Category Archives: Energy and Resources

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.

LNG & Fracking: Risky Business for BC — Lights out for fracking operations? (Two Island Films)

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.

Rafe Mair: Civil disobedience against LNG plans is a must

June 11, 2015Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedRafe Mair

Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)

It’s time to fish or cut bait, folks.

We’ve learned that some 200 LNG tankers and barges are slated to use the lower Fraser River and the company, WesPac, doesn’t even feel the public deserves a say through a proper environmental assessment.

We’re told by the company that LNG tankers have a 50 year safety record so there is naught to worry about. You should know, however, that the company lies through its teeth by leaving out four rather important words “on the high seas“.

The Fraser River is not the “high seas”?

Bear in mind, as reported here in The Common Sense Canadian, the recommended distances between the tanker and shore, set out by Sandia Laboratories as well as the industry’s own organization, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), makes it clear that both the Fraser River and Howe Sound are totally inappropriate for LNG tankers.

Neither government gives a fiddler’s fart.

Batten down the hatches

My main point today is that we must be prepared to fight and I don’t think we are. Most of us are brought up to believe that being a reasonable is the way to go through life and that this approach will be beget reasonableness from others. I fear that many opposed to LNG tanker traffic think that by being reasonable with the companies and the governments that they will see the light and cancel their projects.

They are dead wrong.

You can call me a cynic if you wish but I assure you that my “hawkishness” comes from real and extended experience in these matters.

Neither the federal nor provincial governments have the slightest concern what the public feels about LNG tanker traffic. They know best. They don’t care who owns the companies, nor about Scandia Laboratories, SIGTTO or any scientific evidence that doesn’t suit their purposes.

Speaking from experience…

Permit me to go back a few years to the 1986 Kemano Completion Project (KCP), agreed upon by Alcan, the federal government and the provincial government.

In order for this agreement to be made, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ condemnation of the project had to be ignored and, indeed, the major report was buried until 10 years later, when it was leaked to me by one of the DFO scientists who badly wanted the truth to be known.

The Minister of Environment of the day made it abundantly clear that the decision was a political one. The agreement, involving billions, was made in spite of this buried DFO report saying it would be an environmental catastrophe. You should know that if the government tells you they’re relying on science, you can be damn sure they’re studiously ignoring anything that might contradict their political ambitions.

If that were all, it would be bad enough but several scientists in the DFO were punished for not going along, through transfers, early retirement, loss of seniority and so on. All of us involved in that fight against the KCP felt ill when the story how these very fine scientists were treated came to our attention.

From this cautionary tale those who oppose LNG in general and tanker traffic in particular should know that the government and the companies won’t pay the slightest bit of attention unless we are prepared to employ non-violent civil disobedience at the appropriate time.

What would Churchill do?

At the start of World War II, the RAF flew many sorties over the Ruhr district of Germany, wherein most of the industrial might of that country lay.

Did they drop bombs and try to disrupt the Nazi war effort?

Not a chance. That might provoke retaliation!

Instead, they dropped pamphlets imploring the Germans to surrender!

Needless to say this was before Churchill became Prime Minister.

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

Figuratively speaking, we who want to stop this LNG madness are dropping pamphlets over the Ruhr, unwilling to do anything that might anger the enemy. Little wonder the “enemy” doesn’t believe we’ll fight and that as long as they toss us a scrap or two along the way, we’ll remain docile and obedient.

Protest marches and the waving of signs have their place in fights like this. But, having said that, if we aren’t prepared in the final analysis to do what the good citizens of Burnaby did with Kinder Morgan, we might as well pack it in right now.

Being prepared for “civil disobedience” carries with it the responsibility of marshalling our forces and making it clear to companies and governments that we’ll employ this weapon without hesitation.

We’re brought up to respect and obey the law but what if the law is consistently stacked in favour of the “establishment”, as protest laws are?

The most cursory look at the history of liberty tells us that nothing was ever gained from the establishment of the day without it being forced from them against their will. Whether it be the Magna Carta, The Peasants’ Revolt, the Glorious Revolution, The Tolpuddle Martyrs, The American Revolution – you name it – it’s obvious that establishments never yield an inch of civil liberties and justice without it being taken from them.

Sham environmental assessments

Today, even the environmental assessment processes ostensibly to protect the public, are as phoney as wooden nickels and kowtow to industry while denying the most basic rights to the public.

The Christy Clark bunch are politically trapped into promises of great riches to the province from LNG, which won’t happen, leaving them flapping their lips and hoping that something turns up.

Worst of all, we have no one to speak for us – our politicians are worse than useless.

Not so sturdy for the public

A recent example comes from my MLA, Liberal Jordan Sturdy. His pockets full of campaign money raised by Woodfibre LNG, he was asked about having a crook like Sukanto Tanoto, owner of WFLNG, as our business partner. He replied that Mr. Tanoto’s international reputation should not matter in whether his B.C. project goes forward. It’s the business itself that needs proper regulation, he said.

[quote]The government tends not to get into the business of vetting ownership.[/quote]

That sums up the “due diligence” done by the Clark government on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia!

We who desperately want to protect our environment and keep our population safe have no one on our side and everyone against us. To me, those odds are perfect, provided we have the courage to defend ourselves and let the government know this.

It gets down to this: we either play their game and, as we were taught in Sunday School, be polite and turn the other cheek, or we let it be known that in the absence of protection from our governments, we will disobey the unfair laws that allow these outrages to be perpetrated against us.

There is, sadly but truthfully, no middle ground.

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.

LNG tankers in Fraser River? Brief chance to comment on sneaky project

June 4, 2015Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Existing courtesy Fortis BC LNG plant in Fraser River (courtesy of Eoghan Moriarty/RealHearings.org) — Fortis LNG compression station near Fraser River (beige tank) – courtesy of Eoghan Moriarty/RealHearings.org

The following is republished with permission from The ECOReport.

by Roy Hales

The National Energy Board has already granted an export license, to US based WesPac Midstream, for a facility that could bring up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges into the Fraser River every year. The public’s opportunity to make their concerns known ends June 11. There are only eight days to comment on Delta’s proposed LNG terminal (WesPack Tilbury Marine Jetty).

Thought it was a joke

Voters Taking Action On Climate Change (VTACC) sent out an alert after seeing a notice about the proposed LNG facility on the British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office’s (BC EAO) website.

The first notice MLA Andrew Weaver, of BC’s Green party, received was an email from the ECOreport, “I thought it was a joke, a spoof on LNG. It is remarkable that this is potentially going ahead. The Tilbury facility is there already to provide natural gas at peak times in the Lower Mainland, or there are little communities here or there that need natural gas.

He added:

[quote]But the proposal to have up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges a year is just truly remarkable. What has it come to that we are starting to see these massive fossil fuel projects being brought forward with days to have any input on? I’m an MLA in the province of British Columbia. I read a lot. I’m pretty much up on what is going on in the province and I have eight days notice )about the WesPack Tilbury project) because you emailed me about it![/quote]

The ECOreport also attempted to contact the provincial NDP critic for natural gas development, who was not available to comment.

CEAA “sent out a press release”

A spokesperson from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) said they sent out a news release on May 22. She said there will not be another opportunity for the public to comment unless the CEAA decides an environmental assessment is necessary.

Wespac Plan — Access Trestle And Loading Platform Design from WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Project Description CEAA Summary

In the CEAA project description, it says “WesPac is committed to ongoing consultation and engagement with Aboriginal groups that are interested in the Project.” Both the Musqueam and Tsawwassen have signed agreements and WesPac is in discussions with several other First Nations. They also provided a list of First Nations that have no yet responded to their queries:

Hwlitsum;
Lake Cowichan;
Lyackson;
Semiahmoo;
Squamish;
Seabird Island First Nation;
Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation;
Skawahlook;
Soowahlie First Nation;
Stó:lō Nation;
Stó:lō Tribal Council;
and Tsawout First Nation.

BC’s existing LNG facilities

BC has two existing LNG facilities, both owned by FortisBC. Tilbury LNG Facility, next to the proposed WesPack site, is 43 years old. Fortis began a $400 million expansion project last October. This adds 1.1 million gigajoules of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to storage and 34,000 gigajoules per day of liquefaction capacity. Another LNG facility opened near Ladysmith in 2011.

WesPac aims to start construction next year

Premier Christy Clark’s government appears to endorse this project. A notice on their website proclaims, “The WesPac LNG marine terminal will provide a means of loading LNG onto carrier ships for export.” BC’s Environmental Assessment Office has requested that it be allowed tosubstitute a provincial revue for the federal process.

WesPack expects to start construction of its’ terminal next year. It will take 15 months to build the WesPack Tilbury Marine Jetty and they expect it to be operational for at least 30 years.

Project Shipping Route from WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Project Description CEAA Summary

One of the proposed domestic customers is BC ferries, which has ordered three LNG fueled ferries that can accommodate 145 vehicles and 600 passengers.

Weaver said, “BC ferries has suggested is it will provide with the new ships to LNG power instead of diesel. It is cleaner, it is a domestic market for a domestic product. I’m totally for that, but you just need a small capacity for that. If Fortis and others would come to people and say, ‘look BC ferries wants to start using LNG. We need to provide a fueling station for it and this is how we propose to do it.’ You could build a social license from a project like that.””

Barges of up 4,000 m of LNG capacity will service coastal communities through-out the regional market.

Much larger LNG carriers, meant for foreign markets, have up to 90,000 m of capacity. They can tie up at the Marine Jetty for up to eight days, but will normally depart after 24 to 48 hours.

LNG terminal absurd

Kevin Washbrook, director with VTACC, thinks it is absurd to build an LNG terminal on the Fraser River.

“I think once enough people become aware the push-back will be so high, and the assessment so rigorous, that it will be easy to say this makes no sense. Just on the siting of the review process and the lack of a proper assessment of the location, I think there are reasons for everyone to be concerned about this project. Even LNG supporters accept that you have to be careful about where you put these things,” he said.

Weaver agrees:

[quote]Anybody who claims these days that a major infrastructure , or resource project, is a done deal need not look much further than some of the projects around British Columbia that have run into resistance. Not the least of which is the Enbridge (Northern Gateway) pipeline or the implications of the recent Tsilhqot’in decision with respect to resource projects on First Nations land.[/quote]

Business done respectfully

Weaver insists, “British Columbians are fed up with being treated disrespectfully, things being ramrodded down their throats in terms of a top down push to governance.”

This is not a lesson the Canadian or British Columbian governments appear to have learned.

“Is British Columbia open for business? Absolutely, but business done respectfully – not irresponsibly like we are seeing here, with little attempt to actually engage the public. I wonder how many people living along the Fraser River even know about this?” said Weaver.

Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute said, “It is disturbing that a project of this scale could potentially be approved without an environmental assessment. In addition to being a large industrial facility in the Lower Mainland, it would also necessitate an expansion of shale gas wells, roads and pipelines in northeast B.C. It should absolutely go through an environmental assessment process. And while environmental assessments in Canada have serious flaws, conducting one would at least ensure the WesPac proposal undergoes the same scrutiny as other LNG proposals around the province.”

“A loud public response in the next few days is needed to ensure this LNG proposal receives the careful assessments our region deserves,” said Washbrook. “Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq should commit to a federal panel review for this project, and she should reject BC’s request to substitute a provincial review. Given the BC government’s clear bias in favour of LNG exports, handing this over to the province would be like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.”

(Click on this link to access a form where you can ask federal Environment Min Aglukkaq to 1) conduct an assessment of this project and 2) reject BC’s request to substitute a provincial assessment instead.)

Top Photo Credit: The Fortis LNG compression station is located at the middle of the photo (beige storage tank). The LNG terminal would be located immediately downstream (to the right) and the vessels would load where the old wooden pilings are in the river – courtesy Eoghan Moriarty | RealHearings.org

Geologist: Minister inflating shale gas, LNG potential by 6 fold – threatening Canada’s energy security

May 29, 2015Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

The following rebuttal from geoscientist David Hughes to BC Minister of Natural Gas Rich Coleman is republished with permission from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The minister has been vocal about Mr. Hughes’ recent report on LNG, published by the CCPA.

After a lot of media coverage on my Clear Look at BC LNG report, Rich Coleman, Minister of Natural Gas, weighed in saying “the report ignored the studies of B.C.’s own scientists” and “they don’t do their research”. In fact, if Mr. Coleman had bothered to read my report, he would have noted that my numbers are cited from BC Oil and Gas Commission reports – the scientists Mr. Coleman employs.

The BC Government states that “British Columbia’s natural gas supply is estimated at over 2,933 trillion cubic feet” and “British Columbia has more than an estimated 2,900 trillion cubic feet of marketable shale gas reserves”. These statements strongly imply that this is recoverable gas and therefore is part of future supply and is marketable. In contrast, here are the actual numbers from the BC Oil and Gas Commission (Table 4 from page 6 of the BC Oil and Gas Commission report that the BC Government claimed doubled BC gas reserves).

Instead of 2,933 tcf, the table lists an ultimate marketable potential resource for BC of just 400 tcf, of which 25 tcf has already been recovered leaving 376 tcf remaining. In my report I added an additional 42 tcf from other potential sources to make sure I was being generous, of which 416 tcf is remaining.

The BC Government’s claim of 2,933 tcf of “marketable shale gas reserves” is therefore preposterous in the light of information from its own scientists. It appears the BC Government has conflated “in-place” resources with “marketable” resources. “In-place” resource estimates are not recoverable – typically no more than 10-20% of the in-place resource is recoverable from shale gas plays. The National Energy Board and BC Oil and Gas Commission scientists have made a best guess at what might be recoverable and suggest it is 376 tcf, or one-eighth of the amount touted by the BC Government. I have been generous in suggesting the BC Government’s number is only overstated by a factor of six.

The BC Government has also been conflating “resources” with “reserves”. Proven reserves have a specific meaning in that they have been proven to exist with the drill bit and are recoverable with existing technology under foreseeable economic conditions. Reserves are numbers you can take to the bank. According to the BC Oil and Gas Commission, proven raw gas reserves in BC were just 42.3 tcf at yearend 2013, a mere 1/70th of what the BC Government is touting as “marketable shale gas reserves”.

If the BC Government knows the difference between “in-place resources” and “marketable shale gas reserves”, its touting of 2,933 tcf of BC gas is deliberate deception. If it does not it is extremely shocking given that Mr. Coleman and his government are the stewards of BC’s remaining finite, non-renewable, heritage of natural gas.

The BC LNG Alliance, an industry lobby group for seven LNG proponents, simply parroted BC Government statements. Its President, David Keane, “said 2,933 trillion cubic feet is a figure that the commission and energy board geologists “do believe we have.”’ Keane further accused me of “cherry picking some of the facts”. If Keane had read my report he would have seen it is based on National Energy Board projections, not mine, so if anyone is to be accused of cherry-picking it is the NEB.

The BC Government and the BC LNG Alliance have no credibility on the gas supply numbers they state for the reasons listed above. But my report was about much more than that. We are dealing with a finite non-renewable resource for which there are no substitutes at the scale we use it. It will be needed domestically in the long term and extraction necessitates environmental impacts. It demands a longer term plan for the sake of the environment and future generations.

How Alberta NDP can get r done with green energy…seriously

May 28, 2015Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

Alberta Prermier Rachel Notley (Alberta NDP/facebook)

In her speech on election night, Rachel Notley spoke of her ambition to diversify the economy of Alberta – including the energy sector – and partner with the energy industry and federal government for a national strategy on the environment.

Is all this possible? The answer is a resounding yes!

Alberta could actually reduce emissions

First, the theoretical wind power production potential of Alberta is equivalent to all the electrical production needs of every province West of Québec.

Second, the potential for wind power to reduce Alberta’s emissions is especially significant in that fossil fuels represent the lion’s share of energy sources consumed for electricity production in the province.

Coal represents 6,258 megawatts (MW), 42% of the electrical power generation sources in the province – and 40% of total electricity use if one takes into account 1,200 MW of imported electricity – out of a total of 15,798 MW produced to meet Alberta’s needs.

Natural gas accounts for 5,812 MW or 40% of the electricity produced in the province and 37% of the total provincial consumption of electricity.

US coal consumption waning

In the larger context of global trends, while global wind energy capacity is growing at 20%/year and solar energy at 50%/year over the past 10 to 15 years, US coal consumption has declined 21% between 2007 and 2014. In the last 5 years more than one third of the US coal-fired generating plants have either closed down or have been the object of announcements of closures to come. This trend will accelerate for the purposes of complying with US Environmental Protection Agency requirements to reduce CO2 emissions from the electrical power plant sector by 30% by 2030 over 2005 levels.

China leads the way

China's emissions drop, global cleantech boom are grounds for optimism on climate change — Chinese solar company Suntech at the Bird’s Nest stadium

And then there is the astounding example of the world’s largest energy and coal consumer, China, which uses more coal than the rest of the world combined. China, which is now by far the world’s largest investor in clean energy technologies – with 1.58 million jobs in its solar energy sector and 356,000 working in its wind sector – saw it’s coal consumption decline in 2014!

Surely, if the world’s largest consumers of coal are reducing their use of this energy source, it may be time for Alberta to get in-step with the world leaders and acquire a more positive international energy profile.

Working with the oil and gas industry

To make the shift to clean electricity happen, the petroleum sector could play an important role.

Specifically, in the event that the new Notley government and energy sector engage in a joint review of fiscal and policy options, a strategy could be developed to facilitate energy diversification among the fossil fuel sectors to become bigger players in the clean energy fields. Indeed, there are already models for doing so.

The new CEO of Norway’s Statoil, Eldar Sætre, a man with a Statoil renewables background, recently announced that the company will be putting a new emphasis on renewables and low carbon activities. To this end, Statoil has set up a new division, New Energy Solutions. To quote the new CEO, “We will strengthen our efforts in the transition to a low carbon society,” making this new thrust one of the three pillars of the company’s strategy.

Also worth noting, Dong Energy, which is 60% owned by the Danish Pension Fund and is the world’s largest investor in offshore wind farms, has a target to shift from 85% fossil investments and 15% in renewable energy, to reversing this ratio by 2040.

Growing green jobs

Equally important, Notley can go beyond home grown clean energy production to include job creation and economic diversification in the province’s energy manufacturing sector.

This could be achieved with the right policy environment for clean energy projects – such as local manufacturing content stipulations in exchange for wind farm contracts and/or financing, as per the Québec and Brazilian models – and possibly including additional incentives for some oil technology firms to become part of a local clean tech supply chain. In short, there may be opportunities for Alberta to manufacture and export clean technologies, as well as produce clean energy for local use.

Brazil becomes green power player

This is not that far outside of the box. A case in point is that of Brazil’s WEG, a new entry into the wind turbine manufacturing sector, thanks to Brazil’s incrementally increasing local content rules for wind power projects, which will reach 60% by January 2016.

These Brazilian domestic content requirements – applied under an auction process that is managed and favourably financed to about 60% to 65% of projects’ value by the country’s business development bank – have given rise to WEG diversifying into the business of developing its own wind turbines. Now, what makes this interesting is WEG is a Brazilian home-grown domestic technology supplier that has traditionally served the oil, gas, industrial and power sectors.

WEG has already started making a first turbine prototype and plans to launch its 3.3 MW model in 2017. Working with local suppliers and testing their components, WEG expects to achieve 80% local content and include technologies specifically designed for Brazil’s tropical and sub-tropical temperatures. WEG relies on its local R & D capacity to turn out designs more in-tune with local environments. The company also plans to export its technologies to Latin America and Africa.

Applying the WEG model to Alberta, suppliers there would design components suited to a colder climate and export their products to northern regions.

A “win-wind” model for Alberta

All of the aforementioned considerations could be among the starting points for Alberta participation in a national strategy on the environment, and a provincial policy on economic and energy diversification, as per Notley’s goals. In the words of the late Jack Layton, “Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done!”