Category Archives: Oil&Gas

Where Was the Climate in US Presidential Election? Ben West in the Huffington Post

Share

Read this column from Ben West in the Huffington Post on the lack of attention focused on climate and environmental issues in the recent US Presidential election and what that means for concerned Canadians. (Nov. 5, 2012)

“It’s global warming, stupid!” Believe it or not, that is what it says on the cover of Business Week right now. This is of course a reference to Bill Clinton’s internal campaign slogan from 1992 — “It’s the economy, stupid” — which was made famous by the documentary film The War Room. The slogan is a play on the old adage, “Keep it simple, stupid,” sometimes known as the “KISS” principle.

As Canadians, we are well aware that we are sleeping next to an elephant, and that the choices made by the American president have broad implications not only for Canada but for rest of the world.

Much to the chagrin of many conscientious Canadians, the implications of a changing climate were off the radar in the American election before Hurricane Sandy swept in. The topic was not raised even once during the 2012 U.S. presidential debates. You would think it would be a no brainer to talk about this issue, given that the United Nations has called climate change “the single biggest threat facing humanity today.”

This “climate silence” has perhaps been a reflection of the power of the fossil fuel industries in U.S. politics. In one of the debates, Obama and Romney actually fought over who was more supportive of the coal, oil and gas industries. Romney attacked Obama for stopping the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama responded by bragging that he had built enough pipeline during his presidency to “… wrap around the earth once.”

The fact checkers at Politifact checked it out and it’s true. Over 29,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines were built in the U.S. in the last four years; the circumference of the globe at the equator is a little less than 25,000 miles.

Even with that, Obama looks like a tree hugger compared to Romney, who is heavily backed by barons of the oil industry — like the infamous Koch brothers who are behind much of the junk science that still to this day is trying to undermine the international consensus that human activity is causing climate change.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ben-west/us-elections-climate-bc-canada-oil-gas-global-warming_b_2077627.html

Share

Potential LNG Energy Demands Stall Hydro’s Long-term Planning

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC Hydro’s inability to accurately plan for future energy demands given the enormous potential requirements of proposed Liquefied Natural Gas projects on BC’s coast. (Nov. 19, 2012)

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.
However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgqEklP7

WASHINGTON – Paula Broadwell, whose extramarital affair with CIA chief David Petraeus led to his resignation, is telling friends she is devastated by the fallout.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Petraeus+biographer+Paula+Broadwell+devastated+regrets+damage/7570658/story.html#ixzz2Cgpo5BTa

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpIzrSC

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

Share
Schematic drawing for closed-containment fish farm - from DFO's feasibility study on the subject

One Step Forward with Fish Farms, Two Steps Back with Proposed Fossil Fuel Exports

Share

A couple of thoughts today.

A promising article on fish farms appears in today’s Vancouver Sun. At face value it looks like great news – the story of fish farming on land with no contact with the ocean.

As I say, it looks great but I want to hear what Alexandra Morton has to say.

The objection industry has always made is that it’s too expensive for them to compete that way. The answer to that, according to the Sun article, is that excrement can be recycled for profit and that expenses such as fish lost to predators, or to kill sea lice are avoided.

There is only one fair way to compare the two approaches: charge fish farms an appropriate rent for their leases to include ALL the environmental losses. This levels the playing field and is only fair.

The market for farmed fish is there as we deplete wild stocks around the world. The trouble is that our wild stocks are not depleted by over-fishing anymore but by allowing poisoned farmed fish to mingle with the wild.

Bringing the farms on land will only happen if ocean farms are taxed their appropriate due.


On another note, no sooner had the news been out that the US was looking to be self-sufficient in energy than the bottom feeders rose as one to tell us this means we must update our mining of the tar sands and the piping of it though BC to the coast then shipping by tanker to Asia. The US will no longer need our filthy bitumen so we must redouble our efforts to bugger up the environment in BC to ship even more of the stuff down our fjords.

What ever happened to weaning ourselves off fossil fuels?

If the rapacious industry must continue to mine bitumen, send it to a refinery in Alberta. Irrespective of US capabilities, there will always be a world market for oil.

Moreover, there is an economic reality being ignored. The price of fossil fuels will reduce considerably over what we figure makes a profit. It’s an open ended market. China takes our bitumen if that’s the cheaper way to get energy, it abandons us if it’s not.

I invoke Mair’s Axiom I: “You make a serious mistake assuming that people in charge know what the hell they’re doing!”

Here we are in BC doing everything we can to press forward with LNG plants to convert natural gas to liquid to ship it to new markets while the gas prices plummet. With “fracking”, supply around the world has dramatically increased. Do we really believe that the third largest country geographically in the world, China, doesn’t have fracking capability either at home or closer than Canada? In fact, they are just getting started.

China has it both ways – it can import from us when supply is short (don’t hold your breath for that to happen) or produce it cheaper closer to home.

We are idiots.


This neatly segues into the question of the next BC budget.

Going into the May election the Liberals will want a balanced budget. One of the main factors will be, of course, income and no prize for guessing where that will come from.

You got it – natural gas. The government hasn’t a clue what that figure will be but you can bet the ranch that they will generously err on the high side.

We must all remember that in 2009 they were more than $2 BILLION short of the real numbers and they got away with it.

Desperate people do desperate things and the false card the Liberals play is that they are better stewards of the economy than are the NDP – even though the evidence is quite to the contrary.

The NDP, in the meantime, have completely lost their minds. They are, you see, going to help the Liberals prepare the next budget! This all from Adrian Dix‘s desire to make the legislature more cooperative.

(I wrote a two-part series in The Tyee, recently on how that can be accomplished and this is not the way).

Randolph Churchill (father of Winston) once said, “it’s the duty of the Opposition to oppose”, and he’s right. My series suggests how that can be done safely.

The greatest fear of any legislator is the “unforeseen consequence” of his policy. Now the NDP are going to join the process so that we will not get the value of “the other side” and the NDP will deprive themselves of any ability to question the budget in the next election because, it will be said, it was the NDP’s budget too.

I, for one, am becoming quickly disillusioned with Dix and Co. Not only are they onside with the government’s energy policy – or prepared to go easy is areas like LNG – they seem to be laid back polishing up the crown they’re sure to get next May.

This isn’t helpful for the public but also puts the NDP into a sort of “drift”. The Liberals can see that and you can bet they will be in better political shape next May than they now are, helped along by the total collapse of the Conservatives.

Mr. Dix, in politics 6 weeks is an eternity and in this old pol’s view you are looking to inherit that which you must earn.

Share

Addicted to Oil: The Politics of Canadian Dilbit Pipelines

Share

Not long after the Defend Our Coast rallies, a pollster phones, wanting to know whom I plan to vote for in the provincial election. The first party to unequivocally say NO to tar sands oil in pipelines and tankers through BC land and waters, I tell her.

This causes a bit of confusion, as it clearly isn’t one of the options in front of the caller. So, she asks after some hesitation, the NDP?

Given NDP leader Adrian Dix’s tough talk on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, she might very well think so, but where is he on doubling the capacity of the Kinder Morgan pipeline into Burrard Inlet?  The silence is deafening.

Does one conclude that Mr Dix has no intrinsic objection to BC enabling fossil fuel addicts around the world? Because that’s my objection to the pipeline proposals.

Yes, I’m worried – as most people in BC are – about the inevitable environmental devastation oil spills will bring. I’m also concerned about the environmental devastation extracting oil from Alberta’s tar sands has already caused.

According to federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, the damage isn’t just environmental, it is also economic. Back in the spring, he accused the tar sands industry of causing Dutch Disease. And, while Harper & Co spluttered their objections to Mulcair’s claim, the OECD supported his assessment.  

Mind you, that was then. It seems Mulcair has had an epiphany. Apparently he has now decided tar sands oil is good for the economy – if it travels east from Alberta, not west.

With the Globe and Mail declaring the Northern Gateway pipeline all but dead and the Obama re-election making the future of the Keystone pipeline less certain, it should come as no surprise to learn – as Joyce Nelson reports at length in Watershed Sentinel – that tar sands mules Enbridge and TransCanada Corp have well-advanced plans for converting existing pipelines to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta to refineries in eastern Canada and New England.

According to Nelson, if  these plans – which seem to be attracting little mainstream media attention – go ahead, “more than 1.4 million barrels per day of tar sands crude could be piped through southern Ontario and Quebec – the most populated areas of Canada.”

Which begs the question: Just how crude do Alberta’s exports need to be?

Diluted bitumen is 16 times more likely to leak than conventional crude transported in pipelines and a far greater clean up challenge when spilled, as it was, in the Kalamazoo River.

Appearing on The National recently, fossil fuel dealer Alison Redford smiled patiently and explained to the country that without pipelines through BC to enable Alberta to ship its diluted bitumen to Asia, the province will be condemned to making less than top dollar per barrel from its resources. Really?

If Redford truly wants to maximize the economic benefits from the tar sands, perhaps she should insist, as Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, has suggested, that her province’s oily gunk be upgraded to synthetic crude oil before it’s exported. (Most dealers know you get less for crack than you do for powdered cocaine.)

Neither Enbridge nor TransCanada care whether their package is diluted bitumen or synthetic crude, but everyone along their proposed pipelines should.

Although there are obvious measures we could and should be taking to aid our withdrawal from fossil fuels, as long as Hopalong Harper is in charge, investment in green energy and electric cars is likely to remain even more of a pipe dream in Canada than in many other countries. And, as beneficial as going cold turkey might be for the health of the planet, it is not a viable option.

So, here’s the deal (because apparently someone died and made me king): No new pipelines either heading west or east and henceforth tar sands companies must upgrade their bitumen before it goes anywhere. This won’t help with our fossil fuel addiction or with arresting the impacts of climate change, but at least it might reduce the immediate threat of environmental devastation.

That’s reduce, of course, not eliminate.

Share

Mark Hume Nails Enbridge on Caribou Paper Cheat

Share

When a clock strikes 13, you can never trust it again.

So it must be for anyone who lies about information he is using to back up a serious scientific statement upon which a great deal is at stake.

Mark Hume had an article in Sunday’s Globe and Mail BC Edition which, in a world of decent journalism, would be a headline story, titled ENBRIDGE CHEATS ON SCIENTIFIC PAPER ON THREAT TO CARIBOU.

In fact Mark does this a lot and our newspaper chiefs should blush with shame but they don’t do that very well. I leave it to you to read this superlative article but suffice it to say that Enbridge has been caught out big time and if it weren’t for Mark they would have gotten away with it.

in a 2011 paper in support of their ghastly pipeline proposal, Enbridge claimed that their project would have little or no impact on caribou.

This issue hasn’t been dealt with much but it should be.

Caribou, like deer, moose, antelope, etc., are ungulates whose main enemy is the wolf. When nature is left alone, wolves kill so many ungulates that their numbers get knocked down, whereupon the wolves, now short of food, starve, while the ungulates recover – and on it goes. Nature is cruel but has rules we break at our peril. The very last thing we should do is interfere with this cycle, which is why it’s so necessary that man’s imprint on the wilderness be as light as possible.

This is why Enbridge is getting concerned enough to put out a presentation, purporting to be based on science, demonstrating its innocence in advance. I add parenthetically, as Mark points out, Enbridge’s proposals cannot be taken in isolation of other impacts.

Enbridge clearly didn’t expect anyone to challenge their work and hung their hat on a scientific paper that simply did not exist. This gets interesting.

In a notation backing their “scientific argument”, the sort which one expects in scientific papers, they referred to “Francis et al 2002”. Hell, whoever checks these sorts of things out?

Of all the bad luck, an environmental lawyer named Chris Tollefson looked up this reference and it didn’t exist!

Ah, but Enbridge has an answer. Whoopsy Daisy, we filed an errata correcting that, and this really should have referred to “Salmo and Diversified (2003)”.

Just a silly little error we cleared up.

Except that pesky lawyer went further and found that Salmo and Diversified (2003) had based their findings on “Francis et al 2002” – the paper that didn’t exist!

Well, you surely ask, “Francis (2002)” must have been something.

Indeed it was. It referred to a power point presentation made by an independent ecologist who had nothing to do with Enbridge to a wildlife conference about, get this, Yukon Caribou!

One expects corporations to hire, shall we say, friendly scientists. In the Kemano Completion case some years ago, Alcan’s entire case was based upon reports from an engineering firm which was nothing more nor less than Alcan’s poodle.

What you don’t expect, God Damn it, is outright deceit!

Propositions you don’t agree with, questionable scientific propositions with, yes. Deceit, no.

Enbridge takes environmental matters so lightly that it expects to be able to publish whatever crap it wants and no one will bother to check them out.

A nosy lawyer and a journalist with the guts to print and we know what we’ve always suspected of this company, better known for its disgraceful environmental disasters than its pipelines.

Now, about that clock that struck 13…

Share

‘Canada’s Carbon Corridor’: Multi-Media Dialogue in North Vancouver Nov. 14

Share

This Wednesday evening, the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival is hosting a multi-media discussion of “Canada’s Carbon Corridor” at Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver. The event is part of the festival’s Fall Series – a week of films and presentations on outdoor adventure and environmental themes.

The title for Wednesday’s event comes from a term developed by the team producing the forthcoming documentary film Fractured Landof which I am co-director. We came up with the concept to articulate a big-picture view of the interconnected web of major oil, gas, coal, mining and hydroelectric projects proposed and in development across northern BC and Alberta, and the Harper and Clark governments’ grand plan to export these resources to new markets in Asia. I view the Carbon Corridor as the biggest transformation to Western Canada’s socioeconomic, cultural and environmental fabric since the colonial, “nation building” days of the railroads of the last century. And I don’t think that’s an understatement.

I will be sharing the stage with six other “inspiring Canadians who are working to protect our coast, our environment and indigenous community’s rights and cultures”, according to VIMFF’s web page for the event. That list includes event organizer Megan Martin, young First Nations singer/songwriter Ta’Kaiya Blaney, Ben West of the Wilderness Committee, photographer Zack Embree, Great Bear Rainforest eco-tour guide and activist Norm Hann, and Kim Slater, who ran 1,177 km run across BC in search of alternatives to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline.

My 25 min presentation, titled “Traveling Canada’s Carbon Corridor Through Film: The Making of Fractured Land, will feature a series of short clips from our forthcoming film, which explores the industrialization of northern BC and Alberta through the eyes of a young First Nations law student, Caleb Behn. I’ll be retracing a recent two and a half week filming journey with Caleb across the Carbon Corridor – through the conversations we had with people in the various communities affected by these projects and visuals of both industrial activity and the spectacular, untouched wilderness threatened by this plan. 

In addition to the series of presentations on stage Wednesday evening, a number of environmental organizations will be on hand with additional information about these important issues.

The evening promises to be a dynamic, compelling discussion on the challenges and solutions facing the future of Canada’s economy, society and environment.

Tickets for the “Canada’s Carbon Corridor” event can be purchased here for $15.00 or $17.00 at the door. The show takes place on Wednesday, November 14 at Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver (2300 Lonsdale Avenue). Doors open 6:30 pm, show starts 7:30.

Share

Fort Nelson First Nation to Discuss Massive Shale Gas Water Licenses Nov. 13 in Vancouver

Share

Leaders of Fort Nelson First Nation from northeast BC are coming to Vancouver to share their concerns over 20 new long-term water withdrawal licenses the BC Liberal Government is considering issuing for shale gas operations in their traditional territory.

One such license alone – for which natural gas giant Encana is expecting imminent approval – would enable the company to dam and divert up to 3 BILLION litres a year of fresh water from the Fort Nelson River, which is described by elders as the lifeblood of their territory and identified by the community as a cultural protection zone. Under the current Water Act, withdrawal licenses are valid for up to 40 years.

“We are extremely concerned about a massive giveaway of water from our rivers and lakes, without any credible process identifying what the long-term impacts will be on our land, our families and on our community” says Fort Nelson First Nation Chief, Sharleen Wildeman. The chief will lead a 10-person delegation of council members, elders and band staff to Vancouver Tuesday Nov. 13 to take their concerns to the media and public.

The public is invited to attend a town hall dialogue featuring Chief, Council and community members from Fort Nelson First Nation – Tuesday evening at the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House (800 E. Broadway). Doors open at 6:30 – event runs from 7-9:30 pm.

The evening, which is co-hosted by Council of Canadians and the Wilderness Committee, will also feature a presentation by leading independent water and energy expert Ben Parfitt of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Encana’s license application, which would involve constructing a 20-metre concrete barrier across the river, is just one of 20 similar applications throughout the region, which could ultimately represent over a trillion litres of fresh water being diverted to shale gas production in the long-term. According to community representatives, “The water will be permanently withdrawn and mixed with highly toxic chemicals for shale gas extraction. Ultimately the majority of the water will be disposed of via ‘deep oilfield injection’.”

They also point out that Fort Nelson First Nation has worked for years with the natural gas industry and government to provide economic opportunities for it members and the entire province through responsible resource development. But the plan to issue these water licenses has forced the community to draw a line in the sand. After pursuing every other avenue available to it – including repeated efforts to reach out to the Province, which have gone ignored – the community feels it must now appeal to the public for support to put a stop to this plan and ensure the public and First Nations are properly consulted in the development of a responsible water management plan.

They insist that plan must include a comprehensive suite of safeguards for water – such as adequate baseline studies, multi-year development plans submitted by industry, environmental and industry monitoring, cumulative impacts assessment, and the ability to designate culturally significant land and water resources as off-limits to development.

To learn more on this important topic and find out how you can get involved, come be a part of the discussion with Fort Nelson First Nation and independent water and energy experts this Tuesday evening at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House.

Share

Stopping FIPA: Follow-up Action You Can Take to Halt Canada-China Trade Deal

Share

Call to Action to support Our Follow-up Correspondence with Lead Negotiator and Cabinet

We have been overwhelmed with your support for the Common Sense Canadian’s effort to prevent the ratification of FIPA and want to extend our thanks to the many readers who have participated so far.

Since November 1, the Common Sense Canadian has been reporting about the significant FIPA Environmental Assessment (EA) process not yet completed. Our reports have detailed how the FIPA Environmental Assessment offers us a clear path for an effective action to prevent ratification.

Our detailed reporting has uncovered many serious shortcomings that we have worked to bring to your attention and we have therefore encouraged people to submit some of these concerns to the FIPA EA committee through a public hearing process that is open until November 11, 2012 for the General Public.

Now we are going to communicate our closing argument and we need your continued support.

This is our final call to action in advance of the closing of this public comment window – Only 3 Days Left to send this crucial message. We will, however, continue to stay on top of the FIPA file and explore and share other means by the public can work to prevent this disastrous treaty.

We have drafted the letter below as our closing correspondence regarding the EA process to FIPA’s Lead Negotiator, demanding ratification of FIPA not occur at this time and detailing our reasons.

We are requesting that the Lead Negotiator of the FIPA Treaty, who is also the Chairman of the EA process, take into account the obvious facts we present in this letter which prove that the treaty-enabling EA is severely compromised and no longer relevant or even applicable, and therefore cannot be completed at this time and must be extended or reopened.

This is a crucial requirement for the ratification process and an enabling mechanism of the FIPA Treaty. We are confident that sending this message loud and clear will have an impact.

In a nutshell, we are arguing that the entire decade-long process was done under laws and processes that no longer exist as a result of Harper’s Omnibus Bill which occurred after the negotiations were officially completed and before the Final Treaty is to be ratified.

This move of Harper’s is unconscionable and fatally detrimental to the Treaty Process.

The FIPA EAC has concluded that no increase in investment is expected from the Treaty and therefore no appreciable environmental impacts were anticipated as a result. Yet, plainly, under Canada’s new, severely-lacking environmental regulatory regime and the stated policy of the Harper Government to advance Canadian hydrocarbon development through this and other trade initiatives, the original conclusions of the FIPA EA are no longer valid and that a new process must be undertaken to ensure the best interests of the Canadian public and environment are properly protected.

If we ratify the Treaty now, we effectively lock in the new, much-diminished environmental laws and regulations he ushered in with the highly controversial Bill C-38 for up to 31 years, according to independent trade experts. Contrary to the FIPA EAC’s conclusions, this would have profoundly negative long-term impacts on Canada’s environment and thus must be prevented.

What You Can Do to Help One More Time – It’s easy!

We are asking those who agree with the findings and recommendations contained in the following letter to simply copy and paste the letter and send it to the e-mail addresses below.

We urge you to do so even if you have already submitted comments.

Doing so will send this definitive message, loud and clear, that the FIPA Ratification CAN AND MUST BE STOPPED as a result of the information clearly laid out in this letter that proves the EA process is defunct and void of legitimacy and therefore needs to be revisited BEFORE Cabinet moves to ratify the agreement or deliberate any enabling measures, including Orders in Council.

————————————————————

To the Lead Negotiator of the FINAL FIPA EAC,

It is our understanding that the Canada-China FIPA Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) is chaired by the Lead Negotiator of the entire treaty process.

The Environmental Assessment is a significant, enabling component of FIPA. Its Guiding Framework, established in 2001, explains that the lead negotiator/chairman oversees the entire FIPA EA process which involves, at its very core, a “detailed analysis including ways in which the GoC’s current analysis could be strengthened.” The EA Framework goes onto outline that, “It is important to keep in mind that the assessment is focused on the possible positive and negative environmental impacts in Canada.”

The EAC specifically points out that the EA process and analysis is largely based on the fact that, “…investors, whether they are Canadian or foreign, are bound by environmental protection regulations and projects resulting from these investments are subject to applicable environmental assessment legislation.”

This is a pivotal point because the legislation referred to here, for which this detailed analysis and related conclusions are based upon, is the same legislation the Harper Government recently gutted and replaced with an entirely new and much-diminished legislative framework – through its Omnibus Bill C-38, which was introduced mere weeks after the FIPA negotiations were officially completed in February of 2012.

Moreover, even more changes have just recently been introduced in the second Omnibus Budget Bill.

This means the EAC conducted its “detailed analysis” on a legislative framework that no longer exists and is no longer relevant to the FIPA process, which clearly renders this key conclusion contained in the FIPA EA final report baseless and therefore irrelevant and invalid:

The Initial EA of the Canada-China FIPA concludes that significant changes to investment in Canada are not expected as a result of the Canada-China FIPA negotiations as there are no specific investments known to be dependent on the FIPA’s conclusion or no direct known causal links between FIPAs and expansion of investment. As such, the environmental impacts on Canada are expected to be minimal.

Quite the contrary, the new reality is that this FIPA and the industrial hydrocarbon development and trade it is clearly designed stimulate under Stephen Harper’s direction present grave threats to Canada’s environment. Given that the final conclusions (in bold above) are therefore no longer of any practical use or application, it is an absolute imperative that the Final FIPA EA be extended or re-opened to allow for proper analysis in light of the wholesale changes that have occurred since the EAC came to those conclusions.

Furthermore, throughout the entire FIPA EA process it is apparent that there was no stakeholder feedback, as two, month-long stakeholder input periods – one in 2005 and another in 2008 – passed without a single submission from anyone, including the general public.

Therefore, we are calling on the Lead Negotiator of the FIPA and chair of the FIPA Environmental Assessment Committee move to extend and/or reopen the Environmental Assessment process in order to perform the required detailed analysis and undertake the consultative stakeholder engagements necessary to properly assess the environmental impacts resulting from the ratification of FIPA under an entirely new legislative framework.

We are also insisting that Cabinet recognize the necessity of the Lead Negotiator to undertake this crucial extension of the FIPA EA in order to properly fulfill the legislated mandate of the FIPA EAC by delaying any Order in Council related to the enabling of the Chinese FIPA. The same should apply to any and all enabling legislation, acts or approval by the Governor General of Canada.

Under Canada’s new, severely-lacking environmental regulatory regime and the stated policy of the Harper Government to advance Canadian hydrocarbon development through this and other trade initiatives, it is clear that the original conclusions of the FIPA EA are no longer valid and that a new process must be undertaken to ensure the best interests of the Canadian public and environment are properly protected.

Sincerely,

Kevin Logan
Damien Gillis
Common Sense Canadians

Send your letter to this address: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

It is important that you also copy Cabinet – in addition, you may wish to include your MP or the full list from BC:

Cabinet (full list):

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca, leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, john.baird@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca

BC MPs:

Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

By riding:

 

Share
Stephen Harper shakes hands with China’s President Hu Jintao in Beijing on Feb. 9, 2012 (photo: Chris Wattie, Reuters)

How You Can Help Stop Ratification of Canada-China FIPA

Share

The FIPA Environmental Assessment is an important, official avenue to request the delay of the FIPA Order in Council

The vast implications of the now highly controversial Canada-China trade deal known as FIPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) are mind-boggling and Canadians have not had the time to fully comprehend what we are being entered into by our federal government.

Numerous campaigns have been launched to bring attention to the issue and prevent ratification of the agreement – most involving online petitions.

Yet there is an official avenue for public opposition that has been largely missed and presents a clear path to delaying FIPA or even preventing its ratification.

The Conservative government must pass an Order in Council in order to facilitate ratification. This is done at the cabinet table.

If you act now and submit your feedback outlining the grave concerns and serious shortcomings in the FIPA Environmental Assessment process, which is still active and open, we may be able to convince cabinet to delay the Order in Council until the pivotal Environmental Assessment is properly undertaken and completed.

You have until Remembrance Day, November 11, 2012, to file your letter with the FIPA EA and we encourage you to copy all Federal Cabinet members and BC Conservative MPs with your submission.

YOU MUST ACT NOW.

We have provided below a short form letter including some key FIPA concerns for your consideration.

We have also provided below a list of the Conservative members of Cabinet who will be deliberating the enabling Order in Council and their email contacts – as well all BC Conservative MPs and their contacts, for our readers in British Columbia.

Simply copy and paste them into your email to ensure they are copied on your submission, and email to EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca by Nov. 11.

——————————————————

Sample FIPA EA Submission

To Environmental Assessments of Trade Agreements,

I am copying Conservative MPs and Cabinet Members on this brief submission to the Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China FIPA.

I am submitting these comments to the Final EA before the November 11th deadline to request an extension for this important process, while urging cabinet to delay the FIPA-enabling Order in Council until the serious concerns outlined in this letter and by many other Canadians have been properly addressed.

It has been confirmed that no public input has been received over the 11-year FIPA EA process, including two separate month-long periods requesting feedback from stakeholders and the general public.

The conclusions of the Final EA and its public consultation and engagement practices reveal a great number of shortcomings – which draw into question the need for this agreement, while raising dire concerns of how it came about and grave reservations with respect to its recommendations.

It is stated in the Final EA analysis that FIPA will not result in any investment, nor will it impact the environment.

Given these conclusions, and the lopsided risk-benefit analysis provided by credible independent analysts, I am requesting that the FIPA EA process be extended to include a review of these contradictory analyses and conclusions.

I also believe the domestic consultations and engagement were not properly conducted, resulting in no feedback or input. The recent outpouring of public concern clearly suggests this lack of EA submissions does not accurately reflect the level of public concern about the issue. Therefore, I also request the opportunity to revisit and extend this vital component of the Environmental Assessment.

The Canada-China FIPA is of concern for a number of reasons, which have been raised through recent independent, expert analysis. These concerns include:

  • FIPA works to ‘lock in” the much diminished environmental regulatory regime recently ushered in by the Harper Omnibus Bill C-38, the full impacts of which have yet to be seen or understood
  • FIPA potentially negates the ability of government to legislate changes in environmental regulations, royalty rates, subsidies and any other laws that impact profitability
  • FIPA has serious constitutional implications which could have grave impacts on the environment, economy and Canadian sovereignty
  • The FINAL FIPA EA was to be included and available at the end of negotiations in February, yet no public comment has been included during the entire 11 years of negotiations
  • FIPA may have serious ramifications on the Treaty Process and on constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate First Nations where their traditional territories, resources and cultural practices are at risk from industrial development

I would like these issues addressed before Cabinet considers the FIPA OIC. Therefore, a delay in Cabinet deliberation of the OIC is imperative.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

——————————————————

Send your letter to this address: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

It is important that you also copy Cabinet – in addition, you may wish to include your MP or the full list from BC:

Cabinet (full list):

diane.ablonczy@parl.gc.ca,leona.aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca, rona.ambrose@parl.gc.ca, keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca, john.baird@parl.gc.ca, maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca, steven.blaney@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, michael.chong@parl.gc.ca, tony.clement@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, julian.fantino@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, diane.finley@parl.gc.ca, jim.flaherty@parl.gc.ca, steven.fletcher@parl.gc.ca, gary.goodyear@parl.gc.ca, Bal.Gosal@parl.gc.ca, stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca, laurie.hawn@parl.gc.ca, jason.kenney@parl.gc.ca, peter.kent@parl.gc.ca, mike.lake@parl.gc.ca, denis.lebel@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, ted.menzies@parl.gc.ca, rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.moore@parl.gc.ca, rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca, gordon.oconnor@parl.gc.ca, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca, christian.paradis@parl.gc.ca, Peter.Penashue@parl.gc.ca, lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca, gerry.ritz@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca, gail.shea@parl.gc.ca, vic.toews@parl.gc.ca, tim.uppal@parl.gc.ca, Bernard.Valcourt@parl.gc.ca, peter.vanloan@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, lynne.yelich@parl.gc.ca

BC MPs:

Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca, john.duncan@parl.gc.ca, ed.fast@parl.gc.ca, Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca, nina.grewal@parl.gc.ca, richard.harris@parl.gc.ca, russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca, randy.kamp@parl.gc.ca, james.lunney@parl.gc.ca, colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca, cathy.mcleod@parl.gc.ca, james.moore@parl.gc.ca, andrew.saxton@parl.gc.ca, Mark.Strahl@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, john.weston@parl.gc.ca, David.Wilks@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, Wai.Young@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca

By riding:

Share

URGENT FIPA UPDATE: Public Comment Period Still Open for Canada-China Trade Deal

Share

UPDATE: Step-by step ininstructions on how to submit your comments to the FIPA EA process by November 11 – act now!

The Common Sense Canadian posted a detailed breakdown of the Environmental Assessment process for the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) between Canada and China earlier this week.

In that piece we noted the fact that the final Environmental Assessment seemed absent in the soon-to-be-ratified FIPA.

Since publishing the story we have learned that indeed the final EA report has not been completed AND there is still time for input from Canadians.

We urge our readers to share their concerns about the process and inform the Government of Canada about the significant environmental impacts of FIPA.

Learn more about the FIPA EA at this government website.

And submit your comments by emailing: EAconsultationsEE@international.gc.ca

We will soon be posting more details about FIPA impacts that people can include their submissions.

Share