Art Sterritt and Coastal First Nations remain strongly opposed to Enbridge
VANCOUVER – Opponents of any increase in oil tankers off the B.C. coast are marking the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill by launching a renewed campaign against two major pipeline projects.
Coastal First Nations are running newspaper and radio ads about the impacts they fear from oil spills at sea from Enbridge’s (TSX:ENB) Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipelines.
The coalition of aboriginal communities along the B.C. coast are asking residents to support a ban on oil tankers in their traditional territories.
The Sierra Club says Prince William Sound on the Alaska coast has still not recovered from Exxon Valdez spill on March 24th, 1989.
The two projects proposed in B.C. would mean more than 600 additional tankers a year transporting diluted bitumen from the Pacific coast to Asia.
TEXAS CITY, Texas – The cleanup of an unknown amount of thick, sticky oil that spilled into the Galveston Bay blocked traffic Sunday between the Gulf of Mexico and one of the world’s busiest petrochemical transportation waterways, affecting all vessels, even cruise ships.
A barge carrying nearly a million gallons of marine fuel oil collided with a ship Saturday afternoon, springing a leak. Officials believe only one of the barge’s tanks — which holds 168,000 gallons, was breached, though Coast Guard Petty Officer Andy Kendrick said Sunday it wasn’t clear how much oil spilled.
Crews were skimming oil out of the water and containment booms were brought in to protect environmentally sensitive areas of the Houston ship channel, Kendrick said. The ship channel is closed from the mouth of the Houston ship channel, between Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula, Coast Guard Lt. Sam Danus said.
“Unified command is aware of the situation and is communicating with the cruise ship companies,” Danus said.
Area home to fish and wildlife
The area is home to popular bird habitats, especially during the approaching migratory shorebird season, but Kendrick said there have been no reports of wildlife being impacted.
The Texas City dike, a popular fishing spot that goes out into the Gulf for a few miles, is also closed. Lee Rilat, 58, owns Lee’s Bait and Tackle, the last store before the access road to the dike, which was blocked by a police car on a breezy, overcast Sunday. If it weren’t for the spill, Rilat’s business would be hopping.
[quote]This would be the first spring deal, the first real weekend for fishing.[/quote]
Rilat said. He says ships and barges have collided before, but this is the first time — at least this year — that someone has sprung a leak. His wife, Brenda Rilat, said sea fog was hanging over the bay Saturday.
Rilat, who’s lived in the area most of his life, doesn’t think the spill is too big of a deal.
“It’ll be fine. Everything’s going to be lovely. Mother Nature takes care of its own,” he said.
The collision was still being investigated, the Coast Guard said.
The captain of the 585-foot ship, Summer Wind, reported the spill just after noon Saturday. Six crew members from the tow vessel, which was going from Texas City to Bolivar, were injured, the Coast Guard said.
Kirby Inland Marine, which owns the tow vessel and barge, is working with the Texas General Land Office and many other federal, state and non-profit agencies to respond to the spill, The Coast Guard said. Tara Kilgore, an operations co-ordinator with Kirby Inland Marine, declined to comment Saturday.
“Sticky, gooey, thick, tarry stuff”
Jim Suydam, spokesman for the Texas’ General Land Office, described the type of oil the barge was carrying as “sticky, gooey, thick, tarry stuff.”
“That stuff is terrible to have to clean up,” he said.
Richard Gibbons, the conservation director of the Houston Audubon Society, said there is important shorebird habitat on both sides of the ship channel. One is the Bolivar Flats Shorebird Sanctuary just to the east, which Gibbons said attracts 50,000 to 70,000 shorebirds to shallow mud flats that are perfect foraging habitat.
“The timing really couldn’t be much worse since we’re approaching the peak shorebird migration season,” Gibbons said. He added that tens of thousands of wintering birds remain in the area.
Monday marks the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska. Suydam said that spill spurred the creation of the General Land Office’s Oil Spill and Prevention Division, which is funded by a tax on imported oil that the state legislature passed after the Valdez spill.
Growing industry interest in the offshore oil resources of Canada’s Arctic is forcing northerners from east to west to confront hard questions about development.
No actual drilling is likely to happen for years.
But major decisions are being taken now as projects enter the regulatory system.
Governments, aboriginal groups and Arctic communities are considering issues such as how to plug possible blowouts, who benefits from development and whether some waters should remain closed.
“The first time this process goes forward, it’s going to set a template for others to follow,” said Louie Porta, science and policy adviser with Oceans North, part of the Pew Environmental Trust.
Plans for the eastern and western Arctic
In the western Arctic, an aboriginal regulator is setting up hearings into a plan led by Imperial Oil (TSX:IMO) to drill exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea in 2020. The wells would be about 175 kilometres offshore from Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., in water up to 850 metres deep, and are so complex and difficult to drill that the company estimates it would take at least two seasons to complete one.
In the eastern Arctic, the National Energy Board is considering a proposal for seismic tests off Baffin Island that has sparked fierce community opposition. In response to that proposal, the federal government has begun a strategic environmental assessment to consider which parts of a huge swath of ocean all the way down the island’s eastern coast could be opened up for exploration and which might stay closed.
The Beaufort project is being carefully examined by the Inuvialuit, the aboriginal group that has a land claim and self-government agreement in Canada’s northwest corner.
The group has long experience with the oilpatch on land. But this project is different, said Nellie Cournoyea, head of the Inuvialuit Regional Corp.
“When it’s onshore the benefits are much easier to grab ahold of, and the risks are less,” she said. “When you go offshore you have higher risks and less benefits because of the high infrastructure investment you have to get involved.
[quote]Plus, people are still concerned about the risks of oilspills or having a blowout.[/quote]
Relief wells
The National Energy Board has said companies working offshore in the Arctic must have the capability to drill a relief well in the same season to release pressure and stop oil flow in case of a blowout such as the one that happened with BP in the Gulf of Mexico. But the board said other equally effective methods would be considered.
Imperial has said it’s simply not possible to drill a same-season relief well in that region.
Cournoyea said the Inuvialuit are waiting for more information on how the company would respond to a blowout.
“We’re dealing with that right now, to see if we can get more information on what that option might be,” said Cournoyea, who added that Inuvialuit representatives have travelled to the Gulf of Mexico.
Regulatory decisions on Imperial’s plans to stop a blowout and limit the release of oil will be crucial for subsequent proposals, said Porta.
[quote]There’s this ideology that we can prevent our way out of spills.[/quote]
“But there’s a logical miscue to suggest that prevention technologies equal meaningful response when things go wrong. I think it establishes a dangerous precedent as Canada continues to figure out how to drill safely in an Arctic context.”
The effects on animal activity
“The proposed seismic testing and the resulting oil and gas drilling it would bring are not balanced development,” the hamlet wrote to the energy board. “The (hunters and trappers organization) and hamlet council are firmly opposed to seismic testing in Davis Strait and Baffin Bay.”
Aboriginal Affairs says no decisions have been made about whether those waters ultimately will be opened to oil and gas drilling, even if the energy board approves seismic testing.”The strategic environmental assessment for potential offshore oil and gas exploration in Baffin Bay/Davis Strait will recommend to the minister if, where and when the region should be opened for exploration activities,” say government documents.
Porta praises Ottawa for the attempt to get out in front of potential industry activity in the eastern Arctic.
“It’s a great way to look at a broad question and understand and deal with some of the big-picture issues,” he said. “To deal with those up front — things like what areas should be open for rights, what does a meaningful royalty package look like for Inuit — it’s the best way to make big, important decisions.”
It will be years before northerners see offshore drill rigs, if ever. But now is when the decisions about how that return will be managed are being made, said Porta.
“You don’t go from something to nothing quickly with Arctic oil and gas. The decisions happen now.”
As the publisher of an online journal focusing on Canada’s environment and resource economy, the issue of what to call Alberta’s oil patch is an increasingly, um, sticky subject.
Do we use “oil sands”, capitulating to the industry’s late but valiant rebranding effort, or keep to “tar sands”, which is how we’ve generally referred to it in the past? Or, like the Huffington Post and other newer, online publications, float between the two, depending on the story and author – which is what we’re doing more of lately.
Neither oil nor tar
The simple fact of the matter is that viscous, sand-encased substance lying under the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin is neither oil nor tar. Which makes it hypocritical and disingenuous for industry advocates to dismiss their critics for using the word “tar”, while at the same time misrepresenting their product as “oil”.
One thing that substance is most definitely not is sweet, light crude. It’s bitumen. At best, after considerable refining, it will become synthetic crude (or “syncrude”) and various other fuels and petrochemical products. It is never, nor will it ever be oil.
I have always preferred “tar sands”, not because of its activist connotation, but because I believe tar more closely reflects the defining characteristics of bitumen than does oil. Of course, tar is not a single, naturally-occurring substance – rather “a very thick, black, sticky liquid…used especially for road surfaces”, as Merriam-Webster’s defines it. (On that note, a contractor I hired to patch a leaking crack between the asphalt and concrete perimeter at the rear of my building recommended a bitumen product for the job, which worked like a hot damn).
Says Wikipedia, “Tar can be produced from coal, wood, petroleum, or peat. It is black, and a mixture of hydrocarbons and free carbon.” A sticky, black substance often derived from coal or petroleum, which is used to patch roads. Sounds an awful lot like bitumen to me.
That said, I always want to reach new readers, especially with regards to the vital conversation on Canada’s energy future. And the fact is, the oil industry and Harper government, though late out of the gate, have been highly effective at marginalizing the term “tar sands” and those who use it as left-wing nuts and out-of-touch tree-huggers. I’m not saying they’re objectively right about this. Of course they aren’t, especially with the sort of polarizing language they increasingly apply to anyone who dares question the industry: “radical”, “extremist”, or the most egregious, “eco-terrorist”.
Nevertheless, the success of the oil lobby in terms of shifting the language paradigm around Alberta bitumen is a present reality which I feel compelled at least to confront.
American author stymied by oil sands/tar sands debate
Pulitzer Prize-winning American author Tony Horwitz encapsulated the issue on CBC radio’s The Current this past week while discussing his time in Alberta researching a new book. Host Anna Maria Tremonti asked, “When you got to Fort MacMurray, were you saying oil sands or tar sands?” Horowitz replied:
[quote]I was new to this topic and was sort of an agnostic on that question, but it quickly became clear to me that saying ‘tar sands’ would tar me as a hostile environmentalist. So, I began to say ‘oil sands’. Now that I’m back here in the US, I have to say most of the conversation, it’s ‘tar sands’ – but it’s a mark of how politicized this issue is that we can’t even agree on what to call this substance.[/quote]
Environmentalists frame tar sands early on
“Oil sands” wasn’t always the go-to moniker for Alberta bitumen. In a rare coup for the environmental movement, the early rounds of the PR war over Alberta’s massive bitumen deposits went to tree-hugging opponents. The term, “tar sands” stuck in the public consciousness, both in Canada and amongst a growing legion of international critics.
Peter Essick’s National Geographic photos gave the oil sands a black eye
This was the kind of rebranding exercise that is so often the province of “free market” conservatives and their pollsters – like Frank Luntz, who advised the Bush Administration to substitute “climate change” for global warming, in order to make it sound less alarming.
Sometime around the 2009 publication of National Geographic’s groundbreaking photo essay, titled “Scraping Bottom”, the oil lobby recognized it had a real branding problem on its hands. The cover story used the term “oil sands”, but the moonscape images it yielded fit perfectly into the environmental movement’s framing of the “tar sands”.
Somewhere in there, the industry got its act together and decided to go public with a multi-million dollar rebranding effort. This included the “Ethical Oil” concept (though you’ll never get any of them to admit a direct connection between this group, the Harper government and the oil industry). But, more importantly, it revolved around a massive advertising campaign – encompassing print, online, radio and television – dousing the Canadian public in saccharine ads extolling the virtues of improved technology, remediated wetlands and indispensable economic benefits. All emblazoned with two words: “OIL SANDS “.
A leaked 2013 Postmedia sales pitch to the industry’s leading lobby, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), offered to manufacture sympathetic news coverage across its national newspaper chain. Not long after this pitch, Postmedia demoted star national energy reporter Mike De Souza through the cancellation of its parliamentary bureau.
This on top of paid speaking engagements for two of the CBC’s most prominent on-air talents, National anchor Peter Mansbridge and pundit and radio host Rex Murphy. Neither of these newsmen and none of these outlets has seen fit to acknowledge any impropriety or ethical conflict in these situations.
So today, a survey of the nation’s leading media publications reveals that essentially all of them have chosen “oil” over “tar”. For Sun News and the CBC, “oilsands” is the most consistent choice – with the occasional “oil sands” mixed in.
The Globe and Mail prefers a space between oil and sands, as does the National Post, though parent Postmedia doesn’t appear to have a national policy on the subject yet, as The Vancouver Sun usually opts for “oilsands”. Meanwhile, CAPP itself uses “oil sands”.
Bigger than Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to
As author Horwitz noted, it’s pretty well impossible to engage in a sound debate about the oil sands/tar sands if we can’t even agree on what to call them.
Defaulting to oil sands may ensure a wider readership for our stories at The Common Sense Canadian, but in capitulating to the oil lobby’s choice of language, I recognize would be helping to legitimize its corporate, PR flack misnomer, the “oil sands.” Moreover, calling it “oil” glosses over the important differences between these two products – from the water and climate issues, to the properties which may very well make bitumen more prone to spills and more difficult to clean up. The consequences of this word choice are far more serious than po-tay-to/po-tah-to.
So how about we split the difference and call them what they really are: The Bitumen Sands?
Maybe not as catchy, but a hell of a lot more honest.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia granted conditional approval Friday to a proposed liquefied natural gas plant in Goldboro, clearing another hurdle for the terminal that’s slated to be operational in six years if Pieridae Energy Canada decides to proceed with the project.
Environment Minister Randy Delorey said the Calgary-based company must abide by 40 conditions if it goes ahead, which includes working with his department to find ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at each phase of the project. Other conditions are intended to protect wetlands and wildlife, he said.
“I am confident any potential environmental issues can be addressed and the economic benefits of this project can be realized,” he said in a statement.
Earlier this month, an environmental panel gave conditional approval for the project, which the company said Friday is estimated to cost US$8.3 billion in capital spending.
The province’s Utility and Review Board will have the final say on whether the project can go ahead.
Company predicts 200 long-term jobs
Pieridae said it anticipates the terminal will create up to 3,500 jobs during its construction and 200 full-time workers will be needed to operate the plant.
The company said it will make a final will decision on the project in 2015 and, if it proceeds, the terminal will be operational in 2020.
“We are very pleased to receive environmental assessment approval, which is an important milestone toward development of Goldboro LNG, ” said Alfred Sorensen, the company’s president and CEO.
Power plant for LNG terminal could affect harbour habitat
In addition to the LNG facility, the project also includes a 180 megawatt gas-fired power plant, a water supply intake and pipeline for a potable water supply from a nearby lake, and a marine wharf and jetty. The jetty would extend into Isaac’s Harbour, which includes habitat for lobster, fish and sea urchins.
The company said it will work with local residents, First Nations and the Environment Department as it works to meet the conditions placed on the project, which include management plans on air emissions, greenhouse gas and wetlands. It must also establish a fisheries advisory committee.
Project would raise province’s carbon emissions by 18%
The three-member environmental panel that reviewed the project said it would result in a number of “residual effects” on the environment, such as an increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 18 per cent above 2010 levels by 2020. It says a number of fisheries in the general area would be compromised as well.
The environmental panel said it believes the economic benefits tipped the scale in favour of the project’s development.
Its report said the Goldboro project is projected to contribute 0.5 per cent of the annual national greenhouse gas emissions for Canada and that provincial emissions and targets must be carefully considered. The panel said Pieridae argued the increase will be offset largely by foreign customer’s replacement of coal by the company’s natural gas.
In its submission to the panel, the Halifax-based Ecology Action Centre asked for the project to be “dismissed outright” by the Environment Department because its 2020 emissions would make it nearly impossible for Nova Scotia to reduce its overall emissions 10 per cent below 1990 levels by that same year.
Most of the oil from the proposed Energy East pipeline would be destined for export, says a new report
by Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press
CALGARY – The proposed Energy East pipeline won’t be the boon to Eastern Canadian refineries that supporters claim because the vast majority of the oil in it would be bound for export markets, environmental groups argued in a report released Tuesday.
Alberta bitumen bound for India Europe
The $12-billion project would likely use the lion’s share of its 1.1 million barrel per day capacity to send unrefined oilsands crude to markets like India, Europe and possibly the United States, says the report, penned by The Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence and Equiterre.
The pipeline would run 4,600 kilometres from Alberta to Saint John, N.B., using repurposed pipe already in the ground for roughly two thirds of the way.
The company planning to build it, TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP), aims to file a formal regulatory application this summer and has been engaging with communities along the route in an effort to build support.
Backers in industry and government have said Energy East will help ailing refineries in the East — reliant on high-cost crude from abroad — by connecting them with a stable, low-cost supply from Western Canada. The proposal also includes export terminals in Quebec and Saint John, N.B., from which some of oil can be sent overseas by tanker, getting producers a better price.
Only 122,000 barrels a day to local refineries
The report Tuesday said the three refineries along the Energy East route — Suncor Energy’s (TSX:SU) in Montreal, Valero’s near Quebec City and Irving’s in Saint John, N.B., — have a combined capacity of 672,000 barrels per day.
Of that, the groups figure 550,000 barrels per day can come from elsewhere — offshore crude in Atlantic Canada, booming U.S. shale resources and, eventually, via Enbridge Inc.’s (TSX:ENB) recently approved reversed Line 9 pipeline between southwestern Ontario and Montreal. That leaves just 122,000 barrels per day of refining capacity that can be served by Energy East, the report said.
“It’s very frustrating to watch a company trying to convince Canadians that they should accept these massive risks based on some perceived benefit that they may receive. When you dig into it, you find that it’s an empty promise,” said Adam Scott, with Environmental Defence.
[quote]It’s just not true that Eastern Canada’s going to benefit in the way that TransCanada’s saying they are. And when you look and see that this is a project about putting vast quantities of oil onto tankers and shipping them out of the country, people who are convinced that ‘this is going to mean more local jobs for me’ are going to be very disappointed.[/quote]
TransCanada makes big economic promises
TransCanada has said the project’s economic benefits would be massive and has described it as a nation builder on par with the Canadian Pacific Railway.
A study TransCanada commissioned last September, conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, noted Quebec and New Brunswick refiners would see big cost savings if connected with lower-cost western crude.
On a 100,000 barrel per day basis, Quebec refineries would save between $92 million and $336 million per year, while in New Brunswick the annual savings would be between $51 million and $377 million, the Deloitte report said. That’s assuming those refineries continue to use mostly light oil.
Suncor has been considering adding equipment to its Montreal refinery that would enable it to process heavier crudes, while the Irving refinery in Saint John, N.B., has the ability to process some heavy crude.
Deloitte report predicts 1,000 direct long-term jobs
The Deloitte report predicted the equivalent of 10,071 direct full-time equivalent jobs across the country will be needed to develop and build Energy East until 2018. Once the pipeline is up and running, Deloitte sees the creation of 1,081 direct jobs.
The study also found the project would add about $35.3 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product in the development and construction phase and over the 40-year life of the project. As well, it’s expected to add $10.2 billion in tax revenues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels the over that time.
Those economic figures don’t include the impact of higher Canadian crude prices that would result from being able to sell the product in lucrative overseas markets. Nor does it incorporate the lower crude costs eastern refineries may enjoy.
U.S. Senators from the Senate Climate Action Task Force urge action on climate change in Washington (Photo: Yuri Gripas, Reuters).
by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Democrats are grappling with an election-year dilemma posed by the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Wealthy party donors are funding candidates who oppose the project — a high-profile symbol of the political debate over climate change. But some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents are pipeline boosters, and whether Democrats retain control of the Senate after the 2014 midterm elections may hinge on them.
The dilemma was highlighted Thursday as President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser — and now a consultant to the oil industry — said Obama should approve the pipeline to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a message that “international bullies” can’t use energy security as a weapon.
$100 million towards making climate change an election issue
The comments by retired Gen. James Jones came as a top Democratic donor again urged that the pipeline be rejected.
Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist, has vowed to spend $100 million —$50 million of his own money and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the 2014 elections.
Steyer, who opposes Keystone, declined to say whether he would contribute to Democrats who support the pipeline, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana. All face strong challenges from Republicans in energy-producing states where Obama lost to Mitt Romney in 2012.
Still, a spokesman said Steyer believes Democratic control of the Senate is important from a climate perspective.
Approving pipeline would send message to Putin
Jones told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Canada-to-Texas pipeline is a litmus test of whether the U.S. is serious about national and global energy security. Approval of the pipeline would help ensure that North America becomes a global energy hub and a reliable energy source to the U.S and its allies, Jones said. Rejecting the pipeline would “make Mr. Putin’s day and strengthen his hand,” he said.
Jones, who left the Obama administration in 2010, now heads a consulting firm that has done work for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s chief trade group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups support the pipeline.
Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the pipeline issue Thursday at an appropriations hearing. Landrieu called approval of the pipeline “critical” to the national interest and said that in Louisiana, “it’s hard for us to even understand why there is a question” whether it should be approved. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.
Kerry told Landrieu he was “not at liberty to go into my thinking at this point,” but added: “I am approaching this, you know, tabula rasa. I’m going to look at all the arguments, both sides, all sides, whatever, evaluate them and make the best judgment I can about what is in the national interest.”
Steyer battles public opinion on pipeline
Polls show Americans support the pipeline, with 65 per cent saying they approved of it in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Twenty-two per cent of those polled opposed the pipeline.
Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, spent more than $10 million to help elect Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., last year. In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Steyer declined to comment on where his advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, would spend money this fall. But he noted the views of Landrieu and other endangered Democratic incumbents were well known.
“I think those senators voted on this long before 2014,” he said, “so I don’t think there’s any real change here.”
Steyer hosted a fundraiser last month at his San Francisco home attended by at least six Democratic senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The event, which raised $400,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also was attended by former Vice-President Al Gore, who said the party needs to make global warming a central issue in the midterm elections.
Democrats’ control of the Senate
Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who advises Steyer, has said the group would not go after Democrats, even those who support the pipeline.
“We’re certainly not subscribing to what I would call the tea party theory of politics,” Lehane said. “We do think it’s really, really important from a climate perspective that we maintain control of the Senate for Democrats.”
Steyer said Thursday he has not decided whether to spend money in Colorado, where Democratic Sen. Mark Udall is likely to be challenged by GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. Udall was among more than 30 Democratic senators who engaged in a talkathon urging action on climate change this week, but he has largely stayed out of the Keystone fight. Udall voted against budget amendments urging both support and rejection of the pipeline, arguing that they injected politics into a process that should remain at the State Department.
Udall wants to evaluate the project “on the merits and using objective, scientific analysis,” said spokesman Mike Saccone.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said he hoped Thursday’s hearing would offer “a balanced, thoughtful” approach that “puts aside some of the politics that have surrounded this debate” over the pipeline.
“We are here to find answers and shed more light than heat on the issue,” Menendez said, although the hearing soon devolved into a series of claims and counterclaims.
The $5.3 billion pipeline would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada through the U.S. heartland to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.
EPA report helps pipeline
Pipeline supporters, including lawmakers from both parties and many business and labour groups, say the project would create thousands of jobs and reduce the need for oil imports from Venezuela and other politically turbulent countries.
Opponents say the pipeline would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about possible spills.
The State Department said in a Jan. 31 report that building the pipeline would not significantly boost carbon emissions because the oil was likely to find its way to market no matter what. Transporting the oil by rail or truck would cause greater environmental problems than the pipeline, the report said.
Alex (right) and father (left) riding dirt bikes. (Photo: Matt Sutton’s Facebook)
by Matt Sutton
In November, 2013, I drove to Lacombe, Alberta, to visit my Dad and his family, accompanied by my best friend Alex – a chemical engineer technologist at Imperial Oil, responsible for conducting research on how to clean up tailing ponds.
My Dad has worked in Alberta’s oil and gas industry for twenty-two years.
Both Alex and myself have been shaped by this multi-billion dollar industry, Alex working in it and me having grown up in a household financially supported by it.
This reality was reflected in our trip to Lacombe.
[quote]I was aware of northern Alberta and Fort McMurray before I knew what the oil and gas industry was.[/quote]
David ‘Vivuki’ is an idiot
After a day of dirt biking on my father’s acreage, we sat down for dinner and within minutes discussion about the oil sands, Neil Young and David Suzuki joined us at the table.
“David ‘Vivuki’ is an idiot,” stated the eight-year-old at the table.
“It’s Suzuki, sweetie,” corrected her Mother, “but that’s right, he’s an idiot.”
At the time it was hilarious hearing her numerous attempts at saying the name ‘Suzuki’, but as I look back now the meaning of this dinner table discussion scares me.
Growing up in an oil and gas family, I have first-hand experience of the benefits the industry offers. My Dad always had a job, and subsequently, I always had new toys and my family always had a meal for dinner.
But for me – and I suspect many like me – it has also created a lot of confusion about how we should respond to the debate over an economy that has clothed us, but is also controversial in many other ways.
Alberta’s economic promise
My Dad left his home in England at 18 and joined the British Military. He spent the following decade fixing England’s tanks internationally. Then, at some point, he met my Mom, had me and my sister, left the army and settled in Calgary, Alberta.
Being a heavy-duty mechanic, he began work with a drilling company and moved up the ladder of the oil and gas industry. Today, he is a maintenance manager for a coil tubing company which conducts drilling internationally.
As a kid, I didn’t understand the ins and outs of what my Dad did, nor did I really care – similar to the way his fiancé’s eight-year-old daughter doesn’t understand who David Suzuki is – she only understands what she hears.
I knew my Dad worked on drilling rigs up north and that meant he was gone all the time. I remember him being in a place described to me as ‘up north’, or sometimes it was ‘Fort Mac’.
I was aware of northern Alberta and Fort McMurray before I knew what the oil and gas industry was.
Trading family time for toys
But my Dad missed a lot – hockey games, skateboard contests, birthdays and school concerts – and the reasoning for it was always, “Your Dad has to work.”
A oil sands operation in Fort McMurray, Alberta (Photo: Chris Krüg)
Looking back now, I still wish he could have been there, but without that work I never could have played hockey, I never would have had skateboards and I would not have gotten Gameboys, CD players, or new skates for my birthday.
Now that I am older and attempting to find my place in the world, having become more aware of the public debate surrounding the oil and gas industry, I face a great deal of confusion.
On one side, I am being shown the horrific damage to the environment caused by these companies taking oil from the ground, the ecosystems they have destroyed and the way they are jeopardizing the future of our planet.
On the other side, I see an industry responsible for my Dad always having work and for my life’s privileges.
Does opposing the oil and gas industry’s actions make me ungrateful?
Does agreeing with the oil and gas industry’s actions make me ignorant?
I am constantly unsure. In Alberta, it feels like I’m not supposed to question what’s going on. I’m supposed to be appreciative of the ways it makes my life and my cities economy better.
Same old corporate oil answers
At some points, I have asked my Dad questions about the oil sands, what he thinks and what it all means to him, but it always seems to be the same corporate oil answers:
[quote]We need oil, there’s not much you can touch in a day that doesn’t come from oil.
How come there’s a big fuss about Alberta but nobody cares about drilling in Saudi Arabia? Is it different because it’s not in Canada?
Yeah there’s pollution but nowhere near as much as they’re emitting in China.[/quote]
These are just some of the answers I’ve received from my Dad in the past, and although these things are true and I appreciate the conversations we have, they do not provide answers. They are all responses that simply divert my attention away from the topic I originally brought up.
Matt Sutton (Photo: Jon Peters)
Most of the time I feel like I will never find truth. Most who provide an argument on the situation seem to be making money off of it one way or another, and that makes it difficult to discover the truth.
Both sides overreaching
Every time I look into the left side of the conversation I find the same frustrations as I have on the right. Everything seems blown out of proportion with both perspectives.
For example, Neil Young’s private jet and tour buses are enormous consumers of the same fuel his lyrics stand against. I don’t blame him though – if I had the money I’d probably have a private jet too, and I’m not saying that I think the message of his songs are wrong. My problem is I don’t know how I’m supposed to believe his conviction when his actions do not align with his words.
The same kind of things can be said about David Suzuki, another spokesman against the oil sands. Suzuki writes frequently against the oil sands, describing them as ‘scary’ and relating the suits behind the oil companies to the mythical ‘bogeyman’ his children used to ask him about. Suzuki then says, “or maybe there’s something more frightening to consider. Perhaps the bogeyman is us – the public that places short-term economic value of the tar sands above the priceless value of our environment and our earth.”
To be honest, I don’t very much appreciate Mr. Suzuki saying that I, or any other hard working citizen is any kind of bogeyman who values money over the environment. Especially when money is not something he has to worry about.
If being frustrated because another millionaire is making me feel bad for appreciating the money generated from the oil sands wasn’t enough, I found it even harder to listen to David Suzuki’s arguments after hearing the accusations that he made up some information in an opinion piece saying cyclones were an environmental threat to the great barrier reef. When asked about this claim, Suzuki’s response was “that one, I have to admit, was suggested to me by an Australian and it may be true that it might be a mistake, I don’t know.” Is it just me, or does saying that an idea was suggested to him by an Australian make it any less frightening that he wrote it in his article without double checking first?
The trial of David Suzuki (Photo: The Royal Ontario Museum)
If David Suzuki had such an easy time putting false information into an article about climate change in Australia, how do I know he’s not doing the same thing here? This is why I have a hard time believing either side of the oil sands argument.
It is examples such as these that frustrate me about the environmental side of the argument. They take things out of context or exaggerate them beyond reason to belittle the oil industry, the same way that the oil industry will downplay issues to make them seem better in the public eye. It is equally frustrating on both sides and makes me feel like neither are being honest.
That said, it is not just the battle between the oil and gas industry and environmentalists that exists this way – nearly every conversation has two different parts from each side that aren’t necessarily honest, and that’s why I got into journalism in the first place, to discover the truth.
I believe the truth is balanced somewhere between the environmentalists comparing the oil sands to Hiroshima and the oil companies calling their reclaimed lands ‘lush’.
My job now, and everybody’s job for that matter, is to listen. Listen to everything said and try understand that although those comments may be exaggerated and both sides may be wrong sometimes, if everybody listens to each other then there is hope for a truth. A truth that I will be willing to accept from both sides.
It is important now more than ever to pay attention to what is going on and listen to everything being said about the oil sands regardless of what you believe and regardless of which side the information is coming from because neither side holds the full truth.
It is going to take a lot of time, patience and cooperation but I do believe the truth is out there to be found.
Matt Sutton is studying journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary, AB.
Canadian Natural Resources Limited’s Horizon oilsands upgrader
By John Cotter in Edmonton
FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. – Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. is facing 11 environmental charges over the release of a potentially deadly gas near an aboriginal community in northern Alberta.
The Alberta government said the charges stem from the release of hydrogen sulphide gas on August 2012 from the CNRL Horizon oilsands upgrader facility north of Fort McMurray.
The province said it learned of the leaks after getting complaints from the Fort McKay First Nation and reports from air monitoring stations.
“These are definitely serious charges,” Nikki Booth, a spokeswoman for Alberta Environment said Friday.
“It is something that we felt we needed to do to ensure that there is environmental responsibility on the part of the company.”
The province alleges that CNRL (TSX:CNQ) released the gas, failed to use its equipment properly, failed to report what happened properly and provided misleading information to the government and the Fort McKay First Nation.
There was no information on how much gas was released.
Each charge carries a possible maximum fine of $500,000.
Environment Minister Robin Campbell was not immediately available for an interview. He instead issued a written statement that doesn’t mention CNRL or the charges, but says the government takes environmental protection seriously.
“Our ability to open new markets for our oil — or to maintain the markets we have today — depends on our credibility when it comes to responsible oilsands development,” the statement says.
“Alberta is a leader when it comes to having stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation. We are proud of this and remain committed to ensuring that we develop our resources in a responsible and sustainable way.”
Officials with Calgary-based CNRL and the Fort McKay First Nation were not immediately available for comment.
Alberta Environment says hydrogen sulphide can be highly toxic and smells like rotten eggs. Exposure at low concentrations can irritate the eyes, nose and throat or cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea.
Exposure at higher concentrations can result in sleepiness, blurred vision or death from respiratory failure.
Mike Hudema with Greenpeace Canada said the allegations show that the oilsands industry needs much heavier oversight, and the policy of simply trusting oil companies to do the right thing has to end once and for all.
He said what happened could have been very serious.
“The fact CNRL not only released a deadly gas but allegedly misled Fort McKay First Nation about it is deeply troubling and begs the question of whether monetary fines go far enough,” he said.
CNRL already faces three environmental charges over a similar release of hydrogen sulphide gas that occurred in May 2010.
Those charges allege the energy company released hydrogen sulphide gas into the atmosphere and failed to report it. These charges are still before the courts.
The company is to appear in Fort McMurray provincial court on the latest charges on April 14.
CNRL’s website says its Horizon operation includes surface oilsands mining, bitumen extraction and upgrading plants.
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson loves fracking other people’s back yards – just not his own
Dear Rex Tillerson,
I am writing to express my disappointment in learning that you recently opposed the construction of a water tower essential to shale gas development near your home in Texas.
As you and I both know, hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking”, as rabid environmentalist-types refer to it – is a game-changing technology that presents many wonderful opportunities to the American people and economy. Your company, ExxonMobil, has been a global leader in its development, for which I applaud you, as CEO.
But sometimes in life, we are called upon to take one for the team – and this is just such a moment. By acting like every other pinko, tree-hugging NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) who stands in the way of progress by protesting the alleged impacts of fracking and related activities on their property values and family’s health and well being, I feel you are setting a very bad example for the rest of the country.
Can you imagine the potential consequences for America’s economy? As you’re well aware, shale gas offers billions of dollars in economic opportunities, gazillions of jobs, and the ability for America to become energy independent – and you want to put all that at risk because your home might go down in value by a measly few million bucks?!
You had me worried when you acknowledged that human-caused climate change is real (beg to differ), but when you told those environmentalists that it’s no big deal and people who are affected by it should just move, you regained my confidence. You have always worked hard to promote the virtues of fracking and dismiss those pesky greenies, farmers and such – and for that, I admire your leadership.
But as for this water tower, I suggest it’s time you suck it up and deal with it, like so many millions of other Americans have had to.
Otherwise, not only will the environmentalists hate you, but so will all us reasonable folks who believe in the vision you’ve sold us about our energy future.
For the love of shale, please don’t be just another NIMBY, Rex!
