Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Kitimat rejects Enbridge in pipeline plebiscite

April 13, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Kitimat votes 'No' on Enbridge pipeline — Former Haisla councilor Gerald Amos celebrates the ‘No’ vote (photo: Douglas Channel Watch)

By The Canadian Press

KITIMAT, B.C. – The residents of Kitimat, B.C. have voted against the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project in a non-binding plebiscite.

The ballot count from Saturday’s vote was 1,793 opposed versus 1,278 who supported the multi-billion dollar project — a margin of 58.4 per cent to 41.6 per cent.

“The people have spoken”

The results from two polling stations and an advance vote all showed a clear majority for the “No” side. Said Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan in a statement issued after the vote Saturday night:

[quote]The people have spoken. That’s what we wanted — it’s a democratic process. We’ll be talking about this Monday night at Council, and then we’ll go from there with whatever Council decides.[/quote]

The $6.5-billion project would see two pipelines, one carrying oilsands’ bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat’s port, and a second carrying condensate — a form of natural gas used to dilute the bitumen — from Kitimat back to Alberta.

Kitimat would also be the site of a proposed two-berth marine terminal and tank farm to store the thick Alberta crude before it’s loaded onto tankers for shipment to Asia.

Until this vote, Kitimat had remained neutral in its opinion on the controversial project. It didn’t take part in the joint-review process, which heard from hundreds of people before a federal panel approved the project with 209 conditions.

The federal cabinet is expected to release its decision on Northern Gateway by June.

“Jobs” argument failed to persuade public

Northern Gateway’s campaign has concentrated on the promise of 180 permanent, direct, local jobs worth $17 million, and more spinoff jobs for contractors and suppliers.

Calgary-based Enbridge, the company behind Northern Gateway, has emphasized its commitment to safety and the environment, saying the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel, which held two years of hearings on the project, had made many of the company’s voluntary commitments a mandatory part of the conditions for approval.

“As a long time-resident of northwestern B.C., I passionately believe that Northern Gateway is the right choice for Kitimat and for the future of our community,” Donny van Dyk, Northern Gateway’s Kitimat-based Manager of Coastal Aboriginal and Community Relations, said in a statement issued after Saturday’s vote.

“Over the coming weeks and months we will continue to reach out and listen to our neighbours and friends so that Northern Gateway can build a lasting legacy for the people of our community.”

The project’s main opponent, the local environmental group Douglas Channel Watch, maintains the risk from either a tanker accident or a pipeline breach is too high for the small number of jobs the pipeline would bring to the community.

Vote pitted Kitimat Council vs. Haisla First Nation

The plebiscite had also raised tensions between the District of Kitimat and the nearby Haisla First Nation, which is adamantly opposed to Northern Gateway.

Many Haisla were not allowed to vote because Kitamaat Village, a federal Indian reserve, is outside the municipal boundaries.

In a letter to local media, Haisla Chief Coun. Ellis Ross had called the decision to hold a vote at this late date a “slap in the face” for all the work done by the Haisla on the project.

A demonstration by members of the Haisla Nation at Kitimat’s City Centre Mall quickly turned into a celebration after the vote results were announced. The Haisla Spirit of Kitlope Dancers led the celebration with drumming, singing and dancing.

MP Cullen joins party

Some Kitimat residents also joined the party, as did Nathan Cullen, the NDP Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley.

Cullen, who has been a harsh critic of the project, said Saturday’s vote sends a clear message that Stephen Harper’s government must listen to.

[quote]This is a resounding no to the Conservative policies. This is one of the most powerful grass roots things I have ever been associated with. This is good politics.[/quote]

Gerald Amos, an environmentalist and former member of the Haisla Nation Council, said, “The town of Kitimat has rejected a project that is not good for our economy. It endangers everything we worked for as a people here in Kitimat for the last ten thousand years.”

Vote non-binding

A key reason for holding the vote was to fulfil a 2011 promise made by all municipal election candidates in Kitimat to poll citizens on the pipeline project.

But other than gauging public reaction to the proposed pipeline, it remains unclear — even to Kitimat council — what the non-binding vote will mean.

Even the plebiscite question, as chosen by the District of Kitimat council, was controversial, because it focused on the 209 conditions placed on the project by the Joint Review Panel: “Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report?”

4 years after BP oil spill, health impacts linger

April 12, 2014Energy and Resources, Health and Environment, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

4 years after BP oil spill, health impacts linger — Health concerns continue to do many who worked to clean up the BP oil spill (photo: Wikimedia Commons)

By Stacey Plaisance And Kevin McGill, The Associated Press

CHALMETTE, La. – When a BP oil well began gushing crude into the Gulf of Mexico four years ago, fisherman George Barisich used his boat to help clean up the millions of gallons of spew that would become the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.

Like so many Gulf Coast residents who pitched in after the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, Barisich was motivated by a desire to help and a need to make money — the oil had eviscerated his livelihood.

Today he regrets that decision, and worries his life has been permanently altered. Barisich, 58, says respiratory problems he developed during the cleanup turned into pneumonia and that his health has never been the same:

[quote]After that, I found out that I couldn’t run. I couldn’t exert past a walk.[/quote]

His doctor declined comment.

Medical settlement reached with BP

Barisich is among thousands considering claims under a medical settlement BP reached with cleanup workers and coastal residents. The settlement, which could benefit an estimated 200,000 people, received final approval in February from a federal court. It establishes set amounts of money — up to $60,700 in some cases — to cover costs of various ailments for those who can document that they worked the spill and developed related illnesses, such as respiratory problems and skin conditions.

It also provides for regular physical examinations every three years for up to 21 years, and it reserves a worker’s right to sue BP over conditions that develop down the road, if the worker believes he or she can prove a connection to the spill.

Clean-up workers participate in massive, long-term health study

Some 33,000 people, including Barisich, are participating in a massive federal study that aims to determine any short or possible long-term health effects related to the spill.

“We know from … research that’s been done on other oil spills, that people one to two years after … had respiratory symptoms and changes in their lung function, and then after a couple of years people start to return to normal,” said Dr. Dale Sandler, who heads the study overseen by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, an arm of the National Institutes of Health.

[quote]What nobody’s ever done is ask the question: Well, after five years or 10 years are people more likely to develop heart disease, or are they more likely to get cancer? And I’m sure that’s what people who experienced this oil spill are worried about.[/quote]

Sandler planned to discuss some early findings Friday during a midday news conference.

The study is funded by NIH, which received a $10 million award from London-based BP, part of $500 million the oil giant has committed to spend over 10 years for environmental and health research.

Researchers compiled a list of 100,000 candidates, drawn from sources including rosters of mandatory safety classes that cleanup crews attended and from records of people who were issued badges permitting access to oiled areas.

They reached about 33,000 for interviews; and 11,000 of them agreed to physical examinations that include blood and blood pressure tests and measurements of lung function. Water and air samples taken during the spill also will be used to attempt to pinpoint how much exposure workers may have had to toxic substances.

Proving correlation is a challenge

Sandler emphasized that making any direct correlation between health concerns and the spill could prove challenging because many of the workers held other jobs that put them in contact with oil. Some worked with boat engines, did regular hazard mediation work or worked at chemical plants. Many also are smokers.

The researchers will try to account for smoking or other factors that could ruin health, and narrow in on problems tied to spill exposure. They plan to monitor the health of study participants for at least 10 to 15 years.

Aside from physical health, Sandler also is interested in knowing whether chemical exposure, in addition to the stress of working the spill, might have contributed to any mental health problems.

“We’re not in a position to say that yet,” she said.

Money will never replace quality of life

Fisherman and former cleanup worker Bert Ducote says he knows the physical and emotional pain. Ducote said dozens of boils have turned up on his neck, back and stomach since the spill — and he theorizes, though shared no medical records that could prove, that his problems stem from the cleanup.

Ducote said he spent months handling the boom used to corral oil. Even with protective gear and rubber boots, he said his shirt often got wet with the combination of crude oil, sea water and chemical dispersant. Ducote, like Barisich, said he is filing a claim under the medical settlement.

“That has been a disaster in our lives,” said Ducote, from the town of Meraux, in coastal St. Bernard Parish.

[quote]The little amount of money they’re trying to give us, it’s never going to replace our quality of life, our health.[/quote]

BP claims settlement was fair

In response, BP points to language in U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier’s order approving the medical settlement. Barbier noted that both sides said the settlement was a fair and reasonable alternative to litigation, and that fewer than 100 of 200,000 potential class members objected.

BP also lists numerous steps it took after the disaster to protect workers’ health, including protective clothing and safety classes.

Cleanup workers who faced possible contact with oil and dispersants were “provided safety training and appropriate personal protective equipment, and were monitored by federal agencies and BP to measure potential exposure levels and help ensure compliance with established safety procedures,” BP said in an email to The Associated Press.

Many clean-up workers lacked protective gear

Not all used that equipment, however. Dr. Edward Trapido, a cancer specialist and the lead researcher on a study of cleanup crews and their families that is underway at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, said many worked without the protective clothing because of sweltering heat.

Trapido said results of the long-term health studies could help improve response to future oil spills and other disasters.

“Oil is not going away, and whatever kind of energy it is — whether it’s nuclear, whether it’s coal or oil — all of these have had problems in recent years where people get exposed to it,” Trapido said.

Kitimat Enbridge vote: Grassroots campaign poised to win unfair fight

April 11, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Tensions-high-in-Kitimat-as-Enbridge-pipeline-plebiscite-looms — Signs of the times in Kitimat, BC (Photo: Kathy Ouwehand)

By the Canadian Press

KITIMAT, B.C. – Residents of Kitimat will cast votes in a local plebiscite Saturday for or against the multibillion-dollar Northern Gateway pipeline.

The District of Kitimat has remained neutral on the $6-billion project, but the vote will decide council’s position.

“We’ll see what the people of Kitimat want,” said Mayor Joanne Monaghan.

The city on the North Coast would be the end of the pipeline and home of the marine terminal for loading oil onto tankers. Kitimat council’s neutral stance went so far as to keep the city from participating in a federal review panel on the project.

That panel recommended in December that the pipeline be approved, subject to 209 conditions.

The question at hand

Kitimat residents are being asked:

[quote]Do you support the final report recommendations of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and National Energy Board, that the Enbridge Northern Gateway project be approved, subject to 209 conditions set out in Volume 2 of the JRP’s final report?[/quote]

It’s a question about “as hard to nail to the wall as a bit of Jell-O,” said Murray Minchin, a volunteer with the grassroots Douglas Channel Watch.

He describes a campaign that has been outspent, outmanned and outmanoeuvred from the outset. Enbridge’s campaign started months — if not years — ago, Minchin said.

Enbridge spent big bucks wooing Kitimat vote

They faced no spending limits, as provincial election laws didn’t apply to the municipal vote. Northern Gateway had paid canvassers, full-page ads, glossy brochures, a new website and billboards, Minchin said.

Northern Gateway also runs an annual campaign for youth that saw 50 iPads distributed to essay contest winners along the pipeline route in northern B.C. and Alberta, he said.

But Ivan Giesbrecht, spokesman for Enbridge, said the contest has nothing to do with the plebiscite and that only two of the computer tablets went to students in Kitimat.

And yet, Minchin is hopeful the vote will go his way.

Grassroots anti-Gateway campaign grows support

“Four weeks ago we had $200 in the bank. Then we started making lawn signs and started putting those around town and people started coming up to us in the street and handing us money,” he said.

[quote]Somebody even anonymously dropped off a $2,000 money order into one of our mailboxes. Then we got a website that had a donate button.[/quote]

More than $14,000 and 2,000 doorsteps later, Douglas Channel Watch members believe opponents of the pipeline outnumber supporters 3:1.

“Our goal will be to try to get all of those people who said they were going to vote No to actually get out and vote Saturday,” Minchin said.

Results to be revealed at Monday council meeting

Ballots will be counted this weekend and Kitimat council is scheduled to meet Monday night to discuss the results.

Giesbrecht said the vote has been an opportunity to talk to residents.

He declined to say how much the company has spent on the campaign but said there was a temporary website, newspaper and radio ads, and door-to-door canvassers.

The pipeline is worth $5 million in property taxes and 180 jobs for Kitimat, he said.

“It’s a significant proposal for Kitimat, so it’s important that we provide the information that people need to make informed decisions,” Giesbrecht said.

“Regardless of the outcome, our commitment to Kitimat remains unchanged.”

Campaign highlights election law loopholes

Northern Gateway has been a divisive issue across the province and the imbalance in spending power has its critics.

During a provincial election or initiative vote, provincial law limits third-party advertising spending to $3,000 in a single electoral district, and $150,000 overall.

Dermod Travis, of Integrity BC, said those rules don’t apply here but they should.

“It’s really turned into a free-for-all in terms of having any type of democratic order to the vote,” said Travis, whose group was funded by a private businessman to push for democratic reform.

[quote]Having that type of an exercise in a democracy is healthy but it’s not healthy when the scale is so heavily tipped in one direction.[/quote]

But Monaghan said both sides have been out knocking on doors and she expects a true read of what Kitimat residents want.

“Neither of them have gone over that line,” she said of the campaigning.

The federal government is expected to announce a final decision on the pipeline in June.

Clark govt signs LNG deals with two more First Nations

April 9, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, LNGfeaturedCanadian Press

Two more BC First Nations sign deals for LNG — photo: Tina Lovgreen / BCIT Commons

By Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press

VICTORIA – The British Columbia government has moved to bring First Nations on board its much-anticipated multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas boom.

Two north coast First Nations signed revenue-sharing agreements Wednesday with the government related to the development of a proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal on their traditional territories near Prince Rupert.

It’s a deal that could be worth up to $15 million for the Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams nations.
Related Stories

Premier Christy Clark and leaders from the First Nations who participated in formal signing ceremonies at the legislature called the agreements — the first such connected to LNG — historic.

Clark said the revenue-sharing agreements signal her government’s aims to include First Nations in the province’s LNG development plans, which she says represent a generational opportunity that will rival Alberta’s oilsands.

The First Nations’ leaders said the achievement indicates willingness among some aboriginal groups to embrace some forms of resource development.

A majority of First Nations have opposed the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project that would move Alberta oil products to B.C.’s coast for export to Asia.

The LNG revenue-sharing agreements were negotiated with the First Nations because their communities, located north of Prince Rupert, are close to a proposed Aurora LNG development at Grassy Point.

Aurora LNG is a proposed joint venture by Nexen Energy ULC (TSX:NXY), a wholly owned subsidiary of CNOOC Limited, INPEX Corporation and JGC Corporation.

“Agreements like this plant the seed for prosperity that lasts for generations,” Clark said at the signing ceremony. “This kind of an opportunity, this kind of co-operation, the stability that this agreement represents today, between First Nations, between government and industry, is going to play a crucial role in creating the confidence that investors need to make sure that their final investments come to fruition.”

By signing the agreements, the First Nations give their support and co-operation for prospective LNG development on their territory, she said.

Metlakatla Chief Harold Leighton said the status quo is no longer acceptable for First Nations who want to be part of development efforts in northwest B.C.

“Revenue sharing agreements related to Grassy Point are a good example of how things can happen when we approach LNG and other types of development in the spirit of partnership and co-operation,” said Leighton. “We have an opportunity to build an economy and improve the social well-being of the Metlakatla and northwest.”

The agreements with Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams involve sharing portions of B.C. government revenues related to the Grassy Point lands.

Clark has said government revenues from prospective LNG developments in the northwest could erase the province’s debt, currently at more than $60 billion.

Earlier this year, the government unveiled a proposed LNG tax that could start at 1.5 per cent but rise to seven per cent.

The rate will rise once the plants recover the capital costs of building what are expected to be multibillion-dollar terminals that will super-cool natural gas into LNG for shipment to Asia. The first such plant could be in operation within four years.

There are about a dozen proposed LNG developments in B.C., but none has moved to the final investment-decision stage.

Fossil fuel economy costs Canada far more jobs than it creates

April 7, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, Tar SandsfeaturedMark Taliano

Petro-state economy costs Canada far more jobs than it creates — Canada’s economy – including its dollar – is too attached to fossil fuels, financial experts warn

The current trajectories of Canada’s predominant political economies are increasingly dysfunctional, due in no small part to the fact that we have become, in many respects, a petro state, rather than the much vaunted “Energy Superpower” that we were promised.

A petro-state, as defined by Bruce Campbell, executive director of the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) is “dependent on petroleum for 50 per cent or more of export revenues, 25 per cent or more of GDP, and 25 per cent or more on government revenues.”

While Alberta is not a sovereign nation, it does qualify for “petro-state” status under these criterion. So does Norway. But the differences between the two polities ends there. While Norway manages its resource wealth extraordinarily well, Alberta — and Canada, by extension — does not.

Norway: $656 Billion / Alberta: $16 Billion

One significant difference is savings. Norway has a savings fund, known as a “Sovereign Wealth Fund” which is worth about $656 billion for a population of under 5-million people.

Norwegian-oil-industry — Unlike Canada, Norway’s oil industry generates huge public profits

Alberta’s Heritage Trust Fund, on the other hand, is worth a relatively paltry $16.6 billion, for a population of about 3,847,100 people.

The differences in the sizes of these savings funds has far-reaching impacts. As author Terry L. Karl explains in “Understanding The Resource Curse,” a country (such as Norway) that diverts its resource revenue to a savings fund, is necessarily compelled to use its tax base for government funding. Consequently, citizens pay higher taxes, but the politicians represent those who pay the bills (the citizens) rather than representing the insular interests of oil-producing corporations, to the detriment of the public sector, and democracy.

Unlike Norway, Canada, is quite dependent on its resource revenues for government funding. About 40 per cent of Canada’s resource revenues go to Ottawa, and about one third of Alberta’s bills are paid by oil and gas revenues. According to Karl, these differences explain why Alberta’s tax rates are so low, (the lowest personal taxes in Canada) and why its governance is more top down, corporation oriented. As long as taxes are low, people remain relatively disinterested in issues of governance. In the 2008 elections, 60 per cent of eligible voters in Alberta stayed home.

There are other significant problems which are generated by this dependency on resource revenue. One of them is wealth distribution.

Rich get richer from energy wealth

Stephen Leahy explains in “The Bigger Canada’s Energy Sector Gets, The Poorer People Become” that economic markers can be deceiving. Consider statistics for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is a measure of economic activity. The GDP averaged about $600 billion per year in the ’90s and by 2012 it had increased to $1.7 trillion. On the surface, this seems laudable, but little of the wealth stayed in Canada, and what did stay went to a small percentage of the population. Consequently, income inequality has also increased.

Similarly, our reliance on the boom/bust cycle of resource revenue funding (without setting aside sufficient funds) means that governments habitually overspend. Resource rich Alberta has run a deficit for the last six years running.

This boom/bust revenue model, a hallmark of neoliberal economic theory, impacts the whole country. Safety, environmental, and human rights have become less important; international efforts to address global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) have been rejected; real science is now seen as an enemy to overcome; and democracy is an inconvenience.

16,000 jobs gained, half a million lost

Our mixed economy is also being decimated. Leahy explains that from 2000-2011, the oil and gas sector created about 16,500 jobs, while, at the same time, Canada lost 520,000 manufacturing jobs.

Much of the manufacturing losses are tied to the rise of the petro-dollar which tends to rise and fall with the price of petroleum. Ten years ago, the Canadian dollar was worth about 65 cents relative to the U.S. dollar. Now both dollars are at about the same level. This parity negatively impacts exports and, therefore, the manufacturing base.

Even Industry Canada acknowledges the problem. Their report notes that between 2002 -2007, from 33-39 per cent of Canadian manufacturing job losses were due to “resource-driven currency appreciation.”

Major banks, think tanks warn against Canada’s economic model

Despite the overarching negatives, including job losses and deficits, trajectories of Canada’s reigning political economies have remained unchanged. Continued on-the-ground realities, however, may force the government’s hand. Sources as varied as the International Energy Agency (IEA), HSBC, the Conference Board of Canada, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are increasingly concerned about Canada’s misdirected obsession with extreme energy extraction.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook states that “no more than one third of proven energy reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050.” (Barring the unlikely and exponential growth in carbon capture storage strategies.)

The HSBC Global Research Report (2013) cautions investors about capital intensive extreme resource extraction such as bitumen extraction, and recommends instead low cost companies with a “gas bias.”

Alberta needs more sustainable model: Conference Board

Solar already beating coal on job creation, energy cost — Canada should be promoting green jobs, experts suggest

The Conference Board of Canada in an article entitled “Opportunity Lost? Alberta is Facing Short And Long Term Financial Challenges Despite its Oil Wealth” observes that Alberta is facing a $4-billion budget deficit, and recommends a “more sustainable fiscal model.”

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), recognizing the imperatives of transitioning to a low carbon world, is urging nations to slash carbon subsidies, which would drastically slow bitumen extraction developments.

Unlike Norway, Canada’s economic and political self-determination is already curtailed by NAFTA, and by the time Harper’s next suite of corporate empowerment treaties (FIPPA, CETA etc.) are ratified, our ability to determine better political economies will be further hamstrung.

However, despite the restrictions, there still remain some possible alternatives to our current self-defeating political economy.

End subsidies, raise taxes

The Pembina Institute, paralleling views of the IMF, argues that the $1.3 billion in subsidies handed out to the oil and gas industries would be better spent on transitioning to clean energies, as it would create 18,000 more jobs as well as “a healthier economy, and a cleaner environment.”

Meanwhile, Shannon Stunden Bower, Research Director for the Parkland Institute, advises that Alberta needs to raise taxes:

[quote]Alberta could collect nearly $11 billion more in taxes and still remain the country’s lowest tax jurisdiction.[/quote]

Clearly Canada’s economic direction, which is to increase rather than decrease extreme energy extraction, is hitting the wall.

Evidence shouts that we should be transitioning to a low carbon model. Creating a strong Federal Savings Fund, reducing carbon subsidies, and increasing taxes in certain jurisdictions (like Alberta and New Brunswick) would be a start, but we also need more evidence-based policy making, and therefore different governance.

The longer we wait before the inevitable and necessary transitions, the more it will cost.

Anadarko stock rises after $5.15 billion contamination settlement

April 4, 2014Energy and ResourcesfeaturedCanadian Press

by Eric Tucker and Dina Cappiello, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The federal government on Thursday reached a $5.15 billion settlement with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the largest ever for environmental contamination, to settle claims related to the cleanup of thousands of sites tainted with hazardous chemicals for decades.

The bulk of the money — $4.4 billion — will pay for environmental cleanup and be used to settle claims stemming from the legacy contamination.

The settlement resolves a legal battle over Tronox Inc., a spinoff of Kerr-McGee Corp., a company Anadarko acquired in 2006.

The Justice Department said Kerr-McGee, founded in 1929, left behind a long legacy of environmental contamination: polluting Lake Mead in Nevada with rocket fuel, leaving behind radioactive waste piles throughout the territory of the Navajo Nation, and dumping carcinogenic creosote in communities throughout the East, Midwest and South at its wood-treating facilities.

The company, rather than pay for the environmental mess it created, decided to shift the liabilities between 2002 and 2006 into Tronox, the Justuce Department said, while Kerr-McGee kept its valuable oil and gas assets.

“Kerr-McGee’s businesses all over this country left significant, lasting environmental damage in their wake,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole said. “It tried to shed its responsibility for this environmental damage and stick the United States with the huge cleanup bill.”

The settlement releases Anadarko from all claims against Kerr-McGee.

“This settlement … eliminates the uncertainty this dispute has created, and the proceeds will fund the remediation and cleanup of the legacy environmental liabilities,” said Anadarko CEO Al Walker.

The settlement funds will be paid into a trust that covers cleanup of contaminated sites across 22 states and the Navajo Nation.

Among the sites targeted for cleanup under the settlement are a former chemical manufacturing site in Nevada that has led to contamination of Lake Mead and a Superfund property in Gloucester, New Jersey, contaminated with thorium. About $1 billion will be directed to the Navajo Nation to address radioactive waste left behind by the region’s abandoned uranium mines.

The U.S. initially sought $25 billion to clean up decades of contamination at dozens of sites. A U.S. bankruptcy judge in New York in December found Kerr-McGee had improperly shifted its environmental liabilities to Tronox and should pay between $5.15 billion and $14.2 billion, plus attorney’s fees. Cole said at a news conference Thursday that the government decided that the $5.15 billion amount was more than enough to cover the damages.

“It provides us with recovery now as opposed to years and years down the road,” he said.

Tronox said in a statement that the settlement means environmental cleanup can begin and that people harmed by the pollution can be compensated.

After the settlement’s announcement, Anadarko’s stock rose 15 per cent, to $99.43.

Kinder Morgan review panel rejects 80% of applicants

April 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

Kinder Morgan review panel rejects 80 per cent of applicants — A Vancouver rally against Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline (Photo: Damien Gillis)

by Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – The National Energy Board hearings into Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline expansion through Alberta and British Columbia will begin in August and hear from more than a thousand people, groups and communities.

But only 400 of the more than 2,118 applicants who applied to be interveners in the hearings will be allowed to participate.

Those groups given approval will be allowed to question experts and company officials and present evidence at the hearings.

They include: dozens of First Nations, the Alberta Federation of Labour, B.C. Green MLA and climate scientist Andrew Weaver, BC Nature, the BC Wildlife Federation, BP Canada, BC Hydro, the Burnaby Teachers’ Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, and cities from Kamloops to Victoria.

Environment Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and the federal Fisheries and Oceans department will also have intervener status, as well as the B.C. and Alberta provincial governments and the conservation groups Living Oceans and Raincoast Foundation.

Additional 1,250 invited to submit letter

Another 1,250 individuals and groups will be allowed to submit a comment letter to the panel but won’t be able to participate directly in the hearings.

Of the applications received, 452 that requested intervener status were given commenter status.

Another 468 were denied participation.

They include: New Democrat MP Kennedy Stewart, the Business Council of British Columbia, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canadian Natural Resource Alliance, the City of Fort St. John, Dogwood Initiative and the Okanagan Upcycling Resource Society.

Texas-based Kinder Morgan’s $5.4-billion pipeline expansion would have the capacity to transport up to 890,000 barrels per day from Alberta to the company’s Westridge terminal in Burnaby.

A “rigged” process

Changes to the National Energy Board Act that came into effect in July 2012 limit participation to those directly affected by a project or those with specific expertise or information.

Caitlyn Vernon of the Sierra Club BC said the decision to deny participation is “profoundly undemocratic.” Added Vernon in a statement:

[quote]This is a rigged process, deliberately designed to silence the legitimate voices of British Columbians on an issue that has profound implications for our province. All British Columbians are directly affected by the Kinder Morgan proposal, which threatens B.C. families, jobs, salmon and climate.[/quote]

Trans Mountain took no position on individual applicants.

But the company told the panel “the legislative change is meant to avoid parties that may be affected by a project from being ‘lost in the crowd’ of parties whose issues are unrelated to a specific project,” the board stated in the decision released Wednesday.

Panel defends changes to Act

The panel said the changes to the National Energy Board Act were made to promote fairness and efficiency in the review process.

“If you are directly affected, you will be given an opportunity to present your concerns to the board, and the board will make its decision based on the application and all of the evidence before it,” the agency said.

The review panel will hear aboriginal evidence this August and September and hearings will begin next January.

The panel has until July 2, 2015, to complete its report and recommendation for the federal government.

CNRL pipeline leaks 70,000 litres near Slave Lake

April 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

CNRL pipeline leaks 70,000 litres near Slave Lake — An earlier CNRL leak in Cold Lake, Alberta (Chester Dawson / Wall Street Journal)

SLAVE LAKE, Alta. – A pipeline owned by Canadian Natural Resources Limited has spilled 70,000 litres of oil and processed water northwest of Slave Lake, Alta.

The Alberta Energy Regulator says the breach happened on Monday and was reported by CNRL (TSX:CNQ) the same day.

The regulator says the spill is not an emergency, the oil is not near any people, water or wildlife, and a cleanup is underway.

Low amounts of hydrogen sulphide gas were also detected.

Greenpeace Canada says CNRL has had almost twice as many pipeline incidents as other companies in Alberta.

Calgary-based CNRL could not immediately be reached for comment.

Read: CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation

David Suzuki: Don’t blow off wind power

April 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Renewables, UncategorizedDr. David Suzuki

I have a cabin on Quadra Island off the British Columbia coast that’s as close to my heart as you can imagine. From my porch you can see clear across the waters of Georgia Strait to the snowy peaks of the rugged Coast Mountains. It’s one of the most beautiful views I have seen. And I would gladly share it with a wind farm.

Sometimes it seems I’m in the minority. Across Europe and North America, environmentalists and others are locking horns with the wind industry over farm locations. In Canada, opposition to wind installations has sprung up from Nova Scotia to Ontario to Alberta to B.C. In the U.K., more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of the country’s most prominent environmentalists, have argued wind power is inefficient, destroys the ambience of the countryside and makes little difference to carbon emissions. And in the U.S., the Cape Wind Project, which would site 130 turbines off the coast of affluent Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has come under fire from famous liberals, including John Kerry and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

[quote]We can’t shout about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the “dangers” of windmills.[/quote]

We can’t have it both ways

It’s time for some perspective. With the growing urgency of climate change, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t shout about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the “dangers” of windmills. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century. Confronting it will take a radical change in the way we produce and consume energy – another industrial revolution, this time for clean energy, conservation and efficiency.

We’ve undergone such transformations before and we can again. But we must accept that all forms of energy have associated costs. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity, create vast amounts of pollution and contribute to climate change. Large-scale hydroelectric power floods valleys and destroys habitat. Nuclear power plants are expensive, create radioactive waste and take a long time to build.

Royal Society: Wind farms have ‘negligible’ impact on birds

Wind power also has its downsides. It’s highly visible and can kill birds. But any man-made structure (not to mention cars and house cats) can kill birds – houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, an estimated one million birds collide with the city’s buildings every year. In comparison, the risk to birds from well-sited wind farms is low. Even the U.K.’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says scientific evidence shows wind farms “have negligible impacts” on birds when they are appropriately located.

Improved technologies and more attention to wind farm placement can clearly reduce harm to birds, bats and other wildlife. Indeed, the real risk to flying creatures comes not from windmills but from a changing climate, which threatens the very existence of species and their habitats. Wind farms should always be subject to environmental-impact assessments, but a blanket “not in my backyard” approach is hypocritical and counterproductive.

Wind power costs comparable with other energy sources

Pursuing wind power as part of our move toward clean energy makes sense. Wind power has become the fastest-growing source of energy in the world, employing hundreds of thousands of workers. That’s in part because larger turbines and greater knowledge of how to build, install and operate them has dramatically reduced costs over the past two decades. Prices are now comparable to other forms of power generation and will likely decrease further as technology improves.

Eye of the beholder

But, are windmills ugly? Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Programme from 1976 to 1992, told me belching smokestacks were considered signs of progress when he was growing up in Egypt. Even as an adult concerned about pollution, it took him a long time to get over the pride he felt when he saw a tower pouring clouds of smoke.

Our perception of beauty is shaped by our values and beliefs. Some people think wind turbines are ugly. I think smokestacks, smog, acid rain, coal-fired power plants and climate change are ugly. I think windmills are beautiful. They harness the wind’s power to supply us with heat and light. They provide local jobs. They help clean air and reduce climate change.

And if one day I look out from my cabin porch and see a row of windmills spinning in the distance, I won’t curse them. I will praise them. It will mean we’re finally getting somewhere.

BP spills oil into Lake Michigan

March 25, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

BP spills oil into Lake Michigan — BP’s Whiting Refinery on Lake Michigan

by The Associated Press

WHITING, Ind. – BP says it is assessing how much crude oil entered Lake Michigan following a malfunction at its northwestern Indiana refinery.

BP spokesman Scott Dean says crews have placed booms across a cove at the company’s Whiting refinery where workers discovered the oil spill Monday afternoon.

Dean says BP believes the oil released during an oil refining malfunction has been confined to that cove.

He says the oil entered the refinery’s cooling water system, which discharges into the lake about 20 miles southeast of downtown Chicago.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management spokesman Dan Goldblatt says an agency staffer reported seeing a large sheen on the lake about 2 a.m. Tuesday. Dean says that sheen was in the cove and was no longer visible several hours later.