Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Inuit, Greenpeace team up to battle Arctic seismic testing

July 22, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Inuit, Greenpeace team to battle Arctic seismic testing — Greenpeace’s Les Stroud Les working with Inuit in Pond Inlet (Photo: Laura Bombier / Greenpeace)

By Lee-Anne Goodman, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Greenpeace and the Inuit have joined forces to protest Arctic seismic testing, warning that plans to gauge oil and gas reserves with high-intensity sound waves in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait pose grave dangers to marine life.

Inuit activists are staging a protest Wednesday in Nunavut’s Clyde River, a tiny Baffin Island hamlet just above the Arctic Circle, a week after Greenpeace took their cause to the United Nations.

Inuit takes aim at Aglukkaq

An Inuit environmentalist also took aim at Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, a Nunavut MP, accusing the Conservative government of “cultural genocide” for its efforts to open up the Arctic to oil and gas exploration.

“We depend on these waters for food and the very existence of Inuit life depend on them,” said Niore Iqalukjuak in an open letter to Aglukkaq in the Nunatsiaq News.

[quote]We fear that what the Conservative government is doing is a cultural genocide and will end the Inuit way of life as we know it. … You are our representative. Speak up on our behalf.[/quote]

Aglukkaq’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Iqalukjuak’s letter or on the protest being held in Clyde River.

Greenpeace, meantime, has thrown its support behind the community.

Greenpeace joins protest

“Proposed seismic testing activities in Baffin Bay will have severe impacts on marine life and traditional lifestyles of coastal indigenous peoples,” the organization’s Arctic campaigner, Farah Khan, said in a statement Tuesday.

[quote]We stand with the community of Clyde River in their efforts to uphold their rights and preserve their traditions.[/quote]

It was an apparent return of fire to Aglukkaq, who criticized Greenpeace this week by challenging the environmental group’s historical opposition to the seal hunt and alleging it’s merely using the Inuit to advance its own causes.

“The reality is that there are lots of environmental groups who say that they speak for and represent Inuit or aboriginal people, while at the same time they campaign against traditional ways of life like the seal hunt,” she told the Inuit Circumpolar Council general assembly in the Northwest Territories.

Strange bedfellows

Greenpeace and the Inuit indeed make strange bedfellows in their campaign against Arctic seismic testing, a contentious method for surveying oil and gas deposits under the ocean floor that can have extensive effects on marine life, including disrupting migration routes.

[signoff3]

Greenpeace railed against the commercial seal hunt in the 1980s, and has since acknowledged their campaign had a detrimental impact on the Inuit.

“The consequences of that, though unintended, were far-reaching,” Joanna Kerr, executive director of Greenpeace Canada, said in a recent statement.

She added that the Inuit “take only what they need, and no more. They honour the animals, the land and the ocean.”

Greenpeace also recently drafted and adopted a policy, written with First Nations, in support of indigenous rights to a subsistence lifestyle.

In Tuesday’s statement, the organization chided Aglukkaq for failing to protect her homeland’s environment.

[quote]If Minister Aglukkaq acted as a steward for the Arctic environment — as an environment minister and chair of the Arctic Council should — then she would be listening to the concerns of northerners and acting on them.[/quote]

NEB opens up seismic testing

The National Energy Board, a federal government agency, recently announced it had given the green light to seismic testing in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait despite protests from the mayor of Clyde River and other Inuit officials and elders. The testing will begin in the 2015 ice-free season.

According to the environmental group Oceans North Canada, Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait are home to an estimated 50,000 narwhals — most of the world’s population. The area is also home to bowhead whales, 116 species of fish and an estimated million seabirds.

Iqalukjuak made reference to the unexpected alliance between Greenpeace and the Inuit in his letter.

“Of all organizations or parties, Greenpeace has stepped up to help fund the court battle (against seismic testing). How embarrassing is that, eh? The very people that helped to destroy our seal industry here helping Inuit on a cause that they both believe,” he wrote.

$Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word$

Rafe: With fracking, tankers “world-class safety” is a weasel word

July 19, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word — BC Premier Christy Clark touts “world-class” safety for fossil fuel projects (Canadian Press)

Many times I have referred to Premier Clark’s demand that Enbridge and others have “world-class” cleanup processes in place. To repeat myself, these are “weasel words” and mean absolutely nothing. “World-class” firefighting procedures doesn’t mean the building didn’t burn down.

I was delighted to read Stephen Hume’s column in the Vancouver Sun of July 17, where he talks about “weasel words”, especially the term “world-class”, and other matters. This particular article is about fracking and in his surgical way, Hume carves up the government for it’s utter lack of process and covering each and every one of their tracks by use of the words “world class”.

Government naively accepts industry’s word on safety

We have seen a similar absence of investigation by the Clark government into the risks of LNG, be it in pipelines, plants, or tankers. This government is now known for two things: an utter lack of preparation and lying through their teeth.

British Columbia under Christy Clark is brought to the position where we are to have pipelines and oil tankers; LNG plants, pipelines, and tankers; and fracking for natural gas, without any idea as to the safety of these projects. Premier Clark and her cabinet lickspittles simply take the company’s word that what they plan is environmentally benign.

Companies lie by their very nature. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on public relations every year. One only has to look at the ads from Enbridge over the last year or so to see the kind of money they spend and the sort of message that they put out.

Many British Columbians accept the need for oil pipelines, LNG, and fracking and the tanker traffic associated with them and I must ask my fellow citizens upon what do you base your support? Do you have some information about the safety of these projects that we don’t? If so, would you be so kind as to vouchsafe it to the rest of us so that we can, perhaps, change our minds?

British Columbians face onslaught of projects

A couple of years ago, in a speech, I observed that the attacks on the environment of British Columbia were so many, so varied, and so widespread that it would be difficult for us to deal with them just because of their sheer volume. Unfortunately this has manifestly been proved true.

[signoff3]

Citizens of a democracy, faced with this sort of an onslaught, have a right to expect that their government will stand at the gate and not let anybody by who is going to do harm. We are entitled to believe that our government will investigate each and every potential environmental assault and advise us of what dangers we face.

We expect governments to give a full accounting on the danger of oil spills from pipelines and tanker accidents; we expect a full investigation by the government of safety factors as well as the environmental concerns around LNG plants, pipelines and tankers; we expect our government to make a thorough investigation of fracking before the first undertaking starts. On that latter point, fracking is going ahead full blast and the government hasn’t lifted a finger to deal with its safety or environmental concerns – like massive climate impacts and water contamination, as recent, reputable studies reveal.

Public can’t rely on government

We, who pride ourselves on being environmentalists, must do extensive investigations on our own to learn the facts. There is absolutely no point in going to government departments to find out what they know because they know nothing. It is idle to go to the companies involved because they are incapable of telling the truth.

This is the extent of democracy under the Christy Clark government.

NDP ‘opposition’ not much better

One would like to think that the NDP, her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, would be different.

Unfortunately, the leader of the NDP seems to favour LNG. He is thinking about fracking. He is also, apparently, confused about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and on this critical issue, the Party Policy falls all over its own feet.

British Columbians left on their own

It is the totality of tanker traffic carrying diluted bitumen (dilbit) and LNG which has not been assessed by the government and doesn’t seem to be bothering the opposition – yet this is a massive issue.

We are left in British Columbia on our own. Those people to whom we pay a great deal of money to manage our affairs are in thrall to big industry, which finances the Liberal Party and supports it politically. It, like the government, is hugely economical with the truth. We citizens must then inform ourselves.

As I see it, we have only one political option. I am, God knows, no socialist. I ran against the NDP twice and beat them twice. I stood against them in the legislature. My last two votes in provincial elections have been for the Greens.

Having said that, the Greens are not going to win the next election and the NDP do have a chance.

What the NDP must do to regain public’s support

If the NDP are to win they have to increase their support substantially.

If the NDP do increase their support by candidly, fully and fairly looking at environmental matters and reporting to us faithfully as to their findings and encourage the fullest debates, I not only think they have a chance to win, but would be an acceptable government to have.

One thing that I must say in conclusion – I cannot believe that my fellow citizens would be insane enough to support Christy Clark and her bunch once again.

If that happens, we deserve what we get, even though our kids sure as hell don’t.

Two legal challenges filed against Northern Gateway

July 12, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

By The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Two legal challenges were filed Friday against the federal cabinet’s approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Gitxaala (git-HAT’-lah) First Nations, who hail from the North Coast of British Columbia, filed an application for judicial review with the Federal Court of Appeal.

Ecojustice filed a separate application on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

The environmental groups are asking for a court order quashing the approval of the pipeline proposed by Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB).

Ecojustice lawyer Barry Robinson says the federal approval was a flawed decision based on a flawed report by the federal environmental assessment panel.

The groups also want the Conservative cabinet to provide reasons for approving the project that would link the Alberta oilsands with a marine terminal on the B.C. coast.

READ: Native law expert: First Nations hold power to stop Enbridge

[signoff3]

Rafe: First Nations, Constitution are Canadians’ best defence

July 10, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

First Nations, Constitution are Canadians' best defence — Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

Big money now rules the world. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed. No government in the world is doing anything about this – least of all the Conservative government in Canada.

The only people fighting this, and for their own reasons, are First Nations. We all do things for our own selfish reasons so that was not meant to be a criticism, but simply a statement of fact.

It is time we looked at the reality of the Roger Williams case in light of the fight against big business and see how it plays out. The best places to look are at the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

‘Compelling and Substantive’

In light of the Williams case, they both face the same problem. Each of them must now consult with the appropriate First Nations. They may well consider that since they have been turned down they have already consulted with them to but my advice under the Williams case is to do it again and get turned down again.

They will then have to convince the crown, in this case the federal government, that their project is “compelling and a substantive” and consistent with the crown’s fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples.

I, frankly, think that it would be enormously difficult for a government to make that decision under any circumstances I can imagine. If nothing else, the political ramifications across Canada, with every First Nation, would be enormous. For a First Nation anywhere in the country to learn that one of their brethren, in trying to protect the environment of its land, was forcibly frustrated by the government would be a huge blow and would spread throughout the aboriginal community, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

Pipeline approvals will trigger lawsuits

Let us suppose for sake of argument that the crown, whether provincial or federal, does make such a decision. There would be, immediately, a lawsuit. Going on the past, a lawsuit would take five years , minimum, to resolve. Without any doubt it would go to the Supreme Court of Canada and from the company’s point of view, they would realize that the aboriginals have the longest winning streak in history in that court.

The main point is that no matter what, Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan have got a very long time to wait before they get the final decision in their favour, if they ever do.

Let us suppose they did get that final and for them favourable decision. This would not end the matter because in my view the public of British Columbia would still raise hell and there would be civil disobedience.

In short, I think that the Williams case spells paid to the two pipelines in question.

Exclusive use

There is another interesting feature arising out of the Williams case. A reader of my column in The Tyee points out that the Chief Justice talked about “exclusive use” of the land in question. What if two nations shared land by way of an understanding, tacit or otherwise? Would they not be able to claim that they should to share ownership of that land now because the two of them had had exclusive use?

I suppose the real point I’m making is that there are plenty of legal questions left and I can only wish that I had just graduated from Law School aged 24 instead of having done so in 1956!

First Nations stand best chance of protecting BC

As I have said elsewhere, I by no means think that the Williams case adversely affects development in British Columbia. It changes the rules and it changes who gets the money but First Nations want development too. They are, I might happily add, much more concerned about environmental matters than large international developers or governments. They are concerned about values like caribou, fish, and trees. They, in short, care about the sort of things that many other British Columbians are also concerned about but can’t get their governments to give a damn about.

First Nations know, as we all should know, that “dilbit”, which is the oil that would be transported by these pipelines, is lethal stuff. One need only look at the Kalamazoo River to see what happens when Bitumen, or dilbit, spills. As long as human beings are involved, we will have spills. Many, if not most, of these spills will be in virtually inaccessible places. We know from Kalamazoo that even if they spill is accessed, there is very little the company can do about it.

Living so close to the land and the oceans as First Nations do, they are keenly aware of these facts. Large international companies, and their client governments, don’t give a damn about these things – never have and never will.

The bottom line is that in the great war against marauding capital there is only one “Peter at the dike” and that’s our aboriginal community, as supported by the Canadian Constitution.

[signoff3]

BC govt, City of Vancouver: Kinder Morgan dodging pipeline questions

July 5, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCanadian Press

City of Vancouver-Kinder Morgan ducking pipeline questions — Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vancouver Council have some tough questions for Kinder Morgan (facebook)

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Kinder Morgan has failed to answer many of the questions put to the company about its proposed Trans Mountain pipeline through the regulatory review process, charge a chorus of critics that includes the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver.

Kinder Morgan ignore 40% of city’s questions

The city submitted 394 written questions as part of the National Energy Board’s regulatory review process but said the Texas-based company did not respond to 40 per cent of them, covering everything from emergency management plans to compensation in the event of an oil spill.

“We submitted almost 400 questions and only about 248 of them were answered,” said Sadhu Johnston, deputy city manager. The rest “were quite inadequate in the way they were answered, with either no answer or only partial answers.”

[quote]As interveners we are trying to assess the proposed project and are finding it quite difficult to get information on the project. That does make it hard for us to fully evaluate the proposal and to prepare our experts and our expert testimony to ask the right questions and formulate an opinion.[/quote]

Both the city and the province submitted requests to the energy board Friday asking the regulator to compel Kinder Morgan to respond to the outstanding requests.

Province stonewalled too

Kinder Morgan bills customers for pipeline application — Proposed Kinder Morgan tanker terminal expansion

The B.C. Environment Ministry issued a statement saying they had submitted more than 70 information requests to the company through the board, dealing with maritime and land-based spill response, prevention and recovery systems.

“In a number of cases, Kinder Morgan’s responses to the information requests do not provide sufficient information,” the statement said. “That makes it difficult for the province to evaluate whether the Trans Mountain expansion project will include world-leading marine and land oil spill systems.”

As part of the board review of the pipeline that would link the Alberta oil sands to Port Metro Vancouver, the company had to respond to more than 10,000 questions submitted by hundreds of groups and individuals granted intervener status by the board.

No direct, oral questioning of Kinder Morgan

Under new rules for the regulatory review, there is a strict timeline and the board decided not to allow direct oral questioning of company officials. All questions must be submitted in writing ahead of hearings set to begin in early 2015.

It’s a very restrictive process, Johnston said.

“It’s really become quite undemocratic, the way the NEB is running the process,” he said.

[signoff3]

The city said the responses it did receive made it clear that the company will not cover the first responder costs incurred by Vancouver in the event of disaster and it said the responses from Kinder Morgan raise questions on the economic feasibility of the project.

Weaver: Answers ‘simply unacceptable’

B.C. Green MLA Andrew Weaver has also complained about the responses provided by the company to his 500 questions.

He filed a motion with the energy board Thursday asking for full and adequate responses and a revised review timetable to incorporate “new and reasonable” deadlines for information requests and evidence.

“Many of the answers I received are simply unacceptable,” Weaver, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist, said in a statement.

Kinder Morgan declined a request for an interview.

Scott Stoness, vice-president of regulatory and finance for the company, said in an emailed statement that Trans Mountain believes it provided robust responses to questions “that were within the scope of the regulatory review.”

Some of the information is market sensitive or would be a security risk to release, he wrote.

“It is normal in regulatory processes that there are debates about whether questions are appropriate and/or in scope,” Stoness wrote.

[quote]We understand some interveners may not be satisfied with the answers we provided. That is why the NEB process allows for interveners to make motions on the responses we submitted.[/quote]

They will have another opportunity to question the company and to submit their own evidence later this year, he said.

READ ABOUT Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan’s battle with Kinder Morgan

Rail expert: One year after Lac-Megantic, not much has changed

July 4, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Rail expert-One year after Lac-Mégantic, not much has changed — Emergency responders were unequipped to deal with Lac-Mégantic disaster, says a Quebec rail expert

By Peter Rakobowchuk, The Canadian Press

MONTREAL – An expert who examined the devastating train derailment in Lac-Megantic says no plans and equipment are in place to deal with a similar situation as the one-year anniversary of the tragedy approaches.

Rosa Galvez-Cloutier, a civil engineering professor at Universite Laval, says she doesn’t think much has changed since the massive explosion and fire that killed 47 people on July 6, although the federal government has tightened regulations.

“There was an evident lack of preparation at all levels,” she said on Wednesday.

[quote]Prevention measures, preparedness and emergency plans need to urgently be updated.[/quote]

She says firefighters and security officials were overwhelmed by the inferno when the derailment happened.

“I think there was a panic and there was a lack of co-ordination,” the Quebec expert said.

Firefighters unequipped to deal with blaze

Galvez-Cloutier, who was at the scene, says she was surprised to see firefighters were still cooling the oil tanker cars after eight hours and they were even not fighting the fire.

She says what made it even more complicated was there was no information about the exact composition of the oil that was being burned.

Galvez-Cloutier says if firefighters knew that, they would have known what type of actions to take, such as using foam to combat the blaze.

“I know that Ultramar brought in, as a last resort, some foam to assist, but this was based on their goodwill, not a pre-planned emergency measure,” she said.

Galvez-Cloutier made her comments online during a webinar hosted by the Science Media Center of Canada.

Quebec pledges support for increased training

In its recent budget, the Quebec government announced annual funding of $4 million to provide financial assistance for the training of part-time volunteer firefighters in municipalities.

It noted that the Lac-Megantic disaster showed part-time volunteer firefighters are often first responders in many municipalities in Quebec and the funding will “help ensure that Quebec’s municipalities can respond effectively to such disasters.”

Environmental impacts unknown

Cleanup efforts on Lac-Megantic (Ryan Remiroz/CP)

During her presentation, Galvez-Cloutier also noted that important information about the environmental effects of the oil spill is still unknown.

“There was a destruction of the waste water treatment plant at Lac-Megantic city that released pathogens into the water and not much has been said about this,” she said. “These pathogens can include E. coli viruses and other pathogens.”

Bakken shale oil highly volatile

Jean-Paul Lacoursiere, a chemical engineering expert, says the highly-volatile crude was being shipped from North Dakota and the Bakken shale formation, from which the oil is extracted, extends into Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

“We are going to face (light) oil either from Alberta where it’s occurring and from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and potentially from the Anticosti Island here in Quebec,” the University de Sherbrooke professor said.

“That’s the future of what’s going to be transported — that’s what I see personally.”

Dangerous tanker cars prohibited for dangerous goods

Dangerous Dot-111 cars are being phased out — Dot-111 cars can no longer carry dangerous goods

The federal government has prohibited use of DOT-111 tanker cars — the kind that ruptured in Lac-Megantic — for transporting dangerous goods.

“The roll-out of improved tank cars is going to be a significant improvement,” Bill Hjelholt, a freight rail industry expert, told the webinar.

Ottawa has also strengthened emergency response requirements and ordered railways hauling dangerous goods to assess the risk of routes and reduce train speeds.

In addition, communities alongside tracks are advised of hazardous goods carried by rail, but — apparently for security reasons — only after they have passed through.

The Railway Association of Canada, a group that represents rail companies, says the industry is committed to do what is required in the areas of safety, training and emergency preparedness to prevent another disaster like the one that occurred in Lac Megantic.

It says the rail industry in North America is spending $2.5 billion this year to ensure the safety of its infrastructure.

[signoff3]

Fracked wells emit 6 times more methane leaks: New Cornell study

July 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

By Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – In Pennsylvania’s gas drilling boom, newer and unconventional wells leak far more often than older and traditional ones, according to a study of state inspection reports for 41,000 wells.

The results suggest that leaks of methane could be a problem for drilling across the nation, said study lead author Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea, who heads an environmental activist group that helped pay for the study.

Scientists say fracking can't fulfill America's energy needs — Drilling on a fracking well pad in Pennsylvania

The research was criticized by the energy industry. Marcellus Shale Coalition spokesman Travis Windle said it reflects Ingraffea’s “clear pattern of playing fast and loose with the facts.”

The Marcellus shale formation of plentiful but previously hard-to-extract trapped natural gas stretches over Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York.

The study was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team of four scientists analyzed more than 75,000 state inspections of gas wells done in Pennsylvania since 2000.

Methane leaks 6 times higher than older, conventional wells

Overall, older wells — those drilled before 2009 — had a leak rate of about 1 per cent. Most were traditional wells, drilling straight down. Unconventional wells — those drilled horizontally and commonly referred to as fracking — didn’t come on the scene until 2006 and quickly took over.

Newer traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 per cent; the rate for unconventional wells was about 6 per cent, the study found.

The leak rate reached as high as nearly 10 per cent horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of the state, where drilling is hot and heavy.

Graphic courtesy of UN Environment Program

The researchers don’t know where the leaky methane goes — into the water or the air, where it could be a problem worsening man-made global warming.

The scientists don’t know the size of the leaks or even their causes and industry officials deny that they are actual leaks. The study calls it “casing and cement impairment,” but the study’s lead author says that is when methane is flowing outside the pipe.

Said Ingraffea, who has been part of a team of Cornell researchers finding problems with fracking:

[quote]Something is coming out of it that shouldn’t, in a place that it shouldn’t. [/quote]

Ingraffea also heads a group of scientists and engineers that has criticized fracking and two of his co-authors are part of the group.

The study didn’t discuss why the leak rate spiked. Ingraffea said it could be because corners are being cut as drilling booms, better inspections or the way the gas is trapped in the rock formation.

Industry attacks researchers

Pennsylvania regulatory officials said their records show that gas leaks peaked in 2010 and are on the way down again, reflecting their efforts to stress proper cementing practices. Further in 2011, the state focused more on unconventional wells to make leak protection efforts “more stringent,” wrote Morgan Wagner, a spokesman for the state environmental agency.

[signoff3]

Energy industry officials attacked the study and Ingraffea.

Chris Tucker, spokesman for industry-supported group Energy In Depth, said what they measured may not be leaks but state inspectors detecting pressure buildup. Tucker wrote in an email:

[quote]The trick these researchers are pulling here is conflating pressure with leakage, trying to convince folks that the mere existence of the former is evidence of the latter[/quote]

Scientific community embraces study

But outside scientists, even pro-drilling ones, praised the study.

Terry Engelder of Pennsylvania State University, a pioneering supporter of the Marcellus fracking boom, said it shows there is plenty of room for improving drilling safety.

“It clearly indicates that there is a problem with the production” of the wells, said University of California Santa Barbara engineering professor and methane expert Ira Leifer, who wasn’t part of the study.

Kispiox Valley citizens band together against LNG pipelines

July 1, 2014Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

Kispiox Valley citizens band together against LNG pipelines — Some of the Kispiox Valley citizens opposed to LNG (Photo: NoMorePipelines.ca)

A group of citizens from the Kispiox Valley – northwest of Smithers, BC – has signed a declaration “against the LNG projects proposed to pass through their community.”

The approximately 160 signatures from local landowners and residents represents a significant proportion of the valley’s population. Located along two pipeline routes designed to carry shale gas from northeast BC to proposed liquefied natural gas terminals in Prince Rupert, the residents are strategically positioned to cause problems for the province’s LNG vision.

New map shows multiple proposed oil, gas pipelines for BC — The yellow and pink lines above depict the proposed pipelines to supply BG Group and Petronas’ Prince Rupert LNG plants, respectively. The two lines converge in the Kispiox Valley, north of Hazelton.

The declaration cites impacts to “northern rivers, salmon, air and water quality” as key issues for the community. Citizens of the region have expressed concerns about early work by Spectra Energy and TransCanada Pipelines – the former slated to build a line servicing BG Group’s proposed terminal north of Prince Rupert; the latter hired to construct the proposed Petronas/Progress pipeline to the same coastal region.

Initial work surrounding these projects has already sparked concerns from bear biologists about impacts on grizzly bears in the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy – widely thought to have driven the gutting of the BC Parks Act through Bill 4, which opened protected areas up to pipeline construction.

First Nations and local environmental groups have also pointed to the potential impacts on wild Skeena River salmon from Petronas’ proposed plant on Lelu Island, amid prime eelgrass habitat for out-migrating smolts.

The full declaration reads:

Be it known that we, the undersigned community of the Kispiox Valley, British Columbia, believe that the well-being of ourselves and our neighbours, our livelihoods and economy, and our lands and waters are paramount. We highly value intact ecosystems that sustain and support a vibrant and diverse watershed.

This includes thriving populations of wild Pacific salmon and steelhead, healthy forests with abundant wildlife, and clean air. These lands and waters are woven into the fabric of our lives, and are deemed as vital and necessary elements that support our economy, our community, and our way of life. We recognize and honour the Gitxsan, and hold in high regard their culture and traditional methods of responsible stewardship.

Our rural community is a proven model of economic and social resiliency, comprised of diversely skilled professionals, trades people, farmers, forest and resource workers, guides/outfitters, and creative and versatile entrepreneurs. We support common sense practices of conservative resource management, renewable energy production and use, agriculture as the basis of a strong local food system, and the long-standing wild salmon economy of our region.

The Skeena, as one of the last great salmon rivers of the world, connects our livelihoods to our communities, and our communities to each other. What occurs upstream or downstream affects us all. In recognition of this, we accept a shared regional and global responsibility to protect our water and air.

Therefore, we cannot stand by and allow any industrial presence, including oil and gas development, that would threaten or harm our values and responsibilities as outlined in this declaration.

[signoff3]

Is Harper setting up BC govt to reject Northern Gateway?

June 29, 2014Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Is Harper setting up BC govt to reject Northern Gateway — Christy Clark photo: Darryl Dyck/CP)

By Geoff Salomons

To many, the recent decision by the Harper Government to approve the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – a project it has so emphatically been pushing – is not surprising at all. What was surprising was the relative lack of fanfare in which the announcement was released. As Jennifer Ditchburn noted, there was no MP, let alone the minister responsible, to make the announcement: just a simple press release four paragraphs long entitled “Government of Canada Accepts Recommendation to Impose 209 Conditions on Northern Gateway Proposal”.

In this release, the government highlighted the role of the (emphasized) independent panel in making the recommendation. It noted that this is another step in a long, thorough process. It urged Enbridge now to demonstrate how it will meet the 209 conditions the independent panel put forth, as well as the additional work Enbridge has to do to “fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route” (ignore for a moment the fact that the “duty to consult” is 1) the Crown’s responsibility, not Enbridge’s; or 2) one would assume extends to Coastal First Nations that are adamantly opposed to the pipeline due to spill potential, and isn’t restricted to First Nations living along the pipeline Right-of-Way). Finally, it stated:

[quote]It [Enbridge] will also have to apply for regulatory permits and authorizations from federal and provincial governments.[/quote]

Enbridge faces big hurdles with First Nations

All of this seems all well and good. Shortly thereafter, the First Nation groups stood up to voice their continued opposition and, to be clear, the “duty to consult” provision will likely be the most difficult hurdle for Enbridge to overcome – especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Tsilhqot’in decision, which closely followed the Enbridge announcement.

What was more intriguing for me was the response from BC Environment Minister Mary Polak. She noted that this was just the first of BC’s five previously stated conditions. She then went on to note that “the Federal government also highlights the fact that there are important permitting decisions that are properly the jurisdiction of the provinces.” Interesting.

Harper couldn’t reject Enbridge

What is interesting is that in no plausible scenario could Stephen Harper reject the Northern Gateway pipeline, given this government’s behaviour in backing the oil industry generally speaking, doing its best to discredit environmental opposition and going so far as to label such opposition “radicals” with an ideological agenda, and criticizing the Obama administration for delaying its decision on Keystone XL.

Once the Joint Review Panel gave its approval – subject to its conditions – the door was wide open. The problem is the political opposition, not only within the “radical” environmental circles, but broadly speaking in British Columbia is increasing. 300 scholars signed a letter arguing that the Joint Review Panel was fundamentally flawed, particularly because it included upstream oil sands development as a benefit, while excluding the environmental and climactic costs associated with such development.

[signoff3]

Numerous polls have come out showing increasing opposition to the project (to be fair, the polls do vary, depending on whether pro-pipeline or anti-pipeline framing is given to the questions – yet even the most pipeline-friendly polling questions show 50% opposition). If Harper rejects the project based on political calculations, it looks bad, particularly to his base in Alberta. If he approves the project, he potentially loses BC in the 2015 election, which doesn’t look bad, it is bad.

The question is whether the Northern Gateway project has become such a political landmine that Harper has essentially written it off (knowing the likely outcome of First Nation challenges in court) and is searching for a way to reject the project, without him rejecting the project.

Where does BC govt stand?

Enter British Columbia. It is at this point that the comments made by BC Environment Minister Polak seem much more significant. Opposition to Northern Gateway is significant. Christy Clark has issued five conditions which must be achieved in order for her to approve the project. One of them – “Ensuring British Columbia receives its fair share” – seems almost impossible, given the structure of federal equalization payments.

In either case, it is a way for Premier Clark to publicly look like she is saying “help me find a way to yes” when she knows, politically, that she’ll have to reject it anyway. If public opinion in BC is truly in opposition to the extent that it seems, and the Federal Government’s press release makes me think that it is, then rejecting the pipeline is a political win for Premier Clark.

In addition, it would take the Northern Gateway off Stephen Harper’s agenda and let him focus his attention on other, less politically volatile pipeline proposals. The emphasis of the provincial role in issuing permits by the federal government, and shortly thereafter re-emphasized by Minister Polak could very well be coincidental. Unless this is exactly what Stephen Harper wants.

Geoff Salomons is a University of Alberta Political Science PhD student studying environmental policy, democratic theory and long-term policy problems.

Fracking and earthquakes: US states mull new regulations

June 25, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Fracking and earthquakes - US states mull new regulations — 3.0-plus magnitude earthquakes in the midcontinental US. USGS

By Emily Schmall And Kristi Eaton, The Associated Press

AZLE, Texas – Earthquakes used to be almost unheard of on the vast stretches of prairie that unfold across the U.S. Midwestern states of Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma.

But in recent years, they have become commonplace. Oklahoma recorded nearly 150 between January and the start of May. Most were too weak to cause serious damage or endanger lives. Yet they’ve rattled nerves and raised suspicions that the shaking might be connected to the oil and gas drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, especially the wells in which the industry disposes of its wastewater.

Now governments in all three states are confronting the issue, reviewing scientific data, holding public discussions and considering new regulations.

[quote]In recent weeks, nighttime shaking in Oklahoma City has been strong enough to wake residents. [/quote]

Oklahoma rattled by quakes

The latest example comes Thursday in Oklahoma, where hundreds of people are expected to turn out for a meeting that will include the state agency that regulates oil and gas drilling and the Oklahoma Geological Survey.

States with historically few earthquakes are trying to reconcile the scientific data with the interests of their citizens and the oil and gas industry.

In recent weeks, nighttime shaking in Oklahoma City has been strong enough to wake residents. The state experienced 145 quakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater between January and May 2, 2014, according to the Oklahoma Geological Survey.

That compares with an average of two such quakes from 1978 to 2008.

[signoff3]

North Texas has had 70 earthquakes since 2008 as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey, compared with a single quake, in 1950, reported in the region before then.

Regulators from each state met for the first time in March in Oklahoma City to exchange information on the quakes and discuss toughening standards on the lightly regulated business of fracking wastewater disposal.

“This is all about managing risks,” said Oklahoma Corporation Commission spokesman Matt Skinner. “It’s a little more complicated than that because, of course, we’re managing perceived risks.”

Texas regulator hires state seismologist

In Texas, residents from the town of Azle, which has endured hundreds of small quakes, went to the state capitol earlier this year to demand action by the state’s chief oil and gas regulator, known as the Railroad Commission. The commission hired the first-ever state seismologist, and lawmakers formed the House Subcommittee on Seismic Activity.

After Kansas recorded 56 earthquakes between last October and April, the governor appointed a three-member task force to address the issue.

Fracking linked to quakes

Seismologists already know that hydraulic fracturing — which involves blasting water, sand and chemicals deep into underground rock formations to free oil and gas — can cause microquakes that are rarely strong enough to register on monitoring equipment.

However, fracking also generates vast amounts of wastewater, far more than traditional drilling methods. The water is discarded by pumping it into so-called injection wells, which send the waste deepunderground. No one knows for certain exactly what happens to the liquids after that. Scientists wonder whether they could trigger quakes by increasing underground pressures and lubricating faults.

Another concern is whether injection well operators could be pumping either too much water into the ground or pumping it at exceedingly high pressures.

No clear correlation: Industry advocates

Still, seismologists — and the oil and gas industry — have taken pains to point out that a clear correlation has not yet been established.

Nationwide, the United States has more than 150,000 injection wells, according to the Society of Petroleum Engineers, and only a handful have been proven to induce quakes.

Nonetheless, ExxonMobil is supporting a study by Southern Methodist University, company spokesman Richard Keil said.

“We’re sort of in wait-and-see mode,” he said.

Eaton reported from Oklahoma City.