traction. According to the Toronto Star, Matt Brown, a senior fellow at the Centre – which has taken a position against Keystone –  observed later on Twitter, “many in the room had found the Liberal leader’s position ‘compelling’ and ‘balanced’.”

How Mr. Trudeau’s remarks struck Canada’s energy moguls is another question. But one thing is clear: this bunch has money and isn’t shy about getting involved in elections. In BC’s recent contest, they played both sides, funnelling millions to the Liberal and NDP campaigns.

If Justin Trudeau really does have their back…If he’s able to spin a kinder, gentler Tar Sands…If he’s able to persuade our southern neighbours in ways Mr. Harper can’t, all while the PM’s political woes mount…surely these Calgary nabobs will give serious thought to backing young Justin.

And – who knows – an honourary membership at the Petroleum Club.

Share