Category Archives: Oil&Gas

BC govt hires accounting firm to give fracking a green stamp

June 29, 2015Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRoy Hales

A storage pond in northeast BC containing fracking fluids (Image: Two Island Films)

Republished with permission from the ECOreport

There are credible experts who believe that, with proper regulation and enforcement, it is possible to have a trustworthy fracking industry. They also say this does not yet exist in North America. Personally, I think the industry is out of control and BC’s government is desperate to get in bed with it.

Last week the government released a report from Ernst & Young (EY), based upon which Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman says, “British Columbians can have confidence they are benefiting from a clean, well regulated natural gas industry.” Does Ernst & Young’s LNG report vindicate BC?

Report ignores climate impacts of fracking

This “Review of British Columbia’s Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Framework” failed to consider some of the most serious issues of this debate.

With LNG, BC will fail to meet greenhouse gas targets — LNG plants produce big emissions

The Review does not use the term “Climate Change” and only mentions greenhouse gas emissions as outside “the scope of their project.” The Oil and Gas Regulation “does not place limits on the fumes generated by hydraulic fracturing activities.” There is no discussion of the effect LNG development will have on the province’s emissions targets.

BC would have to build 5 LNG terminals would to achieve the scale Premier Christy Clark talks about. That could add 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution, which Sierra Club BC says is “almost 20% more than B.C.’s entire 2013 reported emissions” (i.e. more than a doubling of the province’s entire current carbon footprint).

Matt Horne, of the Pembina Institute says it might be possible to build one large terminal, or two small ones, and still keep our emissions in check – to which Jens Wieting, of the Sierra Club, responds, “Is it worth the gamble!”

The province’s emissions rose 2.4% in 2013. BC is not on track to reach its’ goal of cutting back to 33% below 2007 levels by 2020.

Yet Premier Clark joined the “Under2 MoU,” whose members agree to “reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 95% below the 1990 benchmark by 2050, or achieve a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050.”

Secret fracking chemicals not addressed

Another serious limitation of the Review is its failure to discuss the fact industry is allowed not to disclose some of the chemicals it uses by branding them a “trade secret.” This topic was dismissed as falling under Federal jurisdiction.

According to a 2014 study from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Center, more than 100 billion gallons of waste water have been injected into the province:

[quote]Wastewater is not tracked after disposal” (and) the fate of this massive quantity of wastewater is unknown … We don’t really know what toxins were in the waste water, or how much may have leaked into ground water or surface water. … Wastewater from fracking operations can contain radioactive materials, toxic metals like lead and arsenic, carcinogens like benzene and hexavalent chromium, chemicals used in fracking and high concentrations of salts.[/quote]

$Halliburton refuses to disclose fracking chemicals$ According to a spokesperson for the ministry, companies must submit information about the chemicals they use on the FracFocus portal. This includes the “trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients, Chemical Abstract Service Number, maximum ingredient concentration by additive (% by mass) and maximum ingredient concentration in fluid (% by mass).”

Companies face penalties if they do not use FracFocus, but can withhold information about their trade secrets.

The Review said BC’s process is “comparable or better than other jurisdictions in chemical fluid disclosure.” This is true – the trade secret loophole is used through-out North America.

Abuse of short-term water permits

The Review does not deal with alleged abuses of back to back short-term water approvals. This allows companies to obtain water without going through the level of oversight connected to a water license. According to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell, more than half the water used for fracking in BC, is obtained this way. In many cases, gas companies are taking water from the same sources that communities rely upon. For example, “Encana draws millions of litres of water from the Kiskatinaw River” – a key source of water for Dawson Creek.

Eoin Madden of the Wilderness Committee says “no one is watching how much water is disappearing” and the losses are “in billions of litres.”

This could become even more of an issue as the West Coast’s drought spreads to BC, but Ernst & Young’s discussion is limited to mentioning that companies using short-term approvals must report their monthly usage.

Cumulative effects

One of the “opportunities” the Review identified is to “Consider cumulative effects by taking a broader view in planning future development. This approach can better protect against potential cumulative impacts, including environmental outcomes that may not be visible when using a more granular, activity-based process.”

See no evil, hear no evil

Ernst & Young put a high priority on the “development of appropriate requirements related to baseline testing and ongoing monitoring of surface or groundwater quality around production zones.” This “would provide an additional data to support results-based regulatory requirements and to monitor compliance.”

A related recommendation called for “baseline testing and ongoing monitoring of domestic water well quality around production wells.”

Amanda Frank, from the Center for Effective Government, gave a much clearer explanation:

[quote]You might have seen the film Gasland, where folks will turn on their taps and light the water on fire because of methane contamination, but unless operators have actually done pretesting of this water you really can’t say fracking did it. You might be absolutely sure, but you don’t have the scientific evidence.[/quote]

Fracking water issues keep bubbling to surface — Texas landowner Steve Lipsky has sparked a battle over fracking and water contamination (image: Gasland II)

A spokesperson from the Oil and Gas Commission said he was only aware of one alleged water contamination incident, from the Hudson’s Hope area in 2012, and “the BC Oil and Gas Commission’s Compliance & Enforcement Branch which found no basis to indicate that hydraulic fracturing that had occurred in the area had any bearing on the water quality in the wells.” To which Calvin Sanborn, Legal Director the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Center, responded, “The politicians will tell you there are no confirmed cases of water contamination. That’s because they haven’t hired anyone to look.”

Shaking all over

One area where BC has done well is monitoring seismic activity. The report “Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Horn River Basin” (2012) documents 272 “events” that “were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults” between April 2009 and December 2011. Though most were too small to feel, the biggest was 3.8 on the richter scale. The report added that there were another 8,000 “high-volume hydraulic fracturing completions…with no associated anomalous seismicity.”

A second study, “Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Montney Trend” (2014) reported 231 seismic events, ranging from 2.5 to 4.4, between August 2013 and October 2014. None of these activities resulted in injury or property damage.

Magnitudes increasing in Alberta

If this makes you nervous, consider that more than 400 oil and gas related tremors have been recorded in Alberta between 1985 and 2010, and fifteen of them had a magnitude greater than 3.5. There was a 4.4 seismic event at Fox Creek earlier this year.

Gail Atkinson, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Induced Seismicity Hazards at Ontario’s Western University, observed, “the magnitudes have been increasing every year.”

Oklahoma breaking seismic records

Damage from Oklahoma's 2011 fracking-related earthquake (Brian Sherrod, United States Geological Survey) — Damage from Oklahoma’s 2011 fracking-related earthquake (Brian Sherrod, United States Geological Survey)

Similar observations have been made in Oklahoma, where earthquakes were not common prior to 2009. A record of 222 quakes was set in 2013 and broken in the first four months of the next year. The tally was close to 500 by the time 2014 was over and now that record has been broken. There were 468 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater during the first four months of 2015. The state’s energy regulator called it a game changer when another 35 quakes of 3.0 or higher struck in the week of June 17 to 24. There were another 10 in the next three days.

The industry keeps telling us there is no cause for concern, these are are all minor events that cause no damage, but a study from the University of Oklahoma suggests otherwise. The state’s largest ever earthquake was a 5.6 “event” that struck Prague on November 6, 2011. Pavement buckled, 2 people were injured, and 14 homes were destroyed. Seismologist Katie Keranen believed it was caused by injection wells used by the oil and gas industry.

This was not a view shared by Oklahoma’s official seismologist, the Corporation Commission or the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers).

Ernst & Young gives BC fracking its stamp of approval

LNG & Fracking: Risky Business for BC — A fracking drill in BC’s Montney play

After reviewing British Columbia’s reports of seismic events, Ernst and Young recommended more data be collected so that the Commission could “better understand the behavior of hydraulic fracturing indifferent formations.”

“Overall, hydraulic fracturing is well regulated in BC,” Ernst and Young claim in their “Review of British Columbia’s Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Framework“. They 3 areas where the BC Oil & Gas Commission is “demonstrating leadership or particularly effective regulatory practice” and 23 “opportunities” for improvement.

Ernst & Young added, “None of the opportunities that we identified in the three categories constitute major failings of the regulatory framework, nor do we believe that there are any significant sources of risk that remain untouched by regulation.”

The report was published on March 3 and the provincial government waited until June 18 before releasing it to the public.

In the accompanying press release, Rich Coleman, Minister of Natural Gas Development, boasted:

[quote]This independent report confirms what we’ve been saying for years – British Columbia has a robust regulatory framework governing hydraulic fracturing. In fact, this is the second recent impartial review to find B.C. has a strong regulatory framework. British Columbians can have confidence they are benefiting from a clean, well regulated natural gas industry.[/quote]

I wonder how much the government paid Ernst & Young for this “independent” report?

Postmedia partners with LNG lobby to sell Woodfibre LNG – latest lapse in journalistic integrity

June 25, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Media, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Resource Works Executive Director Stewart Muir (Credit: Resource Works - Flickr CC licence) — Resource Works ED and ex-Vancouver Sun deputy editor Stewart Muir (Resource Works – Flickr CC licence)

I am, as readers well know, a babe in the woods when it comes to matters of journalism. Ever naive, I read the papers in awe and know that all times they have my better understanding of affairs at heart.

Well then, imagine my horror when I found that my hopes and dreams had been dashed. I’m like that little boy seeing his idol, Shoeless Joe Jackson, arrested for cheating, mumbling through tears of disappointment, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” Here’s how it happened.

About a year ago, one Stewart Muir, for nearly 14 years the Deputy Managing Editor of the Vancouver Sun, founded an organization called Resource Works, stated to be an independent organization dedicated to bringing people together to come up with sensible answers to environmental concerns. (As the Duke of Wellington said when a man accosted him on the street with “Mr. Robinson, I believe”, “If you’ll believe that you’ll believe anything! “).

As we have well demonstrated in these pages, one of Resource Works’ main functions – amidst broad platitudes about “breaking the ice in the controversial resource debate, through research and honest, respectful dialogue” – is to promote the controversial, proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish.

Now comes the part where, if you’re a believer in newspaper honour and ethics, you’d be wise to pour yourself a stiff drink.

Dangerous liaison

The first thing available to you when you “Google” Resource Works is a document called “About Resource Works“. It’s bright and full of pretty videos and even prettier statements about Resource Works. When you get to the bottom, it’s black as the inside of a goat with barely legible grey printing. Scroll down – make sure you have lots of light – and there’s a heading called “Partnerships”, which tells you, “We’re proud to work with a diverse range of partners“.

And who are these partners?

Under “P” just above RBC Royal Bank – are you ready for this? – none other than the Vancouver Province!

In the name of God, the Province, Resource Works, and by logical extension, Woodfibre LNG, are partners!

In short, Postmedia, which includes the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the flagship National Post are shills for a highly controversial undertaking which we expect them to hold to account on our behalf!

Composite of Resource Works "Partnerships" page — Composite of Resource Works “Partnerships” page

Conflict of interest?

Is it any surprise that the Province doesn’t care about the ethics of the owner of Woodfibre LNG? Or any wonder they’re not concerned that Howe Sound and the Fraser River are too narrow for LNG tankers?

This is a good moment to look at how a newspaper ought to behave, as outlined in the Pew Reseach Centre’s nine core principles of journalism:

[quote]While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favour. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers.[/quote]

I can’t imagine any publisher or editor arguing with the proposition that their papers cannot place themselves in a conflict of interest, real or perceived, any more than a Member of Parliament or MLA can. Remember the merry hell the media raised with then Premier Vander Zalm when he confused his role as premier with hustler of a theme park?

Industry gets easy ride from papers

Let’s look, then, at two environmental issues which have come to the fore since the Campbell government came into power in 2001 and see if we can spot a conflict of interest?

During that time, The Sun and Province each had a political columnist, Vaughn Palmer for the former and Mike Smyth for the latter.

First, a quick look back at Palmer’s columns during the NDP decade. He was thorough, critical, and accurate. He almost single-handedly brought down the Glen Clark premiership with his coverage of the fast ferry fiasco. I can’t think of any issue where the NDP of that decade got an easy ride from Palmer – nor, for that matter, should they have

Starting in 2001, Palmer changed from being a government critic to being only a critic of things that were not going to get his newspaper into trouble with the government or advertisers.

Example: Early in his regime, Campbell brought in a new energy policy which, with the exception of Site “C”, forbade BC Hydro from creating any new sources of power and gave that right exclusively to the private sector. This “Run Of River” policy is, far from being a benign as advertised, hugely destructive in several respects. Prominent economists added the concern that BC Hydro was losing buckets of money by being forced to buy private power at several times the cost of either importing or making the power themselves.

Private power play

This was a big election issue in 2009, every bit as egregious a sin, hell, far more egregious than the Fast Ferries debacle. There was the documented damage to rivers not just by dams (the private power people preferred “weirs”) but roads and power lines to the critical insect population, the resident trout that were seriously imperilled, as were spawning salmon, and thus gulls and eagles – a plethora of issues.

Palmer rarely covered this policy and when he did, it was usually in defence of it. For 14 years, Palmer and Sun editorials have spared the Liberals from a moment’s discomfort on this subject!

Palmer ignores troubling LNG facts

Fast forward to more recent days, the Christy Clark government and LNG. Clark, apart from making a horse’s ass of herself with promises of a hundred billion dollar Prosperity Fund, has displayed child-like indifference to the many serious issues involved.

Woodfibre LNG proponent has history of fraud, tax evasion — Sukanto Tanoto (right)

For starters, wouldn’t you think that Palmer, would have thoroughly investigated the background of Sukanto Tanoto, the man behind Woodfibre LNG?

As everyone knows, Mr. Tanoto is a convicted, big league tax avoider and destroyer of tropical jungles. The evidence is thorough and easily available but Postmedia and Palmer seem quite uninterested in whether or not WLNG would pay its taxes and respect our environment.

There is now overwhelming evidence from leading scientists that both Howe Sound and the Fraser River are far too narrow to sustain LNG tanker traffic. This, apparently, is of no concern to Palmer and Postmedia either

Why not?, I wonder.

There are, of course, many other concerns about LNG, including fracking, transferring natural gas to the plant, converting it into LNG, and the hazards of producing it and loading it for transport. Again, one would’ve expected Mr. Palmer to examine this issue pretty carefully. To the best of my knowledge, he has not written a word on these problems.

Neither has Mike Smyth for the Province written much critical on these two enormous issues.

Why would these men avoid these two major topics. They are both skilled writers and it’s hard to explain their silence. Could they be under outside pressure? That suspicion certainly crosses the mind.

Postmedia sells journalistic credibility to oil lobby

Last year, the Vancouver Observer reported on a Postmedia presentation that outlined a content strategy including several Financial Post “Special Report” sections, with topics to be arranged by Postmedia and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

The partnership also includes 12 single-page “joint venture” features in newspapers across the country. Those are different from “special reports” in that CAPP fully directs the topics and Postmedia writers just pen them.

This note from Douglas Kelly, the publisher of Postmedia’s National Post, may help explain these, ahem, corporate blow-jobs:

[quote]From its inception, the National Post has been one of the country’s leading voices on the importance of energy to Canada’s business competitiveness internationally and our economic well being in general. We will work with CAPP to amplify our energy mandate and to be part of the solution to keep Canada competitive in the global marketplace. The National Post will undertake to leverage all means editorially, technically and creatively to further this critical conversation.[/quote]

Now there’s “arms length” journalism for you! This helps explain the Sun and Province’s support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, opposed by many municipalities and citizens affected by the project.

A lucrative partnership

Resource Works and the Province have had a very profitable time as partners.

RW teamed up with the paper to produce a weekly feature on how important trade, industry and resource development are to the B.C. economy. Combining company propaganda and being partners, one can assume that the financial deal was very favourable to the Province.

Postmedia alum Muir gets lots of op-ed ink from his old employer

The Province gave Muir a podium to argue that we can’t have health care without LNG development. It continues to give him a regular soapbox, as you will have noticed in what appear to be op-ed pieces at will. You might also have noticed that when I, for example, answer one of his screeds, it’s heavily censored and published several days later, if at all…after which Muir is given free reign to rebut my rebuttal.

The Province also gave a similar podium to Resource Works adviser Dan Miller, who was briefly premier as the New Democrats imploded in 2000. Miller is a long-time resource industry evangelist and a consultant with PR powerhouse National Public Relations, which has Enbridge as a client. Partners, you see, are nothing if not loyal.

Clearly, Postmedia takes its obligation as RW’s partner very seriously indeed!

Did Resource Works doctor interview?

But could it be that despite all this, Resource Works is still telling us the true state of affairs?

Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored

To answer that, I’m going to poach on my own column, here, of March 15, 2015. I’m satisfied that it succinctly and fairly sums up the situation.

The Province and Sun haven’t uttered a peep of concern about the adequacy of Howe Sound to handle LNG tankers. Perhaps this has something to do with their partnership with their old colleague Muir and his Resource Works – d’ya think?

When they unveiled their Citizens Guide to LNG: Sea to Sky Country Edition in March, we were told to watch a video interview of Dr. Michael Hightower, an expert on tanker traffic.

Here is what I wrote, in part:

Let’s look at transportation of LNG by tanker through Howe Sound. I do that not just because it’s of enormous concern to everybody who lives along the proposed route, but because Resource Works dwells upon the issue. They concede that if tankers go too close to the shore, there could be a problem. However, they assure us there is no problem because they spoke to Dr. Mike Hightower, of Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, a world acknowledged expert on the subject, who’s developed a protocol accepted by US authorities for the distances ships must maintain between themselves and the shore.

Resource Works has produced a number of videos which they make available to the public in order to sell the benefits of LNG. In all of them the interviewer is an attractive young lady named Meena Mann. It is in one of them, featured on the Vancouver Province (surprise, surprise!) website, where Dr. Hightower appears to talk to Ms. Mann about LNG and tankers and you would likely conclude that there is very little danger, if any, posed by LNG tankers in Howe Sound.

Here is what Sandia has reported, based upon Dr Hightower’s work:

“Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called “Zones of Concern”) surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports and tankers must be located at least that distance from civilians. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapor hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.”

What the video does not tell you is that Dr. Hightower had not addressed his attention to Howe Sound, and when local resident Dr. Eoin Finn did so, Dr. Hightower concurred that Bowen Island and parts of West Vancouver are very much at risk – within the 1-mile radius – as are parts of the Sea-to-Sky Highway and Lions Bay/Bowyer Island. In other words, if one accepts Dr. Hightower’s formula, as Resource Works clearly does, there is no way any LNG tankers would be permitted to proceed from Squamish to the ocean.

Dr. Finn, a former KPMG partner and chemistry PhD, took the time to phone Dr. Hightower because the interview didn’t look quite right. Well, it wasn’t right because it wasn’t conducted by Meena Mann at all but by a male!

Was the question changed when Ms. Mann did her fake interview? Was Dr. Hightower’s answer altered? I don’t know but this sort of shabby deception is bound to raise doubts like this. What we do know is that far from supporting Resource Works’ assertion that LNG tanker traffic is safe in Howe Sound, given the facts, Dr. Hightower comes to exactly the opposite conclusion …

Resource Works is guilty of a hugely deceptive practice. Even if Miss Mann asked precisely the same questions the real interviewer did, there are different inflections in the voice no doubt and her body language during the interview was, to say the least, descriptive of her feelings. If this is an example of the integrity of Resource Works, they are not entitled to any credibility whatsoever.

Resource Works’ distortions continue.

A case was brought in 2013 against Encana and the province by the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows back-to-back short-term permits, was valid. That was the sole issue; the judge made it clear that she wasn’t deciding on the government’s overall water policy, or the “fracking” question, but whether back-to-back short term water leases under The Water Act were valid – bear that in mind.

Resource Works, in reporting this – and I quote, from page 47 of A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition – states: “When a ruling came down in late 2014 it showed that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed.

“In an overwhelming endorsement of current practices in water protection, Justice Fitzpatrick concluded that when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape with a “justifiable transparent and intelligible framework for the regulation of short term water use.”

In fact, she did no such thing as a reading of the judgment makes abundantly clear. She confined her decision to the interpretation of Section 8 only. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows gas companies to get an endless number of water approvals back-to-back, was lawful.

Only a practitioner of the black arts of Public Relations could read into Madam Justice Fitzpatrick’s judgment that she said “that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed”, or “when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape.’”

She simply did not say this!

Over the decades, I’ve seen unscrupulous people misquote judges but never have I seen a situation like this where the judge’s words were completely made up to suit!

Credibility gap

Surely, one’s entitled to conclude that this sort of dissembling, distortion, and outright misrepresentation colours all of the presentations of this outfit not to mention their partners, Postmedia.

What we have then is an organization, Resource Works, set up to deceive people and they’ve diligently done just that. They pretended initially that they were “independents” only trying to get a dialogue going between people but, as anybody who takes a glance at this issue would quickly confirm, this was barnyard droppings. RW is clearly a shill for Woodfibre LNG, plain and simple.

Part of this process of deceiving the public comes in what Resource Works does not say. It’s interesting, for example, that A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition doesn’t touch the issue of “fracking” until page 46 and then only in two brief paragraphs. It mentions that there is a US documentary on the subject but says that they, Resource Works, don’t think there’s any evidence of problems with “fracking” in BC. If that doesn’t convince you, I ask you, what will?

To make matters much worse – and the purpose of this column – is that one of the largest media corporations in Canada is involved up to their ears in this sham – I nearly said scam – and no longer can make any pretence at providing independent information for its readers. It’s like a clock that strikes 13 – you can never trust it again.

Is that overstating the matter?

I think not.

Circling the drain

By their own clear admission, Postmedia is in deep financial trouble, laying off and buying out huge numbers of employees. Their stated reason is lack of advertising revenue. Does this affect their reporting of what advertisers, current and potential, are up to? Does it impact on how they report on governments supported by those advertisers? Has it made it attractive enough for them to ignore time-honoured journalistic ethics and make unholy alliances? These thoughts are bound to occur to one.

When you read nothing from either the local paper’s political commentators on the downside of the Woodfibre LNG proposal, given that Postmedia’s a partner, does it not immediately occur to you that something’s strange here? Here’s an issue which may bring down the Clark government and both Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth, political commentators, are apparently not interested!

Can we trust anything concerning LNG when it appears in Postmedia? Can they be trusted to fairly present opposition to Woodfibre LNG? What are they not reporting?

My father used to say, “Rafe, don’t believe everything that you read in the newspapers.” I change that advice to my children and grandchildren by saying, “apart from the comic strips and possibly the Obituary Page, don’t believe a damn thing you read in the newspapers!”

Unless, of course, you believe in the Easter Bunny, think slot machines are fair and are interested in buying a bridge I have for sale.

Exxon disses paltry clean tech subsidies while oil industry takes Trillions from taxpayers

June 24, 2015Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

Digital composite by AZRainman (Flickr CC licence)

A recent article quoting executives from Exxon is an incredible example of the misinformation, half-truths and contempt for solutions to climate change that we continue to see from the oil and gas industry.

In response to a question about subsidies for renewables, Theodore Pirog and Robert Gardner, two top dogs at Exxon’s Corporate Strategic Planning department, had this to say:

[quote]…the government, through tax incentives, is pushing wind and solar, which cannot compete with other energy sources on a level playing field. Over the long term, government subsidies for energy production and policies that pick winners and losers in the competitive energy space are counterproductive to broadly meeting society’s needs.[/quote]

Five reasons while Exxon is full of crap

Exxon complains about the subsidies for renewables, making for an unlevel playing field where government intervenes to pick winners and losers. Furthermore, according to EXXON market prices should drive solutions. Fascinating!

1) No sector of the economy receives more subsidies than the fossil fuel sector. The IMF projected the 2015 global subsidies for fossil fuels at $5.3 Trillion/year

2) The IMF has calculated global subsidies for renewables at $120 Billion/year

3) Thanks to the Republicans and their Big Oil lobbyists, the US wind power subsidy the Production Tax Credit of 2.3 cents/kWh has expired and the Investment Tax Credit of 30% that applies to solar energy installations will expire at the end of 2016.

4) In sharp contrast with the unstable US subsidies for renewables, which undermine long term investments, US direct subsidies for the oil and gas industry amount to about $7 Billion/year. These generous allowances for the oil and gas sectors: a) go as far back as the 1890s; b) include a 1926 enacted Percentage Depletion Tax Credit that increases when the price of fuel goes up; and c) allow the industry to write off most drilling costs. Not to be outdone on archaic subsidies, based on US incentives dating back to the late 1700s, the US coal industry gets tax benefits now worth $5 Billion/year.

5) The European Wind Energy Association says that wind power can compete without subsidies if fossil fuel subsidies were to be abolished.

Big Oil business model collapsing

Exxon claims that the oil industry will have to increase production significantly, in particular from unconventional sources (eg tar sands, shale oil, offshore oil), to meet increases in global demands.

This model is based on: 1) demand for fossil fuels continuing to climb; 2) oil prices remaining high enough to justify continued investments in expensive-to-extract unconventional sources such as the tar sands, offshore and shale sources; 3) high oil prices justifying the pumping out of greater volumes of conventional oil to further increase profits; and 4) the growing concern about climate change failing to affect the bottom line.

Until recently, this business model worked like a charm, with Exxon earning $32.6B in 2013, more than any company other than Apple. Well, as it turns out, all of the above elements of the business model have hit a wall.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 2015 global oil demand had originally been projected to be 103.2 million barrels/day, but this number has been adjusted to 93.1 million barrels/day, thereby undermining the viability of unconventional investments. Low prices cannot sustain the development of tar sands, shale and offshore oil.

This is translating into dangerously high debt loads, with assets being written off in the billions, thus generating a cascade of announcements of abandoned projects around the globe, putting tar sands projects on hold and pushing shale gas companies into bankruptcy. The US shale gas and oil sector now has accumulated a debt of $200 Billion!

Exxon blind to clean tech boom

Exxon sees the growth of renewables as limited because they are intermittent source of power. Here’s what’s wrong with that thinking:

1) There is massive investment all over the world in energy storage technologies and the linking of clean electricity sources to electric transportation that includes, among other things, bi-directional charging stations that can network the batteries of parked electric vehicles for additional energy storage, as required.

2) In 2011, the Chinese Development Bank committed $45B to smart grid technologies, including energy storage technologies.

The Economist: China's going green...but is it fast enough? — China is investing big in renewable energy

3) China doesn’t seem to know about the supposed limits of renewables. As I noted in an earlier article this year, “…in just 2014 China’s new installations of wind and solar capacity amounted to 34 gigawatts (GW = a billion watts) of new electrical generating capacity, bringing the total installed capacity of wind and solar energy in that country to 114.8 GW and 28 GW respectively. In other words, China’s new clean energy installations added in 2014 represent nearly 3 times BC Hydro’s entire installed capacity of 12 GW and more than 70% of the total electricity capacity of Hydro-Quebec, 46.3 GW – but China installed all of this new capacity in one year!”

4) China’s mind-boggling increasing commitments to clean energy along with its goals for clean transportation – electric vehicles in particular – is galvanizing the development of its energy storage sector, expected to quadruple by 2025 to an $8.7 Billion/year market. Transportation/electric vehicle applications are projected to represent 85% of the revenues of this market, or $7.4 Billion in 2025. Clearly China is a global leader in linking clean energy to clean transportation, with integration technologies such as energy storage being a critical component of their green economy game plan. China’s clean transportation commitments are hard to beat regarding: a) $16B for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations; b) 30% of national government vehicle purchases to be electric beginning 2016; and c) a target to manufacture 2 million eco-vehicles per year by 2020.

5) Non-hydro renewables represented 47% of new electrical generation power installed in the US in 2014 and 75% of new US installations in the first quarter of 2015.

Despite all that, here’s what Exxon’s leaders have to say on the subject:

[quote]While we believe governments will take action to address the risk of climate change, we believe a policy scenario that completely transforms the global energy system at the unprecedented rate, pace and cost needed to stabilize greenhouse gas levels as contemplated in the 2°C scenario is highly unlikely.[/quote]

Turning the corner on GHGs

Global emissions reached a plateau in 2014, largely thanks to China’s massive investments in clean energy and reduction of GHG and coal use.

We don’t have any choice but to stay within the 2 degree limit, as not doing so will lead to catastrophic climate change. The prevailing wisdom is that 80% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to prevent the catastrophic scenario. Even Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England acknowledges that this reality will lead to exceptional growth of stranded assets:

[quote]A growing number of senior figures in the financial community—some of them controlling many millions of dollars worth of investment funds—have been pressing fossil fuel companies to disclose how investments would be affected if energy reserves became frozen or stranded by regulatory moves associated with tackling climate change.[/quote]

Unconventional energy is debt and risk-heavy

Exxon says that technology has found a way to increase the resource base.

This is true except the costs of unconventional sources are prohibitive. The shale oil sector’s debt is staggering and all over the globe, fossil fuel companies are abandoning their reserves, also known as stranded assets.

Using poverty to promote fossil fuels

Micro Grids - Another alternative to investment in old energy — Community micro-grids are an effective way to bring energy to poor, rural communities

Exxon feigns concern for “the approximate 1.3 billion without electricity and the approximate 2.6 billion globally who use wood or dung stoves for cooking, which can lead to fatal indoor air pollution. What if we could supply all these too with affordable energy?”

The truth is that local clean energy micro-grids are the fastest and cheapest way to bring electrical power to those who don’t have any access or insufficient access. Just as many developing countries skipped the centralized landline telephone stage to go directly to mobile phones, the developing world can skip the centralized, expensive distribution infrastructure for delivering energy to isolated communities by setting up easy-to-install community clean energy micro-grids with minimal infrastructure.

Exxon: Oil fundamentalists

The views expressed by Exxon show a total contempt for climate solutions and a fundamentalist blind faith in a need to increase oil production, even to a point of implying that this is the solution to poverty. They disregard the reasons for the decline of the Big Oil business model and the staggering debt levels associated with unconventional fossil fuels. They’re allowing greed to confuse dictate their professional outlook. Apparently that’s the Exxon way.

Richmond Council, Delta MLA question Fraser River LNG tankers

June 23, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Richmond Councillor Harold Steves was part of a unanimous vote on proposed LNG tankers (Damien Gillis) — Harold Steves and fellow Richmond councillors are calling for a public review of LNG tankers (Damien Gillis)

Richmond Council yesterday unanimously passed a motion calling for a full environmental review on plans to run over 200 LNG vessels a year up the Fraser River. The move comes in reaction to attempts by proponent WesPac to skip a proper, public review of the its proposal for an LNG terminal on the Fraser River.

Fraser River tankers — How LNG Tankers would turn from from WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty (Project Description – CEAA Summary)

Richmond Council’s vote follows a strongly-worded op-ed by local Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington in the Delta Optimist last week, detailing how she changed he mind about the project. Initially, it was presented to her as a small upgrade to a longstanding Fortis BC-operated LNG storage tank. “Since Fortis has been producing LNG at Tilbury for a long, long time – and would be using the existing footprint – it all sounded good to me,” she began.

But flash forward to a whole shipping terminal proposed for construction on the Fraser by another company, WesPac, plus a tanker or barge every other day, and a new transmission line to power the project and Huntington was singing a different tune. She notes the huge public outcry she has heard since details of the quiet plan became public in recent weeks – amid a brief, flawed public comment window on the question of whether these plans even merit an environmental assessment:

[quote]My office has received over 1,000 emails objecting to the export of LNG from Tilbury. Fifty or so correspondents live in Delta – many of whom I know. Until now, I didn’t share all their concerns: the initial business plan made so much sense.

But I don’t think I trust that plan anymore.[/quote]

After taking a closer look at the project – which has already been awarded an export licence by the National Energy Board – Richmond Council decided to go on the record, with the following motion, passed unanimously yesterday:

[quote]An LNG plant is proposed across the Fraser River in Delta to serve fracking operations in north-eastern BC. Up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges are expected on the Fraser annually. To date Richmond City staff have been unable to determine the full scope of this project.

It has been suggested that a federal environmental review may not be necessary. The Federal Government has given to June 24th for public input whether a federal environmental review is necessary.

Resolved that Richmond council request a full Federal Environmental Assessment and Review of the Delta LNG project; to consider effects on dredging a deeper and wider shipping channel; effects on dyking; effects on the habitat of the estuary and the Fraser River fishery; safety concerns; climate change and the industrialization of the Fraser River due to the cumulative effect of coal, jet fuel, LNG, and possibly oil shipments on the Fraser River.[/quote]

What began as a sneaky attempt run hundreds of LNG tankers and barges up the Fraser River has blown up into a loud public backlash. The process itself didn’t help. An export licence issued with zero public knowledge. A short public comment window on the need for an environmental review that almost slid by, were it not for citizen group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change stumbling across a notice on the BC Environmental Assessment Office.

Then, the federal government email to which the public was supposed to send their comments turned out to be broken and not accepting comments for what appears to be all or most of the duration of the comment window. Into this void stepped a website built for this purpose, Real LNG Hearings, which, according to founder Kevin Washbrook had already taken in over 1,000 letters from concerned citizens before the initial public comment window closed. Given the email cock-up, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Office extended the window for public comment until June 24.

Explosion risk zone from proposed Fraser River LNG tankers (RealLNGHearings.org)

As The Common Sense Canadian has reported on in these pages, these well-founded concerns are built on very real safety risks – not to mention the above ecological issues highlighted by Richmond Council. The width of the Fraser River does not come close to the minimum safety requirements for LNG tankers laid out by the leading authorities on the subject. Neither do those proposed to transit Howe Sound from the planned Woodfibre LNG plant near Squamish. The close proximity of these routes to densely populated communities is also a big no-no in the eyes of global experts on LNG tanker safety. Even Stephen Harper blocked LNG tanker plans on the East Coast over safety concerns.

Not that environmental assessments themselves can be taken seriously in this era of rubber stamps and kangaroo courts, but skipping even the show of one is a deep affront to the public. If, after well over a thousand calls from citizens, a local MLA and city council – on the basis of these very real safety and environmental concerns – the federal government does not change its stance and agree to hold a full environmental hearing, then it will provoke a public backlash bigger than it can imagine.

Think Burnaby Mountain on the Fraser River.

Harper says LNG tankers too dangerous for East Coast, but OK for BC?

June 19, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

I live on Howe Sound in lovely Lions Bay. I have lived my entire life in British Columbia, growing up in Vancouver and spending much of my boyhood on this lovely fjord.

Howe Sound belongs to all of us. It had been all but destroyed by industry until 20 years ago when rehabilitation was started with the closing of mills and Britannia Mines. Thanks to the work of citizen/volunteers it was enormously successful. We now have the salmon runs dramatically increased, herring runs back to where they used to be, and killer whales, which were so prevalent when I was a boy but had all but disappeared, now going past my house regularly.

The Fraser River estuary scarcely needs any introduction. Suffice it to say that this glorious river is the number one salmon habitat in the world and nowhere are these marvellous fish more vulnerable than in the estuary. The governments have all but approved 200 more or less tankers and barges carrying LNG into and out of this estuary. They intend to skip an environmental assessment altogether, yet, thanks to citizen efforts, have been inundated with demands for a proper public hearing.

They don’t really care about us

It is indeed bad enough that the National Energy Board has issued export licences for tankers travelling these routes, as ever-ignorant of British Columbia is fully in favour, but as you’ll see from the Wilderness Committee’s media release which follows, the feds took exactly the opposite position on the east coast!

Suspicions confirmed! Ottawa does discriminate against BC.

Because of this unbelievable turn of events, I wrote a letter to John Weston, our Tory MP.

First, here is the Wilderness Committee’s statement:

The Wilderness Committee is calling attention to the federal government’s double standards regarding the safety of LNG shipments along Canada’s coastline.

The federal government has actively fought against the construction of an American LNG terminal known as the “Downeast LNG Project.” If constructed, this project would see LNG carrier ships pass through New Brunswick’s Head Harbour Passage.

Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer has outlined Canada’s “strong concerns” around Downeast LNG in two letters to US regulators, pointing to the serious environmental, navigational and safety risks of the project.

Contrarily in BC, American company WesPac Midstream was granted an export licence by Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) on May 7th for its proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser River – a river that is home to one of the largest salmon runs in the world. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is currently considering the need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the project.

To date, no federal government representative has expressed concerns with sending up to 120 LNG tanker vessels annually into highly populated areas of Richmond and Delta, BC.

“Our federal government is treating us west coasters like second-class citizens,” said Eoin Madden, the Wilderness Committee’s Climate Campaigner. “This kind of LNG project was considered unacceptable for New Brunswick, but it doesn’t seem to pose a problem for the government when it will sit on the banks of the world’s greatest salmon river.”

The Wilderness Committee has produced a map detailing the public safety risk associated the WesPac project, identifying industry-defined LNG tanker “hazard zones” that would impact communities if a tanker on the route were to be ignited. There are three hazard zones – zone one posing the biggest threat to human life.

“The federal government opposed Downeast LNG to protect what they called a ‘unique and highly productive marine ecosystem’ off the New Brunswick coast,” said Madden. “If they want to see a unique and productive ecosystem, they should come on over and check out the Fraser River.” The Wilderness Committee will continue to work to protect the Fraser River from all fossil fuel shipments. The organization will be calling on the federal government to conduct a cumulative impact assessment of the combined effects of coal, LNG, tar sands and aviation fuel projects proposed for this vital salmon river.

Rafe calls out Howe Sound MP

Now, here is the letter I sent to John Weston both at his parliamentary address and personal address 10 days ago. I have not received a reply.

Dear Mr. Weston,

Below you will find a release from the Wilderness Committee stating unequivocally that your government has banned LNG tankers on the East Coast while permitting them, indeed encouraging them, on the West Coast. They are banned on the Atlantic coast because they pose a serious danger. Evidently Mr. Harper doesn’t believe they pose the same danger on our coast.

This is of particular interest to residents of your constituency. It is not a new story, having been broken originally by Eoin Finn and I have dealt with it in columns myself. It is now, however, of immediate importance, since your government and the provincial government are bent on approving the Woodfibre LNG plant with consequent LNG tanker traffic down Howe Sound and have approved similar traffic on the Fraser River, one of the world’s most bountiful salmon rivers.

It is my intention to write an article, for publication, a week tomorrow, stating categorically that the Conservative government, your government, actively and dangerously discriminates against the West Coast generally and the Howe Sound and Fraser River areas specifically. I don’t wish to do this without giving you the opportunity of refuting the obvious inference that this is accurate.

I would be pleased to hear from you as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,

Rafe Mair

Try standing up for your constituents

Let’s look at what we are asking Mr. Weston to do.

He’s been our Member of Parliament for eight years. His record in standing up for his constituents has been appalling. On the particular issue of Woodfibre LNG, Weston did not seek the opinions of his constituents – quite the opposite. He made it clear from the beginning that he couldn’t care less what we thought but that he was in favour of development, so was the prime minister, and that was that. Moreover he tried to throw his weight around and get the West Vancouver Council to change their minds from opposing this proposition to supporting it. He got a unanimous second prize from that doughty Council on that argument.

Weston’s constituency includes the western part of West Vancouver, the Sea-to-Sky area, and the Sunshine Coast. The opposition to Woodfibre LNG is a very strong indeed. In fact, it’s difficult to find anyone who favours it other than the deceitful shills for Woodfibre LNG called Resource Works and so far as I can determine from reading their bumph and speeches, they’ve not told the truth on any material fact yet. (See previous columns).

Woodfibre’s PR flacks hit the spin cycle

In yet another propaganda email recently issued to his followers, Resource Works’ spokesman Stewart Muir, amongst other things, called our group “well-funded”; whereas we’re a group of volunteers, spending our own time and money, with only the occasional help from fundraisers. I tell you this because this billion dollar enterprise, with its high-priced lackeys in Resource Works, not only “money whips” us but has the nerve to denigrate honest, decent, concerned citizens spending their own time and money standing against a huge company and two governments hand-in-glove with the corporate world. Incidentally, Muir was once a Vancouver Sun editor which to me, at any rate, explains a lot.

Why do British Columbians deserve less?

Let’s return to Mr. Weston.

All we have asked our Member of Parliament to do is threefold: First, take all our concerns about Woodfibre LNG to the prime minister and the Government of Canada and let them know that there are thousands of decent British Columbians who want this project stopped. Ask the PM why he is dealing with a crook, a tax evader and despoiler of tropical forests nonpareil. Ask the PM to google Woodfibre owner Sukanto Tanoto and follow the links to the Guardian Newspaper and thereon and tell us why he is to be our partner.

Secondly, ask Mr. Harper why he is uncaring about residents in allowing LNG tanker traffic through Howe Sound and the Fraser River where irrefutable scientific evidence makes it clear that both are far too dangerous. Both the Wilderness Committee and ourselves can provide charts.

In the case of Howe Sound, in transit to the ocean, LNG tankers from Squamish would pass within unsafe distances from the populations of West Vancouver Lions Bay and Bowen Island. All 6 Municipal Councils around the Sound have passed motions objecting to the Woodfibre LNG proposal.

Thirdly, now that the government has essentially made its decision, we have asked Mr. Weston to explain to us, on behalf of the government of Canada, why there is one rule for Atlantic Canada and another one for British Columbia.

Surely, being an MP is more than chasing down missing pension checks or seeing that constituents have a tour of Parliament when visiting Ottawa.

In essence, Weston is receiving some $175,000 per year not to consult his constituents, not take their concerns to the prime minister and cabinet to demand answers on our behalf, not to support the municipal councils in his riding, and not to give a damn about anything except his own reelection.

To put it bluntly, Woodfibre LNG affects every person living in his constituency. We have, on clear scientific evidence, excellent reason to worry about the lives and safety of our families. Surely to God, what I have said above, which I believe would be endorsed by a large majority of Weston’s constituents, is not too much to ask of a man highly paid to be the liaison between the peasants their political masters.

John Weston will, in my opinion, be slaughtered in the next election, but of what consolation is that if the pall of impending disaster remains?

As I have written here recently, our path to safety for our families and communities is civil disobedience and that is what the uncaring bastards will have.

BC not ready for major oil spill, minister admits after Vancouver diesel spill

June 15, 2015Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRoy Hales

Minster Mary Pollock Announces BC will move ahead on world-leading spill response team (BC govt) — Minster Mary Polak Announces BC will move ahead on world-leading spill response team (BC govt)

Republished with permission from the ECOreport.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As of late morning on June 15, the Coast Guard had revised the estimate to 500-5,000 litres of diesel spilled

Within hours of Vancouver’s second oil spill of the year, BC Environment Minister Mary Polak was reassuring the public that the province will move ahead on a “world-leading” spill response team.

1,000 litres of diesel

Fishermen’s Wharf in Vancouver - approximate location of diesel spill (Ruth Hartnup/Flickr) — Fishermen’s Wharf in Vancouver – approximate location of diesel spill (Ruth Hartnup/Flickr)

An estimated 1,000 litres of diesel spilled into the area around Fishermen’s Wharf late Sunday night. The spill volume The accident was reported at 10:30 p.m. and, because the federal government closed Kitsilano Coast Guard station, clean-up did not start for another five hours. Polak said she “could not speculate” about the difference still having a base in Vancouver would have made. Luckily it was diesel, which stays on the surface and is easy to clean-up.

“The spill appears to have received an efficient and effective response,” said Pollack.

Yet she acknowledged that the present spill response is “outdated” and economic development “cannot be at the expense of our environment.”

Not ready for a major spill

The Minister added:

[quote]Our experience with smaller spills and near misses shows the province is not prepared for a major spill. Our goal is to have a world-leading spill regime in place and we recognize we are not there yet.[/quote]

She denied that this was in response to the proposed Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan pipeline projects, saying it was devised after years of conversations with local government, First Nations and industry.

“The vast majority of incidents to which we respond, as a ministry, have nothing to do with the oil and gas industry and everything to do with smaller types of industry, with the support of hazardous materials that support other industries,”said Polak.

Both of this year’s Vancouver spills originated with shipping.

New land-based spill response

The ingredients of BC’s new land-based spill response include:

A provincially certified, industry-funded Preparedness and Response Organization (PRO) to make sure trained people are ready to immediately respond to any spill, with appropriate equipment and in a co-ordinated way
New legislative and regulatory requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery
Geographically based planning and response that will see active participation by First Nations, first responders and local communities

Steps To Come

The funding and leadership of this project is to come from industry.

If the Kinder Morgan pipeline project goes forward, this program will work in conjunction with their spill response program.

Legislation empowering the government to proceed will probably be forthcoming during the Spring of 2016.

“This won’t happen overnight, but we are targeting 2017 to begin implementing these new requirement,” said Polak.

Fraser River LNG tankers carry explosive risk – Last chance for public comment

June 10, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRoy Hales

This article is republished with permission from The ECOreport.

UPDATE: Following complaints that the CEAA email system for public comments on the project has been out of commission throughout the 20-day comment period, the window for feedback has been extended until June 24

Building a major LNG terminal in Delta would have a big impact on the mouth of the Fraser River. The diagram at the top of this page shows how LNG tankers would come into, and leave, the proposed WesPack Tilbury Marine Jetty. Even with the help of tugboats, they need most of the Fraser River’s width to turn around.

The National Energy Board has already granted an export license for a facility that could bring up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges to this terminal every year. In the US, LNG proponents need to assess potential hazards all along LNG tanker routes, but the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is considering waiving an environmental assessment. The public comment period on this project is almost over – citizens have two days left to ask for an environmental review.

Fraser River Tanker explosion risk — Explosion risk zone from proposed Fraser River LNG tankers (RealLNGHearings.org)

The above map, from Real LNG Hearings.com, shows the extent of the hazard area if there was an explosion. Note the red line, which goes out the Fraser and along the tanker route. This is a band 500 meters wide depicting: “extreme hazard of combustion and thermal damage from pool fire if evaporating LNG is ignited. Cryogenic burns and structural damage from exposure to supercooled LNG. Asphyxiation hazard for those exposed to expanding LNG vapor plume.” Though the degree of danger is less, there could be additional explosions anywhere within the blue zone if the LNG vapour cloud makes contact with a source of ignition.

Said Kevin Washbrook for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change:

[quote]Whether we’re LNG supporters or not, we probably all agree that major projects like this need careful review. However in this case public notification has been negligible, the comment period is absurdly short, and fundamentally important questions — like whether it makes any sense to build a LNG terminal on a narrow, heavily trafficked river — haven’t even been asked.[/quote]

Citizens can write to federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq via the Real LNG Hearings website, to require a proper level of LNG risk assessment is done in BC.

More detailed information available here:

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website
http://reallnghearings.org/
CSC’s “Retired Navy Captain torpedoes LNG lobby’s tanker safety story” – by Rafe Mair

Fracking industry stonewalled EPA on data for safety assessment

June 9, 2015Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedRoy Hales

Fracking-industry-stonewalled-EPA-on-data-for-safety-assessment — Chemical and water mixing for hydraulic fracturing (Joshua Doubek/Creative Commons)

Republished with permission from The ECOreport.

After five years of research, the EPA’s painfully inadequate fracking assessment has been released. “It’s a bit underwhelming,” said Amanda Frank, from the Center for Effective Government. Dr Allan Hoffman, a retired senior analyst with the Department of Energy, referred to the draft report as “disappointing.” They were referring to the extent that industry was allowed to thwart the EPA investigation.

Said Hoffman:

[quote]My general reaction is ‘why bother?’ I have a lot of compassion for EPA, they must have really struggled with this one, but I don’t feel like they produced a very useful report. There is nothing new. It is accurate as far as I could tell. They did review some records, but then they put in all these caveats about how limited the data really was. It is very clear they probably didn’t get co-operation from the industry. That’s a very bad sign in my opinion.[/quote]

The EPA tried to get companies to monitor their wells. For effective test results, they need to test the water before before, during and after drilling.

Industry won’t play ball

Marcellus shale gas drilling site in Pennsylvania (Nicholas A. Tonelli/Wikimedia Commons) — Shale gas drilling site in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus play (Nicholas A. Tonelli / Wikimedia Commons)

“Most companies flat-out refused to comply. So this report is more of a literature review. It is very thorough, in terms of looking at the available data, but limited because they still can’t say how widespread these impacts are when there so few companies that are willing to let the EPA study them,” said Amanda Frank.

She added, “They admit in the conclusion that, based on the number of wells that we know of and based on the number of incidents that we know of, water contamination is not a widespread issue. But the next sentence basically says there is so much data missing that it is hard to make that claim.”

Hoffman recently co-authored a report on the impact hydraulic fracturing has on water. He shares the impression that the number of incidents is small, but added, “We really don’t know.”

“If industry is not going to co-operate on this, then they are not to be trusted. They have plenty of incentive to hide accidents, spills and all that kind of stuff. That’s what people do, they protect their self interest.”

$Halliburton refuses to disclose fracking chemicals$ He believes the number of incidents can be brought under control, but suspects that it may take a major accident for the United States to adopt strong enough regulations and enforcement.

In the meantime, there are reports of water contamination but it is difficult to prove the cause was fracking without proper testing. If company’s are allowed to withhold the identity of the chemicals they use, you don’t even know what to test for.

Some areas hit harder by water withdrawals

There have been large water withdrawals in areas with low water availability. Though the EPA reported the national average was only 1%, in some counties the number was actually 50%.

(Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice, recently informed the ECOreport that much of California’s fracking takes place in Kern county, one of the area’s most affected by the drought.)

Industry takes over

In some states, the industry appears to have virtually taken over. In response to communities that have passed fracking bans, both Texas and Oklahoma have passed legislation overruling local control.

“Is fracking going to be safe? Nothing is. There are risks with everything. Getting into my car and driving to work is not ‘safe.’ Industry needs to recognize this and stop trying to say how safe and wonderful it is. They need to acknowledge there are risks. Then we need to ask ourselves, are these risks worth it?” said Frank.

Many hoped the EPA report would help clarify matters.

“The big disappointment is not so much in terms of the report’s scope, as that the conclusions are not widespread. To really fix the problems with fracking, you need to require baseline testing. If we were to require that in every well across the country, we would have a much better sense of how widespread this problem is,” said Frank.

Premier Clark spews more hot air with LNG non-announcent

May 21, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Premier Christy Clark announcing...the same thing she's announced many times before (BC Govt) — Premier Christy Clark announcing…the same thing she’s announced many times before (BC Government)

For all the fanfare of yesterday’s press conference, you’d think Premier Christy Clark would have some big, new development to announce for her much-vaunted but yet-to-be-built LNG industry. Sorry folks, nothing to see here.

All Clark had to offer was warmed up leftovers from the umpteen previous press conferences, media advisories and political speeches she’s been making for the past several years. Still no final investment decision from Malaysian energy giant Petronas – only “the beginning of the company’s final decision path toward an investment decision”, whatever the heck that means. The “path” to any real bucks being forked out by a single one of the 18 companies and global consortia proposing LNG plants is proving to be a long and winding road.

Are we there yet?

For years now, we’ve watched the likes of Chevron and Petronas punt their promised final investment decisions to next quarter, next year, some vaguely defined point in the future – while many others have outright fallen by the wayside (BG Group, Apache, Encana, EOG to name a few). But we never seem to get there.

And what if we did ever get there? At this point, after all the slashing of royalties and taxes, all the gutting of environmental protections, all the deals with China, India and Malaysia to supply the labour via foreign temporary workers, what’s actually left for the people of BC?

Take your ball and go home

BC should not be bullied by Petronas over LNG taxes — Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas lecturing BC at last year’s LNG conference (Damien Gillis)

In her press conference yesterday, Clark boasted that the “memorandum of understanding” with Petronas locks in low royalty and tax rates for years to come. This is supposed to be good news for the people of BC?

As I noted back when Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas took the stage at a glitzy, taxpayer-funded BC LNG conference last year – to lecture us about not “killing the goose that lays the golden egg” – if these are the only terms under which the likes of Petronas will come set up shop here, then we don’t need them. It’s as if they’re saying, “Cut your public benefits and environmental standards to zero, or we’ll take our ball and go home.” Well, take your bloody ball and go home then.

It’s not all about money

And this is all assuming that with enough money on the table (which of course there isn’t), we’d go for this deal. Well, increasingly, the public and First Nations beg to differ. Just look at the Lax Kw’alaams Band and their recent rejection of an unprecedented bag of loot – $1.15 BILLION and $100 million worth of crown land. Apparently, there’s more to money for some of us – like protecting wild salmon that would be severly threatened by Petronas’ proposed plant on top of the Skeena River eestuary.

That’s what yesterday’s announcement was really about: quelling investor fears over the very public face plant that was the failed Lax Kw’alaams deal. Except that Clark has nothing meaningful or new to offer. And she’s panicking now. After all the big promises of a $100 Billion “Prosperity Fund” in the last election – the thing that vaulted her past the NDP, long favoured in the polls – even she now must realize that it’s time to put up or shut up (well, we can dream on the latter)

Yet that’s looking less and less likely. Her other favourite horse – tax fraudster Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto – is facing an uphill battle in Howe Sound. First Nations and citizens along the various pipeline routes are digging in their heels. Asian LNG prices have plummeted to well below the break-even point for BC LNG exports, obliterating the entire business case for the industry.

In fact, about only way the Petronases of the world can hope to see a profit from BC LNG is by picking your and my pockets. The only way this industry makes sense is with huge, unbilled environmental externalities and massive taxpayer subsidies.

Take it or leave it, says Mr. Abbas.

Leave it, then.

Suzuki: Canada seeing real change with energy, politics and First Nations

May 16, 2015Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Tahltan First Nations and supporters peacefully occupying a Fortune Minerals drill last year (Beyond Boarding) — Tahltan First Nations and supporters peacefully occupying a Fortune Minerals drill (Beyond Boarding)

Recent events in Canada have shown not only that change is possible, but that people won’t stand for having corporate interests put before their own.

When plummeting oil prices late last year threw Alberta into financial crisis, people rightly asked, “Where’s the money?” They could see that an oil producer like Norway was able to weather the price drop thanks to forward planning, higher costs to industry to exploit resources and an oil fund worth close to $1 trillion! Leading up to the election, the government that ran Alberta for 44 years refused to consider raising industry taxes or reviewing royalty rates, instead offering a budget with new taxes, fees and levies for citizens, along with service cuts.

Alberta does the unthinkable

The people of Alberta then did what was once thought impossible: they gave the NDP a strong majority. Almost half the NDP members elected were women, giving Alberta the highest percentage of women ever in a Canadian provincial or federal government.

PEI follows suit

On the other side of the country, voters in Prince Edward Island followed B.C. provincially and Canada federally and elected their first Green Party member, as well as Canada’s second openly gay premier. Remember, homosexuality was illegal in Canada until 1969!

Tahltan beat back coal mines

In my home province, after a long struggle by elders and families of the Tahltan Klabona Keepers, the B.C. government bought 61 coal licences from Fortune Minerals and Posco Canada in the Klappan and Sacred Headwaters, putting a halt to controversial development in an ecologically and culturally significant area that is home to the Tahltan people and forms the headwaters of the Skeena, Stikine and Nass rivers. The Tahltan and the province have agreed to work on a long-term management plan for the area.

Lax Kw’alaams turn down a billion dollars for LNG

On the same night as Alberta’s election, people of the Lax Kw’alaams band of the Tsimshian First Nation met to consider an offer by Malaysian state-owned energy company Petronas of $1 billion over 40 years to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, at the other end of the Skeena River, an estuary that provides crucial habitat for salmon and other life. The 181 people attending unanimously opposed the offer. Two nights later in Prince Rupert, band members also stood unanimously against the proposal.

[Editor’s note: A final vote in Vancouver scheduled after this column’s deadline also yielded a rejection of Petronas’ project]

The message is clear: integrity, the environment and human health are more important than money. Gerald Amos, a Haisla First Nation member and community relations director for the Headwaters Initiative, said the federal Prince Rupert Port Authority’s decision to locate the facility on Lelu Island also demonstrated a failure to properly consult with First Nations. “By the time they get around to consulting with us, the boat’s already built and they just want to know what colour to paint it,” he said.

Koch acknowledges climate change

On a broader scale, change is occurring around the serious threat of climate change. Even well-known deniers, including U.S. oil billionaire Charles Koch, now admit climate change is real and caused in part by CO2 emissions. But they argue it isn’t and won’t be dangerous, so we shouldn’t worry. Most people are smart enough to see through their constantly changing, anti-science, pro-fossil-fuel propaganda, though, and are demanding government and industry action.

Divestment movement gaining ground

We’re also seeing significant changes in the corporate sector. The movement to divest from fossil fuels is growing quickly, and businesses are increasingly integrating positive environmental performance into their operations. Funds that have divested from fossil fuels have outperformed those that haven’t, a trend expected to continue.

Don’t expect miracles from Alberta NDP

We can’t expect miracles from Alberta’s new government, which has its work cut out. After all, it would be difficult to govern Alberta from an anti-oil position, and the fossil fuel industry is known for working to get its way. Although NDP leader Rachel Notley has spoken against the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, she isn’t opposed to all pipeline and oilsands development, and she’s called for refinery construction in Alberta. But she’s promised to phase out coal-fired power, increase transit investment, implement energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies, and bring in stronger environmental standards, monitoring and enforcement.

I’ve often said things are impossible only until they aren’t anymore. The past few weeks show how people have the power to bring about change.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.