Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Nearly 100% of US car sales could be electric in 15 yrs – the challenge is powering them with clean electricity

August 22, 2014Energy and Resources, Renewables, Urban & TransportfeaturedWill Dubitsky

Powering clean transportation with clean energy — An electric smart car in Amsterdam – from the popular car sharing service, Car2go (Wikimedia Commons)

There are those who suggest that a migration to a green economy is too expensive, that we must convert to natural gas as a transition fuel, that the subsidies for clean technologies are driving up the cost of energy, that we need to sell more fossil fuels to finance the transition to clean technologies. What all these views have in common is “denial”. Indeed, these arguments may be referred to as today’s version of the case for The Flat Earth Society.

Clean energy investments offer better long-term economics

For starters, investments in fossil fuels no longer make any long-term sense. The oil companies know the writing is on the wall in light of: 1) the need to shift more emphasis to non-conventional fuels that are more expensive to exploit and refine – such as Canada’s tar sands and offshore oil; and 2) market prices that do not reflect the increases in fossil fuel project costs. On the latter point, market prices are based on speculation more than anything else.

Taken together, the rising cost of fossil fuels, the declining cost of clean technologies and energy storage, the long-term financing associated with major energy projects – typically a 20 to 25 year cycle – plus the introduction of government measures to reduce fossil fuel-related emissions around the globe, indicate that, already, long-term clean energy investments are now cheaper than fossil fuels.

Add to this the fact that fossil fuel sectors represent the most subsidized in the world, to the tune of $1.9 Trillion/year in 2011 dollars, or roughly $110/tonne. If we were to eliminate these fossil fuel subsidies, not only would clean energy be cheaper in the long run, but it would be immediately competitive without any subsidies.

While some will argue that shale gas discoveries have injected new life into the longevity of the fossil fuel sectors, the evidence is accumulating that US shale gas is tied to boom and bust cycles because only the initial extractions of the sweet spot gas are economically sound investments. To this effect, US shale gas stakeholders have already begun writing off billions in investments in the US.

One might also say that the case for a shift away from fossil fuels has been internalized in China and the green shift is gaining momentum in the EU and the US – but not in Canada. Pity!

Going green is uphill battle, but not insurmountable

For the migration to a green economy, the transportation sector may appear to be the most difficult challenge. This is so because this sector is currently nearly 100% dependent on fossil fuels and there are no obvious, immediate, large-scale, practical alternatives for making the switch to clean transportation. But these barriers are more psychological than technological.

Those jurisdictions with the courage to make the right political decisions today can change the paradigm, and some have already begun to do so.

The role of electrical utilities

Crown utility BC Hydro has been saddled with massive debt associated with overpriced private power contracts — Public utilities like BC Hydro can help power electric cars

Electric utilities for the most part have not paid much attention to the new market possibilities associated with the electrification of transport. This is so, despite the advancements in batteries, bi-directional, fast-charging stations that can be networked to use parked electric vehicles as energy storage facilities – plus the arrival of both plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

Perhaps the best explanation for why utilities haven’t paid attention is their internal cultural mindset. One would think that electric utilities would be actively investigating new types of markets because the combination energy efficiency, the prevailing economic slow-down, and the emerging trend entailing individuals, corporations and communities getting into the act of producing their own clean energy, all suggest growth in traditional markets may be low or stagnant in the coming years. In effect, without efforts to pursue the possibilities in the transportation sector, these utilities may find themselves faced with higher costs, without the additional revenues to cover them.

UN: Electric vehicles could approach 100% of US sales by 2015

Accordingly, utility investments in clean transportation are logical next steps given: the 1) size of the transportation sector; 2) government initiatives around the globe to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; and 3) the current near total reliance on fossil fuels for transportation. With the latter two considerations in mind, a UN report indicated that electric vehicles could make up close to 100% of US new vehicle sales within the next 15 years.

Utility incentives for electric vehicles could range from discounts for charging stations, vehicle purchase discounts or loan payment arrangements with dealers/manufacturers, and off-peak rates for charging vehicles at night.

In Canada, where many utilities are public, the above incentives could be part of overall provincial government incentive packages to foster a migration towards electric vehicles.

Local and regional infrastructure

As implied by the preceding information, one of the keys to making the shift to electric transportation is that of infrastructure – in particular, large-scale, clean energy smart grids and micro-grids.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, semi-autonomous micro-grids, supplied by local, intermittent clean energy sources (e.g: solar and wind) – backed up by storage systems and linkages to regional utilities – are no more complex a system than our current electrical infrastructure.

US and California’s leadership

In February 2014, the US federal Department of Energy announced $7 million for advancing the design of community-scale micro-grids, with capacities going up to 10 MW. In addition, the DOE is offering$6.5 million in matching grants for the development of integration technologies to accommodate multiple, intermittent renewable energy sources and energy storage in a grid.

[signoff3]

Even bolder than the US federal government, the state of California has adopted the Self-Generation Incentive Program that will provide $415 million over 5 years to install micro-grid components on the customer side of the grid, including wind turbines, waste-heat-to-power technologies and advanced energy storage systems. This program will help meet California’s energy storage mandate, which, among other things, requires that investor-owned utilities add 1.3 GW of energy storage to their respective grids by 2020.

Electric vehicles as extensions micro-grids and energy storage

With the support of electric vehicle bi-directional charging stations, during energy surplus periods, regionally networked, parked electric vehicles that are plugged in would serve as energy storage facilities via their respective batteries. Parked electric vehicles would become extensions of the energy storage network, to be called upon during periods of high electricity demand.

At the micro-level, the combination of 1) a parked electric vehicle in an employer/industrial park parking lot or at one’s home, and 2) a clean energy micro-gird, supplied by local solar rooftop and/or wind power sources, supplemented by the regional utility, would offer several attractive features. These inclue: 1) building-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-building opportunities off the regional grid and 2) possibilities to supply/sell surplus energy to the regional grid, as appropriate. Also, in times of blackouts, the parked vehicles would be sources of stored energy to bridge the loss of power period until the regional source is restored.

Utilities, hydrogen and energy storage

Other types of utility partnerships for storage solutions could include the Canadian hydrogen sector. This involves the electrolysis of water, using clean energy generated from hydro, wind and solar sources, to produce and compress hydrogen – or leave it in a liquid form as long as necessary for later use in fuel cells.

Conversely, the governments and utilities can adopt a wait-and-see attitude regarding competition in the transportation sector from fuel cells and bio-fuels.

Hydrogen vehicles

Germany has already started down the hydrogen vehicle path with a mass program to set up hydrogen fueling stations across the country.

Under the €350 million “H2 Mobility” Initiative – a partnership involving Air Liquide, Daimler, Linde, OMV, Shell and Total – by 2015, Germany will have 50 hydrogen fueling stations around the country, 100 by 2017 and 400 stations by 2023.

This will mean that, in Germany’s metropolitan centres, drivers of fuel cell vehicles will have at least 10 hydrogen refueling stations available, starting in 2023. Integrated into this plan, there will be one hydrogen station for every 90 kilometers of highway between densely populated areas.

At the EU level, the ‘Fuel Cell sand Hydrogen (FCH) Joint Technology Initiative’ (JTI), a partnership between the European Commission and EU industry will invest $1.8B on the development of market-ready fuel cell and hydrogen technologies over the next 10 years.

Rafe: Heavy oil advertising, editorials taint Canadian mag The Walrus

August 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Media, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe: Heavy oil advertising, editorials taint Canadian mag The Walrus — Enbridge is a major Walrus sponsor (Photo: Damien Gillis)

I am afraid I really am a gloomy Gus today. It has just struck me that there is an absence of good guys in the world. Whether it’s big business or government they mostly do it to us and reek of self interest.

We don’t seem to have anybody we can trust anymore. There was a time when, while you couldn’t trust the newspapers, you would be able to find within the paper columnists that weren’t bought and paid for. They consistently gave you points of view that challenged you and made you think. Thank God for online papers like this one and thetyee.ca and for all of the renegades who put so much time and effort into blogging.

Whether on-line papers and bloggers have yet achieved the kind of circulation that will really move public opinion I don’t know but they are a ray of light in an otherwise bleak picture.

And then there were three

My printed purchases now are down to three.

I subscribe to the Atlantic because it does have excellent articles and entertains and make me think too. I am looking forward to the forthcoming issue where Hillary Clinton apparently criticizes the foreign policy of President Obama and has spent every waking moment since trying to explain to the president that she really didn’t mean it.

I also subscribe to the Guardian Weekly because it provides excellent columnists and great, what British refer to as leader writers.

A couple of years ago I was turned onto a Canadian publication called the Walrus. This magazine is unique in that it refuses to accept my cancellation.

Enbridge features heavily in Walrus

Normally when I read it, I just get angry at how Toronto-centric it is. It is a view of the rest of Canada from a Toronto point of view, tailored to Toronto prejudices. This last particular issue was a huge departure because it had an article on Andrew Weaver, the BC Green party MLA. It was only a page long but there was something real and truly British Columbian. It was not terribly interesting and if you lived in British Columbia not a very new story but it was about the West Coast and that, for the Walrus, is unique.

What I had hoped to get from the Walrus was controversy. I was led to believe that there would be articles on the environment and critical of things like the Tar Sands and so on. Well, the latest issue that I have, September 2014, is anything but.

The first two pages are a huge double page ad by Enbridge. Enbridge appears again with another full-page ad and also as a sponsor of various things in which the Walrus is also involved in such as lecture series (in Toronto, of course.) There is also an insert on aboriginal art, sponsored by, guess who?

I suppose you take your advertisers where you can find them and I’m sure the Enbridge people have nothing whatever to do with the content of Walrus. Well, I wonder.

Waxing poetic about the Tar Sands

One of the feature articles this month, lo and behold, is called “If We Build It, They Will Stay” by a man named John van Nostrand. Van Nostrand’s claim to expertise is that “he is an architect, an urban planner, and the founding principal of the Planning alliance in Toronto”. (Really, I’m not making this up!)

This article looks at the whole north of Canada as one belt of resources to be exploited. British Columbia is noteworthy for a large entry at Kitimat called liquefied natural gas. Next door to it in Alberta is oil, gas, and bitumen.

When you read the article, the section on the Tar Sands is almost religious in its zeal. It could have been written by the PR department of, say, Enbridge. Needless to say there is not a critical word about any of the environmental concerns many of us have about LNG and the Tar Sands.

Now, could this have anything to do with the fact that Enbridge is such a big advertiser?

Surely only a cynic would think that. Then, of course, sensing a touch of cynicism in the back of my mind, I went back over the ads in the Walrus. They have very few traditional ads. There was one from Subaru and the only other typical national ads I could find was were RBC and Rolex. Everything else are little ads inviting me, for example, to go to dinner at the Royal York Hotel or see Madame Butterfly at the Four Seasons Centre for the performing arts in Toronto.

Walrus’ charitable nature

Not wishing to be unfair, I thought I should take a look on the masthead and see if there were any mission statements and things of that sort. I thought it might also tell me a bit about who these cats are running this magazine.

Well, there was a surprise in store for me. It says the Walrus Magazine is a project of the charitable, nonprofit Walrus Foundation.

Now one’s first reaction would be, well charitable organizations have got to take their money wherever they can find it. Except that’s not usually how it works.

A magazine put out by charity is usually very careful not to get involved in controversy. It may write articles that are thought provoking in nature but they are in very careful not to take money from people who have a large axe to grind. One of the reasons for that, of course, is that they don’t want pressure put on them to make certain that their articles don’t offend the ” money” folks. Let me assure you there’s no danger of that happening here!

Now, I am going to admit this is not the world’s biggest deal. I frankly don’t give a rats ass what the Walrus publishes, whose backside it kisses or who it’s target audience is. It can, for all I care, get its money directly from the Mafia.

What I find so disappointing is that here is an opportunIty for a Canadian publication to make an honest effort to expose to Canadians, Canadian issues.

A blow job for the industry, financed by the industry

“If We Build It, They Will Stay” was a glorious opportunity to lay before for the Canadian people the whole issue of northern development particularly with regard to resources. The article stretches from the the Yukon to Newfoundland and Labrador and should open up a lot of controversy, provoking a lot of intelligent conversation. It is, rather, to put it somewhat indelicately, a blow job for the resource industry in a magazine that is obviously financed by the resource industry.

What is really worrying, is that there maybe some Canadian out there that doesn’t recognize this. Of course, Enbridge is banking on this.

As I said when I started, I’m grumpy today and that’s largely because there are so few places to go where you can get information that will lead you to further information and then on to a healthy public debate.

If the Walrus does nothing else, it adds fuel to the argument that the electronic and print press in this country is captive to “big money” and in the case of the Walrus, is not even very subtle about it.

[signoff3]

MP wrong to attack West Van council over Woodfibre LNG vote

August 10, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Conservative MP John Weston took issue with Rafe Mair's recent column criticizing the Harper Governmen't environmental "process." — Conservative MP John Weston

By Laura Anderson

On August 6, 2014, John Weston took space in The Local to append his name to an op-ed criticizing West Vancouver council’s motion against an LNG plant and tanker traffic in Howe Sound.

He “disagree[s] with the motion, the way it has been passed and its timing.”

[quote]I admire the Mayor and Council of West Vancouver and work with them regularly…In fact, I have never previously written publicly to challenge one of their decisions or actions. Elected officials have a duty to wait until they know what the concerns are, how significant they may be, and what can be done to mitigate them. At this time, we have not heard of the Council investigating the matter thoroughly or interviewing the proponent, Woodfibre LNG in Squamish.[/quote]

I disagree with Mr. Weston’s statements and do not consider they were appropriate for a member of parliament. As a private citizen, possibly, but not as a representative of the federal government and certainly not in public communication.

Mr. Weston took it upon himself to chastise council for passing the motion in question without a thorough investigation of the project and the entity he’s calling ‘the proponent’.

The proponent is Woodfibre LNG, owned by Pacific Gas and Oil, owned by Royal Golden Eagle International, owned by an Indonesian gentleman named Sukanto Tanoto. You can look up Mr. Tanoto, and his business interests and his environmental track record.

According to The Globe and Mail on March 26, 2014, there are 14 LNG project proposals in contention in BC. Each of them will require pipelines, terminals and tankers. Each will produce significant negative impacts on communities and the environment.

The federal government – the Conservative government – is in this as deeply as the provincial government.

Mr. Weston accused West Vancouver Council of NISEB or Not in Someone Else’s Backyard, an acronym evidently a step beyond NIMBYism.

It appears Mr. Weston’s intention is to remind West Vancouver that the LNG dream will bring enormous social and economic rewards to the province. I presume this message is intended for all those coastal communities that will be impacted by the presence of LNG tankers.

The MP for West Vancouver, etc., used the balance of the editorial space he was given to educate readers about those economic and social benefits.

Mr. Weston tells us that LNG will bring “(jobs, economic growth)…the ability to pay for our teachers, our medical services or welfare and the other good things we love in British Columbia.” He suggests that LNG is preferable to coal.

I think every British Columbian would agree with Mr. Weston about the benefits a robust economy can provide. However, all economic factors and consequences, not only the financial, need to be calculated and evaluated when decisions are made about how our economy is managed.

[signoff3]

Woodfibre LNG wants to ship gas brought by pipeline, then converted to LNG, aboard 40 tankers a year from its terminal. Imagine all 14 LNG projects at work. How many tankers, how many terminals, how many pipelines will they require?

Look at Enbridge’s abysmal pipeline spills and leaks history. Look at Mount Polley just the other day. Do we want to bear the responsibility, and the legacy, of transforming BC into the wasteland that is the Alberta tar sands?

LNG would be produced by fracking. The negative consequences of the brutal extraction process of fracking are too numerous to mention here. Okay, maybe just one: the amount of water required – a lot of water. And one more: despite our premier’s promise, the enormous financial benefits from LNG fracking are numbers that don’t add up, according to a wide variety of experts. These are not assumptions, Mr. Weston, they are science.

I believe factors like ownership and profit, as well as job creation and economic benefits, must be part of the equation. I believe we must make every effort to support, subsidize and focus on alternate energy production and delivery. Our current provincial and federal governments, by their actions, do not agree. Instead, they support an economic and political model that no longer works.

Maybe West Vancouver’s mayor and council skipped what might be a necessary step in the municipal process. I believe that’s arguable.

It certainly provided Mr. Weston with a golden opportunity to present his position on LNG, the fracking process and tankers in “our jewel, the Howe Sound”. I presume, since Mr. Weston is member of the Conservative party as well as a member of parliament, that he is stating the federal position as well.

Two days after Weston’s op-ed, Mayor Smith responded on the front-page of the North Shore News. The mayor said the motion would be revisited, presumably once council has reviewed a report from staff. That report, which presumably will include environmental, economic and political factors, (factors that experts spend years analyzing) will be available to council in time for the motion to be revisited either on September 8 or 15.

To conclude, I believe Mr. Weston’s statement was an inappropriate display of political positioning, cloaked in a message schooling West Vancouver council on matters of procedure.

I support Mayor Smith’s decision to revisit the motion, although I do not believe this is necessary.

I do not understand Councillor Trish Panz’s comment that “the jurisdiction in Squamish is not ours to comment on.” Surely, if the motion was about LNG and tankers in Howe Sound, Ms. Panz would agree that what happens in our waterways affects everyone living in the vicinity – and beyond, I would venture to say. Everyone in BC is affected by decisions about pipelines, terminals, coastal tanker traffic, LNG extraction (aka fracking).

I concur with Councilor Michael Lewis that council’s decision was based on legitimate concerns and strong community sentiments. I can only add my hope to his, that West Vancouver council’s vote against this motion will again be unanimous.

Laura Anderson
West Vancouver, BC

SFU Prof Mark Jaccard: BC LNG a race to the bottom

August 7, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

BC Premier Christy Clark addresses a conference on LNG (Damien Gillis)

This is a guest post by Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and a convening lead author in the Global Energy Assessment – republished with permission from desmog.ca

During B.C.’s 2013 election campaign, at a conference of energy economists in Washington, D.C., I spoke about how one of our politicians was promising huge benefits during the next decades from B.C. liquefied natural gas exports to eastern Asia. These benefits included lower income taxes, zero provincial debt, and a wealth fund for future generations. My remarks, however, drew laughter. Later, several people complimented my humour.

Why this reaction? The painful reality is that my economist colleagues smirk when people (especially politicians) assume extreme market imbalances will endure, whereas real-world evidence consistently proves they won’t. For B.C. Premier Christy Clark to make promises based on a continuation of today’s extreme difference between American and eastern Asian gas prices was, to be kind, laughable.

Shale gas its own worst enemy

For many years, natural gas prices differed little from one region to another. But the shale-gas revolution in the U.S. in the past decade created a glut, causing rock-bottom prices in North America. Meanwhile, prices in eastern Asia were pegged to the price of oil, which has risen. These two trends led to a price divergence starting in 2008. By 2012, Japanese gas prices were more than four times higher than North America’s.

The Asian equation

If that difference was to hold for several decades, producers could earn sufficient revenues from Asian sales to cover shale gas extraction, pipeline transport, cooling to liquid in LNG plants, shipment across the Pacific, healthy profits, and billions in royalties and corporate taxes. That’s an attractive image in an election. But it can quickly become a mirage as gas markets behave like markets.

In competitive markets, a price imbalance triggers multiple profit-seeking actions, which work to eliminate the difference — usually sooner than expected — by those hoping to benefit from it. In this case, there are many potential competitors for the gas demands of China, Japan and their neighbours. China can invite foreign companies to help develop its massive shale gas resources. It can buy from Russia, which has enormous gas resources. It can also buy from other central Asian countries, such as Kazakhstan. It can also encourage a bidding war between prospective LNG suppliers from many parts of the world, some of which will have lower production costs than B.C.

[signoff3]

The result will push down the price in eastern Asia. As was easily predicted by my smirking colleagues, it’s already happening. Unofficial reports put the price of a recent gas contract between China and Russia at $10.50 per million British Thermal Units, far below the peak Asian price, and close to (if not below) the cost of sending B.C. gas to China. At this price, there will be no government royalties, no lower income taxes, no debt retirement, no wealth fund. Maybe no LNG plants.

BC plants would cut corners

If any LNG plants are built in B.C., they will likely be constructed and operated as cheaply as possible, which will put the lie to another promise of Clark’s. In a province with legislated targets for reducing carbon pollution, she promised B.C. would have “the cleanest LNGproduced anywhere in the world from well-head to waterline.”

As it turns out, this promise is easy to verify. Experts know the cleanest LNG in the world is the Snohvit project in Norway, which emits 0.35 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG. The under-construction Gorgon facility in Australia will match it.

But, public documents indicate British Columbia’s proposed LNG industry will be three times worse, producing one tonne of CO2 per tonne of LNG. Were three such facilities built as proposed, they would bring oilsands-scale carbon pollution to B.C., doubling our current emissions and making it impossible to meet our legislated targets.

We could build the cleanest LNG systems in the world. This would require reducing methane leaks from processes and pipelines, capturing and storing carbon pollution, and using renewable energy to produce electricity for processing and cooling natural gas, as Clean Energy Canada has recently showed.

But this is unlikely, especially as those Asian gas prices fall. So brace yourself for another barrage of Orwellian doublespeak from government and industry, in which cleanest means dirty, great public wealth means modest private profits, and revised climate targets mean missed climate targets. No doubt my economist colleagues will be amused. But should they?

Follow Professor Mark Jaccard on Twitter @MarkJaccard

To the ends of the Arctic: The new frontier of extreme energy

August 6, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&GasfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

By David Lavallee

Documentary filmmaker David Lavallee recently journeyed to Canada’s Arctic for his forthcoming film, To the Ends of the Earth, which drills deep into the modern age of extreme energy. Plans to open the arctic to seismic testing are a source of growing controversy.

“Nanook”, our guide Bryan Simonee says while scanning the ice floe edge. Nanook, nanook. I’ve heard that word before – my brain struggles with recall of its meaning. I know about five words in Inuktituk and this is the 6th. Nanook…nanook of the north? Doesn’t it mean polar bear?

Indeed it does, and this particular one is at about 50 metres and closing, drawn to our camp by the smell of boiled seal soup. A large male. “Uh, is your rifle nearby?” I ask nervously. Simonee’s rifle is already in his capable hands, and he seems mildly annoyed at this curious 1200 pound animal, a highly skilled and highly adapted predator. He walks towards it and growls something in Inuktituk. It pauses, then begins marching sideways instead.

Not satisfied with its slow retreat, Simonee aims his vintage Lee Enfield above its head and fires a warning shot. It stops, looks at us with mild concern and then saunters off with a look that says, “ok FINE then, have it your way.” I breathe a sigh of relief and Bryan says to me:

[quote]Yes, you see, the danger is real.

[/quote]

Extreme energy coming to Canadian Arctic?

The danger to the Arctic is indeed real, and that is why I’m here. I’m on location shooting my upcoming feature documentary, “To the Ends of the Earth”. This film focuses on our geographical and geological ends of the earth exploration for the last remaining reserves of oil and gas and the economic/environmental consequences of this new energy age. My goal with this film is to begin a conversation I believe we sorely need: what it means to live in an age in which we witness the rise of extreme energy.

Extreme energy is in its infancy in the Arctic, but there is no question that without sustained opposition and visionary thinking to create alternatives, world oil demand will force a final offensive into the most pristine and brutal environment known to humankind – those nether regions of the cryosphere (i.e. ice covered) areas north of the Arctic Circle.

No country for vegetarians

The impending gold rush starts with seismic testing, and that is what has the residents of Clyde River and Pond Inlet concerned. The subsistence hunting culture on Baffin Island dates back 4,000 years, and the advent of modern technologies, such as snowmobiles and high powered rifles, has facilitated that culture, not changed it.

Hunting is more than sport here, it is a way of life and food source for many in an area where a bag of grapes or red peppers could cost up to $20. Vegetarianism is not a realistic option up here, a place where the nearest tree is about 2,000 km away and vegetable gardens have perhaps a one-month out of twelve chance of producing anything, with constant risk of freezing. Tomatoes here? Good luck. “Vegetarian is an-other word for ‘bad hunter’,” said one of there folks we encountered. Free range organic meat is on the menu for sure though – we all enjoy a natvik Bryan shoots and butchers right there on the ice. Now I know what seal tastes like – the texture of beef but the taste of sushi.

[signoff3]

It is this subsistence hunting culture that is clashing today with big oil interests who would drill in the Arctic. In the National Energy Board hearings it became clear there would be opposition from locals due to the impacts of seismic on the food chain, or what they would call “country food”.

It all starts with seismic

The so-called regulator held hearings into seismic applications by various companies, who would do the seismic work then sell the data to oil companies. But locals are concerned about the process of consultation and the lack of information from the proponent about seismic and the potential for massive oil spills in such a fragile ecosystem. Indeed they should be – British Columbians and Canadians who watched for several years the NEB process regarding the Northern Gateway saw intense opposition. They poured their hearts out in presentation after presentation with some 96% opposed, only to watch the Harper government approve the pipeline anyways. Perhaps the people of Pond Inlet and Clyde River already know what we southerners have come to learn: that NEB processes to ‘regulate’ oil companies are like kindergarten – everyone passes.

In an interview in Clyde Rive, Jerry Natanine told us:

[quote]Seismic testing is the chief concern at the moment. The impacts will go all the way up and down the food chain.[/quote]

Indeed, there is evidence to support this. An article published in Elsevier, a science journal, questions the impact of seismic testing on narwhals in particular. Narwhal are a food source for the Inuit and are an animal highly dependent on its echolocation capabilities to find its way to the breathing holes in the ice it needs to avoid drowning. The underwater world, especially in winter, is a chaotic, dark and jumbled mess of ice blocks – if ever there was an animal that depended on its sense of hearing it is the narwhal.

As an example, Jerry tells us about a narwhal entrapment north of Pond Inlet in 2008. Locals had rushed to the aid of the beleaguered creatures, all 500 of which were using the same breathing hole to avoid drowning. As they pulled the dead creatures out and attempted to punch new holes in the ice for them they noticed a curious thing:

[quote]They had just migrated from Greenland, where they had actively been doing seismic testing- we think that’s why there was that blood in their ears.[/quote]

Shell’s early foray into Arctic proves a comedy of errors

After seismic testing is complete, gold rush fever sets in. Oil Speculators and their petroleum geologists pour over the data and buy parcels to establish their claims to black gold, under the ice, at the ends of the earth. With the short season, 3 months at best, it can take up to two years to drill an exploratory well only.

The Shell drilling rig that ran aground, The Kulluk (Greenpeace photo)

A number of years and a few billion dollars ago, Shell International launched a program to drill in the Arctic, in the Chuckchi Sea off Alaska. Numerous incidents plagued its operations- a fire on one of their ships, an emergency evacuation as several millions tonnes of ice came rushing at an exploratory well which had to pull up stakes, another ship that slipped anchor in Dutch Harbour, AK, and the piece de resistance, the crashing of the Shell Kulluk on the rocks of Kodiak Island, AK, on New Year’s eve 2012.

Since the 2010 Gulf Of Mexico incident, the US Regulator has demanded of those who would drill in the Arctic certain safety precautions such as an Arctic Containment System (ACS) that could theoretically mop up spills in between icebergs. We interviewed Tod Guiton, a local resident of Bellingham (with an apartment overlooking the port) who had been watching Shell fail at this as well – one of the early tests of their containment dome ended up with it being “crushed like a beer can”.

What about growth?

A key focus of society is the environmentally pristine nature of the Arctic and the need to preserve it as such. Indeed this is of critical importance, but is this the only cause for concern? Our interview with Richard Heinberg, author of the book The End of Growth, gave me something else to think about:

[quote]Capital is fleeing big oil right now – it is getting increasingly difficult to fund large scale projects because as we venture into unknown territory (i.e. the Arctic) the chances of success are diminishing. And since there is only so much capital to go around, to spend our last dollars on these foolhardy projects seems like the road to collapse.[/quote]

Whatever dollars go to oil to fund their operations, are societal resources not available to us for transition-ing to clean energy.

Promise of jobs lures some Inuit

Not all the locals of Pond Inlet are convinced that seismic exploration is bad, however. The day after the polar bear incident Simonee and I are discussing the future of Canada’s Arctic and he surprises me by saying: “Seismic could be ok if it’s done right”. Having seen the large pay-cheques of his friends working in the local Mary River iron mine, it is tempting to succumb to the large of black gold as well. But as of 2014, with Shell pulling out of the Arctic, at least temporarily in order to staunch the hemorraghing of investor money, it’s an open question whether it’ll ever happen at all.

As I watch the sun not really set at 2:00 am one morning, casting the world in golden purple rays of unimaginable beauty, I hope it never will.

David Lavallee is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker who directed the award-winning White Water, Black Gold and is now filming To the Ends of the Earth.

$Toxic fracking waste illegally dumped in BC water treatment system$

Toxic fracking waste illegally dumped in BC water treatment system

August 1, 2014Energy and Resources, FrackingfeaturedCarol Linnitt

Toxic fracking fluids illegally dumped in BC water treatment system — A storage pond in northeast BC containing fracking fluids (Image: Two Island Films)

Republished with permission from desmog.ca

Although city officials from Dawson Creek won’t disclose the names of the companies involved, they are confirming that fracking waste has been illegally dumped into the city’s water treatment system on at least two occasions.

Jim Chute, administrative officer for the city, told DeSmog Canada, that illegal dumping has occurred at least three times, but twice the waste was “clearly” related to fracking.

“It has actually been on three occasions in the last 18 months where we’ve caught inappropriate materials being dumped,” he said. “One of those was a load of contaminated diesel. It’s not clear to us exactly how that diesel got contaminated so we don’t know if that was frack-related or not.”

“The other two were a mix of compounds that were clearly flowback waste from a frack operation.”

Chute said the chemicals used in the fracking process can damage the city’s water and sewage treatment facilities which are unable to handle industrial waste. Chute told the Alaska Highway News the waste could cause irreversible damage to living organisms that play a crucial role in the city’s water reclamation system.

Fracking in northeastern B.C.

Fracking, otherwise known as high-volume slickwater hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial extraction process used to free oil and gas from tight rock formations using extremely high pressures and large amounts of toxic chemicals.

The incidents in Dawson Creek involved subcontractors of the gas companies, Chute told DeSmog Canada, saying “virtually all jobs are outsourced to subtrades.”

[quote]If you’re Encana Corporation, you probably don’t drill that well yourself, it’s probably contracted out to a subcontractor like Precision Drilling. And then Precision Drilling themselves don’t build the lease roads, they contract that out to a subcontractor…and they don’t do their own waste disposal, they contract that out.[/quote]

“It’s so busy up here,” Chute said.

“The situations we’ve encountered in every case has been an independent contractor to a company who signs on to a company [saying] they will dispose of the waste in an appropriate manner…and then behave badly, try to save themselves some money by coming to our dump instead of going to the proper spot.”

Chute told the Alaska Highway News the contractors were fined and responsible for cleaning the contaminated holding tanks.

Toxic wastewater a problem for industry

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the provincial oil and gas regulator, is responsible for monitoring the activity of fracking companies, including the disposal of wastewater. B.C. has several private wastewater facilities where recyclable water is separated from toxic waste, which is then disposed of in underground injection wells.

In an emailed statement, B.C. Oil and Gas Commission communications coordinator Hardy Friedrich said, “B.C. has strict regulations related to the disposal of oil and gas waste in the Oil and Gas Waste Regulation and the Hazardous Waste Regulation.”

He added: “Fluids used in hydraulic fracturing must be disposed in a deep underground formation via a service well. Most other waste must be disposed at an approved disposal facility. There are currently 106 operating deep well disposal sites in northeast B.C.”

The difficulty of disposing of wastewater from fracking operations is a problem that has plagued the industry across North America. Flowback fluid from a fracking well includes toxic chemicals and oftentimes radioactive elements from extremely deep wells.

Most municipal wastewater systems are not equipped with the technology to handle such toxic waste in such high volumes.

Dawson Creek, located in the shale gas-rich Montney Basin, has seen a major increase in gas companies in recent years. The Montney Basin, along with the Horn River Basin also in northeastern B.C., could potentially account for 22 per cent of all North American shale gas production by 2020 according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

[signoff3]

In the early years of B.C.’s shale gas boom, Grant Shomody, president of Grantech Engineering International, warned of the potential problems producers would face when it comes to wastewater disposal in the Montney:

“If this play develops as producers hope, the number of wells being drilled would severely tax local water resources. In that case, we can expect a lot of ecologically related criticism. There’s also the problem of disposing of the frac water or treating it for reuse. It’s expensive, and Montney producers have not installed water treatment capabilities at their plants.”

A challenge and liability for Dawson Creek

Chute expressed concern with illegal dumping of fracking wastewater, especially in light of new Environment Canada rules, which could hold city officials accountable for negligence.

“Previously there had been less onerous regulations, around how anyone who is a sewage treatment operator or handler of sewage…in order to prevent unauthorized discharge into watercourses,” Chute explained.

These new federal regulations are more strenuous and more robust than any that had been in place in the past, Chute said.

“The onus was put on us to ensure we had the safeguards in place that nothing escaped into the environment. Part and parcel because of that, and [how] thinking changed around Enron and evidence of bad corporate behaviour, part of the regulations imposed personal liability on the people responsible.”

“In Dawson Creek, that would be me,” he said.

Dawson Creek is moving to a new system, said Chute, where a failsafe dump station will monitor regularly for harmful compounds. If those compounds are found, the waste will be prevented from entering the regular treatment system.

Chute says the new facility, which will cost nearly $4 million to build, will be continuously monitored during open hours, 12 hours a day, six days a week.

“All of this is to make sure unauthorized industrial waste doesn’t go into our system.”

“We are going to make sure that we catch anybody that tries to circumvent the system by coming to us because we’re a shorter haul than they’d have to go to the proper spot.”

Apache bails on Kitimat LNG as investors get cold feet

July 31, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Apache bails on Kitimat LNG as investors get cold feet — Artist’s rendering of proposed Kitimat LNG project

By The Canadian Press

U.S. energy firm Apache Corp. says it’s exiting the Kitimat, B.C., LNG project, which it had been developing with Chevron Corp.

Houston-based Apache also plans to get rid of its interest in another major liquefied natural gas project in Australia.

Apache made the announcement with its second-quarter financial report.

The Kitimat LNG project is furthest along in the development process of any of the proposed natural gas export facilities planned for Canada’s West Coast.

Apache has been under pressure from New York hedge fund Jana Partners LLC, an activist investor, to sell assets.

READ: Bloomberg analysis of Apache decision to pull out of Kitimat LNG

[signoff3]

“The Fight is on!” West Van, Lions Bay councils oppose Howe Sound LNG

July 30, 2014Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedDamien Gillis

West Van Council joins Lions Bay in opposing Howe Sound LNG — Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)

Two city councils in Howe Sound now officially oppose plans for liquefied natural gas terminals and tankers in their backyard. This week, West Vancouver joined Lions Bay in voting against LNG for the region – including an Indonesian billionaire’s proposal to convert an old pulp mill site near Squamish into an LNG facility.

The Woodfibre LNG project is currently in an environmental assessment, for which the most recent window of public comment closed on July 27. The project has stoked considerable local interest amongst Sea-to-Sky communities, including a series public presentations, protests and debates.

West Van council concerned about tanker safety

LNG-Cold Gas, Hot Air - June 27 event in Sqamish — Proposed Woodfibre LNG terminal, near Squamish

The West Vancouver vote for a tanker ban occurred at the July 21 council meeting, which featured a presentation from Bowyer Island resident Eoin Finn. Holding a PhD in physical chemistry and an MBA, the retied KPMG partner has been a key spokesperson for grassroots group My Sea to Sky, delivering a number of presentations throughout the region on the safety risks of LNG.

Finn told council that in the unlikely event of a tanker accident, the consequences could be fatal. According to the North Shore News, Finn explained to council that “spilled LNG would form a low, combustible fog. If ignited by a passing boat or a cigarette, the fog would burn at 1000° F.”

“This particular location, in a confined watershed, in a very confined waterway, passing three ferry lanes, passing by several major population centres including West Vancouver, is a particularly inappropriate location,” Finn explained.

Speaking to the motion, Councillor Bill Soprovich, prompted applause from the gallery, stating:

[quote]This is the most beautiful part of the world and suddenly we’re going to have volatile, dangerous cargo going through it? I think not. The fight is on![/quote]

Lions Bay opposes LNG too

The vote by West Vancouver council follows a similar move by neighbouring Lions Bay in May, which saw municipal leaders agree to send a letter on behalf of the community to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Christy Clark urging a ban on LNG tankers in Howe Sound.

“Council has discussed and been concerned about safety in the past, so this [resolution] is another indication that we’re concerned about safety on the sound,” Mayor Brenda Broughton told the Squamish Chief at the time.

“You’ve got Anvil Island, near Lions Bay, and then Bowyer Island…a tanker is not always going to be in the middle of Howe Sound. It has to be on one side or the other, and as it gets to Horseshoe Bay and Bowen Island, there’s just no way for it to avoid those narrow passages,” she said.

[signoff3]

These concerns were also heightened by a presentation by Finn to mayor and council. “Eoin highlighted the issues surrounding a tanker accident and what the kill zone would be if there were an accident,” says Broughton.

Chief among community members’ concerns about LNG is the clash between this industry and a bevy of other industrial projects slated for Howe Sound with more sustainable economic opportunities emerging for the region.

“Squamish is such a special place and this is such an exciting time to be there,” My Sea to Sky’s Tracey Saxby told the audience at a recent summit on LNG hosted at SFU’s Harbour Centre campus.

“It’s a community in transition from the old way – the extraction and resource-based industries – to a new economy that has a broader economic base and more diverse and resilient economic base,” Saxby explained, noting the various new industries being developed in the community – from academia to the emerging recreation technology sector, to enticing entrepreneurs with the region’s spectacular wilderness.

Squamish council faces similar pressure

In another indication that the battle over Woodfibre and other potential LNG projects for Howe Sound is heating up, over 100 citizens crashed a recent Squamish council meeting, seeking to put LNG to a vote in that community as well.

“So it’s an incredibly hot and pressing topic for our community,” Cocunillor Patricia Heintzman told The Vancouver Observer after the meeting. Echoing the municipal plebiscite in Kitimat earlier this year over the proposed Enbridge pipeline, Heintzman stated:

[quote]I’ve been on council for almost nine years, and I’ve never received letters like we do on LNG…I think the only real way to [understand citizens’ views] is to have a referendum at this point.[/quote]

Rafe: Is ‘lying’ too strong a word for Clark Libs’ LNG fibs?

July 25, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe-Clark's LNG fibs piling up — BC Premier Christy Clark addresses a conference on LNG (Damien Gillis)

I really need your help.

What the devil does one call premier Christy Clark, considering that she seems utterly incapable of telling the truth? Hers is an interesting case because her gross economy with the truth seems designed to get her away from whatever her current difficulty is, onto something different. Whether this amounts to “lying” in the accepted sense of that term, I don’t know.

“Disassembling”? “Fibbing”?

[quote]I would love to see prosperity come to my province…Unfortunately, it is just a dream.[/quote]

All BC’s eggs in LNG basket

Never mind the fact that she has no policy whatsoever with respect to pipelines and tankers – simply lofty sounding words with no meaning whatsoever. Let’s leave that aside for today and move onto something more critical, I think, because she has staked so much of her political life on it. Indeed, she has staked the wellbeing of our province on it.

I refer for you to page B7 of the Vancouver Sun for July 23 and an op-ed by Mark Jaccard, an acknowledged energy expert and Nobel laureate.

When Dr. Jaccard told his guests at an energy conference, during the 2013 provincial election, about the promises premier Clark was making with respect to LNG development in British Columbia, they broke into laughter.

God knows I am no expert on these matters but you will recall that I was laughing at her too.

It turns out that Dr. Jaccard’s audience and I were laughing at the same thing and it had nothing to do with energy science.

BC LNG business case bankrupt

My research was very simple. I read trade journals and as much editorial comment as I could find on the Internet. One thing became very clear and it did not take a brain surgeon to understand it.

For a company to invest billions of dollars In LNG plants, pipelines and tankers, a couple of basic things had to be in place.

First of all, there had to be a supply of product – that one wasn’t a problem, there was an over supply.

Secondly, there had to be the certainty of a market. That there were lots of potential “markets” around was true – the real question was whether or not these markets needed BC, considering their other alternatives. In short, there had to be firm contracts in place from which the markets could not escape. We are no closer to that today than we were during the election.

[signoff3]

The third and critical point was the price to be paid for the product. No entrepreneur is going to sink a lot of money into a project unless he knows that he is going to make a profit. That is the nature of capitalism. What seems clear to me – and also true to Dr. Jaccard’s audience – is that there is no potential market BC could depend upon at any price, let alone a certain price.

In determining future BC prosperity from natural gas, one was flying in the dark. I won’t go into the details but please read the article and you’ll see how complicated it is to predict the price of natural gas under the best of circumstances, which these are not.

The China Syndrome

One of the obvious customers for BC is China. I recall saying then that China had a great many options, not the least of which was the largest supply of gas in the world in Russia, along with a huge supply of shale gas within China itself.

One could go on analyzing markets and that’s not my bailiwick – suffice it to say that the questions raised at that time by Dr. Jaccard, his audience and by me, are no closer to being answered now that they were then.

Clark government in denial

None of this has daunted the Clark government in the slightest. They carry on as if LNG plants are going to spring up all over British Columbia and we will be awash in profits.

At this point, one might usefully go back to the election itself. Such was the enthusiasm for Ms. Clark to get elected one might say her statements about LNG were somewhat extravagant. You may recall that at the very beginning, we were told that BC, by 2017, would have all its debts paid and $100 billion in a Prosperity Fund!

Somewhere along the way, after the election was safely behind her, someone must have whispered into Premier Clark’s ear just how much money $100 billion was. It also became evident to the premier that 2017 was rather an optimistic date and that since she didn’t have to worry about an election for another four years, perhaps that might be scaled and the whole question of provincial debt best mumbled away and forgotten.

The point of this exercise is that either British Columbia is going to have a substantial LNG industry or it is not.

The next question of course is that if we are, then when?

The honest approach to this question would be, we simply do not know. A premier and a government being square with the voters would simply say that. They would point out that since “fracking” became all the rage, all bets are off as to the supply of natural gas and, indeed, oil in the world. All assumptions and estimates are now highly questionable.

The changing global energy landscape

There seems to be no question that there is a need for this new supply – but just who needs what and from whom is a huge question, which is nowhere near being settled. Old trading patterns are changing and none of the old truths can any longer be relied upon.

Moreover, there are serious political problems which will enter into the picture. For example, what does the change in world petroleum supply mean to the Middle East and the political relationships of countries with that region? Now that the United States is approaching self-sufficiency, what impact will that have in the geopolitical sense? One might think that this is irrelevant to the other questions I have raised, but not so. The natural rules of the marketplace are always trumped by considerations of world politics.

These are the facts that the public of British Columbia ought to know and understand; these are the facts that responsible, honest political leaders bring to the attention of voters.

To have taken the very best possibilities arising out of this new petroleum situation in the world and paint them as if the inevitable answer was fabulous prosperity for BC is as irresponsible a piece of political chicanery as I, in a long life, have ever seen. Moreover, the child-like deception continues, day after day.

Like every other British Columbian, I would love to see prosperity come to my province. To be able to all live better and to have our social ills dealt with in a more thorough and humane manner is a lovely dream to have. Unfortunately, it is just a dream.

Where does NDP opposition stand?

As of this writing, the NDP leader, John Horgan, has re-shuffled his shadow cabinet with energy split amongst several critics. Since the last election, the NDP have been a great disappointment in their effort to be the loyal opposition. They have not held the government’s feet to the fire – rather, they have been busy infighting and sorting out their internal disorder. Let’s hope that this has now changed.

It is by no means too late. I don’t give a damn whether or not the NDP is socialist or what it might be in its official political philosophy. Those sorts of terms are long out of date and useful only as political rhetoric during an election. Most political parties now are in the center of the road and appealing to people in all walks of life. I do not fear that the NDP would suddenly be nationalizing our businesses or bringing in secret police to enforce their version of humane practices.

What the NDP must present to the people of British Columbia is an honest appraisal of what the issues are and where we stand.

The current Christy Clark government is incapable of telling the truth, if to do so would in any way impair their popularity. One does not expect them to be paragons of political integrity – God knows they’re a long way from that. But on such an important matter as our natural gas industry, the truth is essential if the public is to understand our fiscal future.

The Christy Clark government’s position on LNG is, as Dr. Jaccard and his audience indicated, funny as hell.

Unfortunately, it is also tragic.

Canada’s green cities take lead on climate change

July 24, 2014Climate Change, Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Canada's cities take lead on climate change — Vancouver is Canada’s climate leader (photo: Wendy / flickr)

Amid the dire warnings about global warming’s impacts, what’s often overlooked is that actions to reduce or prevent them will lead to livable communities, improved air quality, protection of natural spaces and greater economic efficiency, to name just a few benefits. So it’s not surprising that tangible positive action on climate change is happening in Canada’s cities.

[quote]My hometown, Vancouver, is the real leader on Canadian urban climate initiatives.[/quote]

Oil and gas capital also pursuing energy efficiency

Plenty of examples can be found in the National Measures Report, released in mid-July by the Partners for Climate Protection, which includes the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and ICLEI-Canada, a local government organization dedicated to sustainability.

The report shows that, although Calgary is best known as the epicentre of Canada’s oil and gas sector, its government is investing in greater energy efficiency and tackling greenhouse gas pollution. In just seven years, it has cut emissions from operations by almost 50 per cent through an innovative partnership with energy companies. Cost savings from reduced energy use pay for the city’s investments.

Edmonton breaking new ground with composting program

Edmonton was an early innovator in waste management, establishing one of the first municipal composting programs in 2000. Its facility is the largest of its kind in North America. Not only does it take in organic waste from households, it also processes sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plant.

Along with its recycling program, the city now keeps up to 60 per cent of its municipal waste out of landfills, and is aiming to increase that to 90 per cent. How does this help with climate change? Diverting waste away from landfills reduces emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Guelph aims for 25% renewable energy

In Ontario, Guelph is enjoying an economic revival and reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. Supported by Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the city aims to meet 25 per cent of its total energy needs with locally sourced renewable energy. The policy turned out to be a boon for the manufacturing sector, attracting solar industry plants to Guelph and across the region.

Almost half Vancouver’s trips made without car

My hometown, Vancouver, is the real leader on Canadian urban climate initiatives. It has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major North American city — and they’re continuing to drop. B.C is lucky to be powered by low-carbon hydroelectric power; Vancouver leverages this advantage by making smart urban-planning decisions and encouraging active transportation such as walking, biking and public transit.

Almost half of city trips are now made without a car. Battling sprawl and encouraging sustainable transportation has its advantages beyond reducing the carbon footprint. Good transit and improved liveability have attracted people to Vancouver’s increasingly vibrant downtown core, lush green spaces and seaside pathways.

Local progress can spur even greater momentum as cities collaborate with each other and other levels of government. The C40 Climate Leadership Group, started in 2005, has grown from 18 to 69 megacities around the world, including Toronto and Vancouver — representing one in 12 people on the planet. C40 and related initiatives have allowed cities to set goals together, measure and verify progress and share success stories on how to tackle global warming, while reaching out to smaller centres and co-operating with national governments.

UN recognizes leadership role of cities

The influence and importance of tackling global warming at the municipal level has become so great that the UN now formally recognizes city governments in negotiations on climate change. It makes sense. The UN notes that although cities cover just two per cent of the world’s surface, they produce more than 60 per cent of CO2 emissions.

How can federal and provincial governments get on board? First, they can establish policies that offer financial and program support to urban global warming action, such as investing in public transportation. The B.C government has helped cities develop climate change plans and become carbon neutral, and Nova Scotia has established a Climate Change Adaptation Clearinghouse to assist cities. Other provinces could take similar action. And all provinces and the federal government need to get serious about the greenhouse gas emissions they control.

Our future will be determined by the choices we make now to prioritize clean energy, better transit and smarter urban design. Canadian citizens and governments should recognize the benefits of acting and co-operating on global warming. There’s still a long way to go, but cities are showing the way.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Science and Policy Manager Ian Bruce.

[signoff3]