Category Archives: Energy and Resources

$David Suzuki-Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy$

David Suzuki: Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy

February 19, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, WATER, Water and HydrocarbonsfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

David Suzuki-Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy — Fracking protest in New Brunswick (photo: Colin McPhail)

It would be difficult to live without oil and gas. But it would be impossible to live without water. Yet, in our mad rush to extract and sell every drop of gas and oil as quickly as possible, we’re trading precious water for fossil fuels.

A recent report, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress”, shows the severity of the problem. Alberta and B.C. are among eight North American regions examined in the study by Ceres, a U.S.-based nonprofit advocating for sustainability leadership.

Fracking happening is regions of “high water stress”

One of the most disturbing findings is that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is using enormous amounts of water in areas that can scarcely afford it. The report notes that close to half the oil and gas wells recently fracked in the U.S. “are in regions with high or extremely high water stress” and more than 55 per cent are in areas experiencing drought.

In Colorado and California, almost all wells – 97 and 96 per cent, respectively – are in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning more than 80 per cent of available surface and groundwater has already been allocated for municipalities, industry and agriculture. A quarter of Alberta wells are in areas with medium to high water stress.

Fracking will compound California’s 500-year drought

Drought and fracking have already caused some small communities in Texas to run out of water altogether, and parts of California are headed for the same fate. As we continue to extract and burn ever greater amounts of oil, gas and coal, climate change is getting worse, which will likely lead to more droughts in some areas and flooding in others.

California’s drought may be the worst in 500 years, according to B. Lynn Ingram, an earth and planetary sciences professor at the University of California, Berkeley. That’s causing a shortage of water for drinking and agriculture, and for salmon and other fish that spawn in streams and rivers. With no rain to scrub the air, pollution in the Los Angeles area has returned to dangerous levels of decades past.

BC, Alberta could face similar problems

Because of lack of information from industry and inconsistencies in water volume reporting, Ceres’ Western Canada data analysis “represents a very small proportion of the overall activity taking place.” Researchers determined, though, that Alberta fracking operations have started using more “brackish/saline” groundwater instead of freshwater. The report cautions that this practice needs more study “given the potential for brackish water to be used in the future for drinking water” and the fact that withdrawing salty groundwater “can also adversely impact interconnected freshwater resources.”

Although B.C. fracking operations are now mainly in low water stress regions, reduced precipitation and snowpack, low river levels and even drought conditions in some areas – likely because of climate change – raise concerns about the government’s plan to rapidly expand the industry. The report cites a “lack of regulation around groundwater withdrawals” and cumulative impacts on First Nations lands as issues with current fracking.

“Everything must go”

Ceres’ study only looks at fracking impacts on freshwater supplies, and offers recommendations to reduce those, including recycling water, using brackish or wastewater, strengthening regulations and finding better ways to dispose of fracking wastewater. But the drilling method comes with other environmental problems, from groundwater contamination to massive ecosystem and habitat disruption – even small earth tremors – all done in the name of short-term gain.

It’s important to heed the conclusions and recommendations of this study and others, but given the problems with fracking, and other forms of extraction, we must find ways to control our insatiable fossil fuel demand. That burning these – often wastefully – contributes to climate change, and our methods of extraction exacerbate the problems, should make us take a good look at how we’re treating this planet and everything on it, including ourselves and generations to come. It’s a reminder that we need to conserve energy in every way possible.

In the short term, we must realize that we have better ways to create jobs and build the economy than holding an “everything must go” sale on our precious resources. In the longer term, we must rethink our outdated economic systems, which were devised for times when resources were plentiful and infrastructure was scarce. Our highest priorities must be the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that provides food and the biodiversity that keeps us alive and healthy.

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

TransCanada gas pipeline ruptures in Alberta

February 18, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

TransCanada gas pipeline breaks in Alberta — TransCanada gas pipelines

Updated 2 PM PST

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE, Alta. – The National Energy Board is investigating a natural gas pipeline rupture in west-central Alberta.

The federal regulator said the TransCanada (TSX:TRP) pipe broke Tuesday morning about 10 kilometres north of Rocky Mountain House.

It said the pipe was shut down and there were no immediate public safety concerns.

TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said the nearest home to the pipeline rupture is more than half a kilometre away. He said the company had been in contact with the landowner and no evacuation was required.

Howard said it was the company’s understanding that Transportation Safety Board and energy board personnel were on their way to the site to monitor TransCanada’s response.

“Before any repair or restoration of service work can occur, the (energy board) must approve the company’s plans,” he said in a release.

There was no disruption of natural gas service to the community of Rocky Mountain House, Howard added, although TransCanada was “working with some of our customers, who provide service to homes in rural areas, to assess their needs.”

Manager of the Rocky Gas Co-op, Vic Kelly, advised customers to use other fuel sources until the gas was turned back on.

There was no word on when that might happen.

A TransCanada pipeline explosion in Manitoba last month left about 3,600 homes and businesses without heat for several days in -20 C temperatures.

(CKGY, The Canadian Press)

Read: Regulator buried report on TransCanada pipeline explosion

Will thorium save us from climate change?

February 12, 2014Climate Change, Energy and Resources, NuclearfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

As knowledge about climate change increases, so does demand for clean energy. Technologies like solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal and biofuels, along with energy-grid designs that will help us take advantage of renewables, are part of the equation, as is conservation.

But many argue that, despite Fukushima and other disasters, nuclear is the best option to reduce carbon emissions fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. Because of problems with radioactive waste, meltdown risks and weapons proliferation, some say we must develop safer nuclear technologies.

Even eminent climate scientists like James Hansen claim we can’t avoid nuclear if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hansen, a former NASA scientist, with Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tom Wigley of Australia’s University of Adelaide, wrote an open letter last year stating, “the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems.”

“Safe” Nuclear: Is there such a thing

What are “safer nuclear power systems”? And are they the answer?

Proposed technologies include smaller modular reactors, reactors that shut down automatically after an accident and molten salt reactors. Some would use fuels and coolants deemed safer. (Industry proponents argue the low incidence of nuclear accidents means current technology is safe enough. But the costs and consequences of an accident, as well as problems such as containing highly radioactive wastes, provide strong arguments against building new reactors with current technology.)

The Thorium option

One idea is to use thorium instead of uranium for reactor fuel. Thorium is more abundant than uranium. Unlike uranium, it’s not fissile; that is, it can’t be split to create a nuclear chain reaction, so it must be bred through nuclear reactors to produce fissile uranium.

Thorium-fuelled reactors produce less waste, and while some trace elements in spent uranium fuels remain radioactive for many thousands of years, levels in spent thorium fuels drop off much faster. China and Canada are working on a modified Canadian design that includes thorium along with recycled uranium fuel. With the right type of reactor, such as this design or the integral fast reactor, meltdown risks are reduced or eliminated.

Thorium can be employed in a variety of reactor types, some of which currently use uranium – including heavy water reactors like Canada’s CANDU. But some experts say new technologies, such as molten salt reactors, including liquid fluoride thorium reactors, are much safer and more efficient than today’s conventional reactors.

So why aren’t we using them?

Thorium’s downsides

Although they may be better than today’s reactors, LFTRs still produce radioactive and corrosive materials, they can be used to produce weapons and we don’t know enough about the impacts of using fluoride salts. Fluoride will contain a nuclear reaction, but it can be highly toxic, and deadly as fluorine gas. And though the technology’s been around since the 1950s, it hasn’t been proven on a commercial scale. Countries including the U.S., China, France and Russia are pursuing it, but in 2010 the U.K.’s National Nuclear Laboratory reported that thorium claims are “overstated”.

It will also take a lot of time and money to get a large number of reactors on-stream – some say from 30 to 50 years. Given the urgent challenge of global warming, we don’t have that much time. Many argue that if renewables received the same level of government subsidies as the nuclear industry, we’d be ahead at lower costs. Thorium essentially just adds another fuel option to the nuclear mix and isn’t a significant departure from conventional nuclear. All nuclear power remains expensive, unwieldy and difficult to integrate with intermittent renewables – and carries risks for weapons proliferation.

Renewable energy still the best option

If the choice is between keeping nuclear power facilities running or shutting them down and replacing them with coal-fired power plants, the nuclear option is best for the climate. But, for now, investing in renewable energy and smart-grid technologies is a faster, more cost-effective and safer option than building new nuclear facilities, regardless of type.

That doesn’t mean we should curtail research into nuclear and other options, including thorium’s potential to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear facilities. But we must also build on the momentum of renewable energy development, which has been spurred by its safety, declining costs and proven effectiveness.

With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Last chance to apply for Kinder Morgan oil pipeline hearings

February 11, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersDamien Gillis

The window for the public to apply to participate in the upcoming National Energy Board hearings into the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Vancouver closes Wednesday at 11 AM (PST).

The project would see close to a tripling of Alberta bitumen piped to the company’s Burnaby terminal and a dramatic increase to approximately 400 tankers a year passing through Burrard Inlet and BC’s south coast – up from just a dozen or two prior to Kinder Morgan’s purchase of the old Trans Mountain pipeline in 2005.

The public can register online prior to 11 AM (PST) Wednesday, February 12.

Exploding BC LNG Myths – Part 1

February 10, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGfeaturedKevin Logan

The BC Government recently published an online quiz to “test the knowledge” of British Columbians on the coming LNG revolution.

It amounted to a propaganda exercise with the sole purpose of testing how well the BC Liberal LNG rhetoric has pierced the minds of the BC populace.

The infamous Harold Evans, longtime Editor of the Sunday Times of London and author of many books is quoted as saying:

[quote]Propaganda is persuading people to make up their minds while withholding the facts from them.[/quote]

We used to rely on the muckrakers of the “fourth estate” to inform us of the goings-on in government. However, today we neither elect governments who work in our best interest nor have media that informs – rather, the two work in concert to ensure we are well propagandized, as defined by Mr. Evans.

It used to be that resource companies handled their own communications, did their own advertising and managed the public affairs of their undertakings; today that job now involves governments and (E)NGOs (environmental non-governmental organization).

Our elected leaders in government and the self-appointed leaders in NGOs have abandoned positioning in the public interest and instead have become partners in the exploits of international capital, who provide perception and issue management on their behalf.

Therefor the following clarifications may help with understanding the BC LNG fundamentals from the citizen’s perspective, otherwise known as the owner of the resource and stewards of the land, air and water, versus those committed to providing perception and issue management -otherwise known as “social license.”

BC-LNG-Quiz — The BC Liberal government’s “LNG Quiz”

BC Liberal LNG myths and realities

CLAIM: LNG just evaporates if there is an accident transporting it, loading or shipping the product on the coast.

FALSE: Rapid Phase Transition can occur when LNG meets water, resulting in explosions. See video here. The effect is much more explosive with terrestrial transportation, as seen here.

CLAIM: There is a race to develop BC LNG facilities.

FALSE: Every major industry report points out how LNG is a growth industry, one of the biggest on earth and is reaching its apex after over 50 years in existence. Demand is expected to escalate for at least 30 years as we see the transition to natural gas as transportation fuel take hold.

CLAIM: To win the race we need to hurry in order to satisfy our customers and serve domestic markets before our competition beats us.

FALSE: There is no other place in the world with our proven deposits at our stage of development (speculative) that also has the level of interest being expressed. The BC Liberals have been boosting natural gas exports for over three years, however the development model we are undertaking means we have no “customers”, only new potential owners. If this is a race, “BC” jumped out of the saddle before it started and handed over the reigns to foreign companies and SOEs, The LNG destination markets will only grow as will domestic consumption.

CLAIM: LNG will erase debt, lower taxes and fill a 100 Billion Dollar Prosperity Fund.

FALSE: The BC Liberals have accumulated more debt than any government in history. Christy Clark incurred more debt in just two years before the last election than the entire NDP “decade of decline.” And that is only debt they acknowledge. Unacknowledged debt that exists as of today, in both deferred and hidden public accounts, exceeds the expected revenues from LNG exports, given the terms and conditions her government has so far defined.

CLAIM: The BC Liberals continue to claim “we” will be the most competitive in the world by slashing royalty and tax regimes, while maintaining high subsidies, and becoming the lowest operating district on earth.

PARTIALLY TRUE: It is true that the BC Natural Gas Royalty Regime has often been cited as the lowest in North America and subsidies for the industry are often unparalleled, however it is unclear if this is true the world over. Qatar, the current world leader in the industry, is very difficult to compete with in this respect. This means that BC will have to continue to “give the gas away” in order to be competitive on the world stage – especially when considering our major deposits’ distance from tide water and the costs involved as a result. (On average a compressor station is required every 100 miles along a gas pipeline).

CLAIM: The BC Liberals have long claimed they intend to “lock down” all terms associated with the budding LNG industry by passing “sophisticated provincial legislation” they have repeatedly announced would be made available to the public, yet continue to be delay. (Indeed they claimed they cancelled the last sitting of the legislature to craft this sophisticated legislation, but to no avail.)

REALITY: No provincial government can legislate in perpetuity. It’s a fundamental tenet of democracy that subsequent elected governments not be limited in this capacity. The only existing experience we have with such draconian lawmaking exists within the parameters of trade agreements, which are treaties negotiated and ratified at the level of the Federal government. Expect BC’s LNG industry to be bound by upcoming trade agreements such as FIPPA and TPP, as these are the only means of “locking down” bargain basement taxation and regulatory regimes.

CLAIM: Natural Gas is a “clean” transition fuel.

MISLEADING: When processed natural gas liquids are burned, they are cleaner than some fossil fuel alternatives, however there is a lot of processing that occurs between the time it is removed from the earth and ultimately burned. Those processes release more climate changing emissions and poisons than the alternatives. There is also the issue of “fugitive”, or escaped methane emissions, which studies are now revealing to be far more widespread and climate-damaging than previously thought.

CLAIM: Natural Gas is a “clean energy” alternative to coal.

FALSE: While “natural gas” is often boosted as a clean energy alternative, studies show that the entire LNG lifecycle – from fracking, processing through squeezing, freezing and shipping, regasification and final consumption – CO2 emissions are worse than coal, certainly when fugitive emissions are accounted for. In fact, meeting the government’s target for 3 LNG plants by 2020 and 5 in total would make achieving its own climate targets utterly impossible.

CLAIM: “We are doing the world a favour,” because our natural gas will displace coal burning plants in China improving the environment and air quality.

FALSE: There is no actual evidence of this claim or any commitment of this sort. Coal exports to Asia are at record highs in both Canada and the US and China is already making deals to export LNG after having increased domestic production 5 fold just in the last year.

Part two will continue debunking major claims around the development model of BC LNG. Jobs, social impacts, fracking and the government’s soon-to-be-introduced “framework” for LNG development, which they have chose to provide in lieu of the promised terms and conditions required for the much-vaunted “Prosperity Fund”, will all be included.

Informative industry-oriented videos

• BC LNG: The Business Case and Global Environmental Picture

• Mainstream Media LNG Tanker documentary

• LNG safety and Emergency Response

• Natural Gas Pipeline Operations

Europe leads the way on building a green economy

February 7, 2014Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

The European Union has fast become the global leader on migrating to a green economy, with its Emissions Trading System (cap and trade scheme) in place since 2005. Canada has much to learn from the current and future EU debates on establishing new targets for 2030 – particularly how to fast-forward its badly lagging green economy following the next federal election in 2015.

The EU: a green economy success story

The foundations for the discussions on 2030 targets are the binding EU 2020 targets. These targets entail:

a 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;
raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewables to 20%
a 20% improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency.

Under this system, each country has its own binding national targets based on its relative capacities to contribute to EU-wide goals.

In the case of Germany, for example, it had already reduced its emissions by 25% in 2012, thereby exceeding its Kyoto 2012 target of 21% – all while being one of the world’s strongest economies. These facts are contrary to what Stephen Harper would have us believe to the effect that economic development and sustainable development are opposing forces for which there can be no reconciliation.

Indeed, measured in terms of economic impacts, the EU’s progress to-date is staggering, especially with respect to job creation. There are presently 3.5M people employed in the EU green sector, with annual job growth for the sector at 180,000 new jobs/year from 1999 to 2008. Even during the worst of the EU’s economic crisis, most of these jobs were retained and many more were created.

Renewable energy-related jobs in the EU were up to 1.2M in 2012 and the projection for 2020 is 2.7M. With the right policies, this could reach 4M jobs by 2030.

The European Commission’s White Paper

Against this backdrop, to initiate EU discussions on 2030 targets and build on the momentum of the 2020 goals, the highly conservative and corporate-friendly European Commission took up the task of producing a White Paper for release on January 22, 2014.

In the months preceding the publication of the White Paper, a major debate arose among EU member nations as to whether: 1) there should be 2030 binding triple targets – EU-wide and nation-specific, and in keeping with the precedent set with the 2020 triple goals; or 2) simply have a stand-alone binding GHG reduction target to be accompanied eventually by state-specific GHG targets. In its White Paper of January 22nd, the European Commission came down in favour of the second option.

The White Paper called for a 40% GHG reduction target with binding requirements for EU member states and an “at least” 27% renewables goal that would be binding on the EU, but not binding on the member states individually.

Under the European Commission’s formula, not only would an EU-wide binding renewable energy target be difficult to enforce in the absence of a binding renewables target for each nation, but also the 27% renewables target would reduce by one third the momentum set by the 2020 goals. That is, modeling of the 40% GHG reduction target suggests that the 27% renewables portion of the EU-wide energy supply would be achieved anyway, without the Commission’s renewables target.

UK, Poland resist binding clean energy goals; 8 countries in favour

The aforementioned Commission’s position went against the recommendations submitted in a January, 2014 letter from the energy ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal – written to commissioners Connie Hedegaard, the commissioner for climate action, and Gunther Oettinger, the commissioner for energy. The letter urged binding clean energy goals for every EU nation.

It also stated that such an approach is essential to providing the renewable sector with the certainty it needs for long-term, cost-effective investments. Sigmar Gabriel, the German Minister of Economics and Energy, indicated that the extraordinary progress achieved to date would not have been possible without the combination of nation-specific binding GHG and renewable energy targets.

Particularly on the minds of those supporting binding targets for renewables is the fact that the EU is the part of a world which is most dependent on imported fossil fuels. In 2012, EU spent $740B on importing these fuels. Accordingly, the International Energy Agency has described the path to reducing this dependency as being that of greater reliance on domestically-produced, clean energy and greater energy efficiency.

Fracking among UK motives for non-binding targets

In this confrontation of positions, it is the UK, in particular, that has been very vocal in opposing a renwables target because it wants to have the flexibility to include nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and fracking technologies in its energy strategy. Consequently, the UK has been advocating a 50% GHG target without renewables targets.

Fittingly, Oliver Krischer, German MP from the opposition Green Party, said proposals to scrap binding renewable energy and energy efficiency targets for 2030 are intended to initiate a renaissance of nuclear power and push through fracking and CCS activities through the back door.

Another big obstacle to a renewables binding target at national levels is Poland, for which coal represents 90% of its electrical power generation.

The European Parliament passes triple and binding 2030 targets

Consistent with the aforementioned debates within the EU, on February 4, 2014, Members of the European Parliament, in a plenary non-binding vote, voted 347 to 308 in favour three binding targets on national levels, a 40% reduction in GHGs; a 30% target pertaining for energy from renewables; and a 40% improvement in energy efficiency. This February 2014 MEP vote is consistent with the recommendations of the European Parliament’s Environment and Industry Committees on a three-target, binding approach.

According to the European Wind Energy Association, the 30% binding renewables targets for EU member states could provide 570,000 new jobs and save $818B in imports of fossil fuels, all while lowering costs for energy-intensive industries.

Next Steps

The MEP vote notwithstanding, it is just one step in a lengthy process leading up to final legislation in 2017. Moreover, the vote in the European Parliament does not require member states to approve national binding targets.

On February 19, 2014, there will be a Franco-German summit on energy cooperation. Then, on March 4, 2014, the EU energy ministers will meet. This will be followed by a European Council meeting of heads of state on March 8-9, 2014.

Further down the road, European Commission commissioners will be replaced in 2014 and firm legislative proposals are not expected before 2015, after the European parliamentary elections. Subsequently, it may take about two years before the final policies become EU law.

Adding to the cocktail of views that will contribute to these debates are the positions of clean tech sector stakeholders, adamantly in favour of national, binding renewables targets.

Taken together, the EU discussions on the pros and cons of different 2030 options could prove to be enlightening for Canadians reviewing options to catch up to the Europeans, who are already way ahead of Canada on the migration to a green economy. Moreover, their successes and failures to date in advancing their respective countries offer models for consideration for Canada. Accordingly, as a contributor to The Common Sense Canadian, I will continue to provide articles on new EU green economy developments.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the February meeting of the European Parliament included a vote in favour of extending the EU Fuel Quality Directive beyond 2020, thus banning tar sands imports to the EU indefinitely – likely to the great displeasure of Stephen Harper.

BC LNG: All pain no gain as Liberals fail to deliver on tax regime…again

February 6, 2014Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedKevin Logan

BC LNG-All pain no gain as Liberals keep tax regime hidden — The Clark Govt has once again delayed the announcing its LNG royalty regime (Tina Lovgreen / BCIT)

British Columbians have been patiently waiting since before the Liberals were re-elected for an explanation of the financial terms that will deliver the much-vaunted 100 Billion-dollar LNG “Prosperity Fund” that will allegedly eliminate the provincial debt, lower taxes and underwrite the services we have come to rely on.

BC’s Minister for Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman has repeatedly committed to divulging the terms and conditions he intends to legislate into perpetuity since being re-elected based on these promises. We’ve been told that by slashing royalties and taxes, BC will win the global competition for attracting foreign investment in LNG pipelines and terminals.

The Premier herself has consistently stated that these crucial details were coming soon and that prosperity is just around the corner.

LNG tax structure delayed…again

Earlier this week, however, it was quietly announced – not by the Premier or Natural Gas Czar Coleman, but by the Finance Minister – that the taxation regime required to deliver the prosperity the BC liberals were re-elected on has once again been delayed, making this at least the third time they have promised to deliver but failed.

Indeed. at the time of this writing, nowhere on the BC Government website is there any mention of this, despite the fact the delay is reaching into years and not mere weeks as promised over and over again.

Virtually all the major players looking at investing in BC LNG have claimed that Final Investment Decisions (of which we have none despite over a dozen potential projects) hinge upon understanding what the BC Liberals intend to roll out as the means of delivering on their election promises. They have stated these claims publicly a year ago, with the expectation of them being finalized way before now.

So despite the Premier’s perpetual boosting of LNG as the boon to a prosperous future and all the talk of a “race” to get the projects up and running, her own government is still unable to deliver a simple taxation regime on resources – something governments have pretty much mastered over the years.

NEB approves pile of LNG export licences

However, in the meantime, the federal government has approved 7 export licenses, with four more being considered that experts in the field claim will jeopardize our energy security while threatening water supplies, airsheds and – when one considers accumulated effects – the entire undertaking becomes irrefutably insane.

Taxpayer subsidies for LNG keep stacking up

One of the first orders of business upon the Liberals’ re-election was not to deliver on the promises of prosperity but rather to hand over 100’s of millions more in subsidies to the industry. A never-ending stream of clever sliding royalty rates and investments incentives have been deployed for near half a century, often leaving Britsh Columbians holding the bag – not full of cash and prosperity, but of crippling debt.

Since when do we subsidize and hand over 25 year export permits for breathtaking amounts of a non-renewable resource before we have any investment commitments or even know what we are going to charge for our stuff?

At this rate, it is all pain and no gain for British Columbians, we have not even “locked in” job guarantees but rather are promising that we will open the flood gates to a foreign workforce. And the industry has recently announced that under the auspices of “Operational Excellence” they will be putting the squeeze to wages and costs.

What’s in it for British Columbians?

So we have already handed over the export rights to the majority of our natural gas putting our energy security at risk at the same time guaranteeing a run on the environment like we have never seen. And we are continuing to subsidize the largest most profitable companies on earth to do this at an alarming rate.

We are seeing no talk of job guarantees, only training in anticipation of jobs, because we do not have a properly skilled workforce, which, when translated, means we will be flooded with foreign skilled workers.

We have no terms in place to ensure that we see appropriate returns for the massive liquidation of our non-renewable resources; instead, all we have are empty promises from politicians who cannot even keep their own, self-imposed timelines on the single most-promised aspect of their economic agenda.

All the “prosperity” we have seen so far is a massive escalation in the cost of living anywhere near the proposed LNG terminals and an increase in escort services.

It’s high time British Columbians give these oily, gassed-up wind bags a good shake and start demanding answers on why they are handing over everything, “locking it down” for generations and not delivering one single aspect of the promised prosperity they were elected for.

RCMP, CSIS spying on Enbridge opponents prompts civil liberties complaints

February 6, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

The BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints today with regards to revelations that the RCMP and CSIS have surveilled citizens, First Nations and environmental groups openly challenging the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

The complaint with respect to CSIS was filed with the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) – the public watchdog overseeing CSIS – while the complaint regarding the RCMP was submitted to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Interestingly, SIRC’s own integrity was recently called into question with revelations that its head, Chuck Strahl, and a number of other directors have lobbying ties to Enbridge and the oil and gas industry.

Both complaints stem from a story in the Vancouver Observer in November, 2013, which drew on Access to Information documents detailing the security agencies’ efforts to follow and report on the activities of prominent Enbridge opponents. Some of these reports appear to have been shared with the National Energy Board reviewing the proposed pipeline.

Police, spy agency may have broken laws

One particular incident involved a town hall meeting and series of workshops held at a Kelowna church on the eve of the NEB’s Enbridge hearings in that community in February of last year. The surveillance documents track the involvement of the events’ organizers and guest speakers – including Union of BC Indian Chiefs President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and activist groups LeadNow and Dogwood Initiative (Full disclosure: I was also named in the documents as a guest speaker at the event).

“It’s against the law and the constitution for police and spy agencies to spy on the lawful activities of people who are just speaking out and getting involved in their communities,” says Josh Paterson, Executive Director of the BCCLA.

[quote]This is bigger than an environmental debate – it’s a question of fundamental human rights. There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people that they don’t agree with. That’s not supposed to happen in Canada, and when it does, it can frighten people away from expressing themselves and participating in democratic debate. [/quote]

“It’s intimidating for people to learn that they’re being spied on by their own government,” adds Ben West, of ForestEthics Advocacy, one of the groups whose activities have been monitored by CSIS and the RCMP.

“Regular people are being made to feel like they are on a list of enemies of the state, just because they are speaking out to protect their community from a threat to their health and safety or trying to do what’s right in the era of climate change.”

The BCCLA’s Patterson expects the process surrounding both complaints will take at least several months. With respect to the SIRC complaint, CSIS has 30 days to respond directly to the complaint, before it is passed on to the watchdog.

$Alberta fracking licenses soar by 650 per cent, documents reveal$

Alberta fracking licenses soar by 650%, documents reveal

February 4, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Fracking on the rise in Alberta, documents reveal — Photo: Damien Gillis

by Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press

EDMONTON – Alberta New Democrats say newly released documents show fracking has become an unregulated free-for-all in the province with no regard for the impact on groundwater or on people’s health.

NDP Leader Brian Mason presented information Tuesday provided under freedom-of-information laws that shows the number of hydraulic fracturing licences granted by the province soared 647 per cent last year to 1,516.

Water withdrawals increasing dramatically

Mason said the amount of water allocated and used for fracking has increased even faster.

“Most Albertans don’t realize that fracking in Alberta is almost completely unregulated,” he told a legislature news conference.

“And it is increasing on a dramatic scale without any understanding of what the potential consequences will be.”

He said the water loss alone is sobering, with more than 17 million cubic metres used in 2013.

[quote]This is an enormous amount of groundwater. It’s pumped into the ground, it’s polluted by chemicals and it’s never seen again.[/quote]

Fracking blasts pressurized water and chemicals into underlying rocks to release trapped natural gas and oil.

Fracking divides communities

It has changed the game on North American resource extraction in the last decade — fuelling an oil and gas boom in North Dakota and delivering a 15 per cent overall production increase south of the border, according to Alberta government data.

It has also resulted in a backlash from environmentalists and from homeowners who live near fracking sites. Their main concern is polluted groundwater and aquifers.

In Lethbridge, homeowners and city council are fighting an application by Calgary-based Goldenkey Oil to drill three wells using vertical hydraulic fracturing within city limits and within one kilometre of where people live.

The legislature members for Lethbridge — Progressive Conservatives Bridget Pastoor and Greg Weadick — have told residents they are making sure concerns are heard. Mason said they two need to go farther and actively fight the development.

[quote]They’re mealy-mouthed hedging on the whole question.

[/quote]

Too late for Alberta fracking moratorium?

Fracking has brought with it controversy in other provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec are re-evaluating its benefits versus the consequences of environmental damage.

Mason said it’s too late for a moratorium on fracking in Alberta.

“The horse is kind of out of the barn. It’s a mainstream activity now.”

He suggested Premier Alison Redford’s government should undertake an independent scientific review of hydraulic fracturing and use independent groundwater monitoring before further projects get approved.

Environment Minister Robin Campbell disagreed with Mason. He said in a news release that “Alberta has strict regulations that apply to all oil and gas development regardless of the technology being used.”

Campbell also said concerns of environmental damage have not been borne out.

“To date, there has not been a documented case of hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminating a domestic water well in Alberta. For anybody to claim that the water supply is at risk is completely false,” said Campbell.

“All water licence applications are carefully reviewed to ensure no significant impacts to our environment or other water users.”

Shale gas, LNG exports and the elephant in the room

February 4, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGfeaturedDavid Hughes

I listened intermittently to the Public Proceedings of the Yukon Legislature’s “Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing” held in Whitehorse on January 31 and February 1. The presentations focussed mainly on the minutia of drilling, hydraulic fracturing, water consumption, environmental impacts, regulations, water contamination and so forth. These are certainly valid concerns, but the big picture as to why the BC and Federal governments are pulling out the stops to liquidate the natural gas resources of BC and the southern Yukon and NWT at an unprecedented rate, and the implications of doing so, were not discussed.

I particularly focussed my attention on the final presentation by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the questions following it. As Canada’s energy regulator with responsibility for future Canadian energy security I hoped I would hear a rational explanation for its BC LNG export approvals totalling more than Canada’s current production, which, if they were to come from BC, would require more than quadrupling current production. I was sorely disappointed. Instead NEB presented a rendition of the process of hydraulic fracturing and assurances of the NEB’s good work on the regulatory front.

The Elephant: Scale, environmental impact and energy security

During the NEB Q&A, when the public’s questions finally came up, 20 minutes before the end of the two-day session, several questions were posed about the implications of the scale of LNG exports proposed by the BC Government and approved by the NEB.

Given that most of the proponents for LNG export terminals approved by the NEB utilized a single Calgary-based consultant for their supply forecasts, one of the questions asked “how reliable is this consultant for future supply forecasts?”. The NEB’s Patrick Sprague declined to comment on the reliability of the consultant and responded that the NEB had its own forecasts published on the web (Canada’s Energy Future, published November, 2013). It’s worth comparing the two.

The consultant, in the employ of Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. – wholly owned by China National Offshore Oil Corp. and Japanese companies – came up with a remarkably rosy supply picture to justify Aurora’s LNG export aspirations. The consultant suggested that a miraculous turnaround of Canada’s long-standing production decline will nearly double Canada’s gas production by 2035, thanks to shale gas and tight gas (Figure 1). The consultant does not provide justification for its forecasts beyond stating:

[quote][We maintain] proprietary gas production spreadsheet models for each major gas basin and key gas types in North America which use key input parameters to forecast the annual average gas production for each supply source to 2050.[/quote]

In short the consultant says “trust us”. Others might say “follow the money” – who is paying this consultant and what conclusions are in the best interests of its clients? The consultant’s conclusions are certainly in the best interests of its clients and are opposed to other analyses of the “shale revolution”.

Canadian gas production-Ziff-Aurora — Fig. 1: Consultant forecast of Canadian gas production through 2050 – included in the Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. application filed with the NEB in November, 2013

This supply forecast is much more optimistic than even the NEB’s reference case projection, which is 20% lower in 2035, despite an assumed four-fold increase in BC gas production (Figure 2).

Projections ignore reality of peaking shale gas production

How credible are the supply forecasts prepared by this consultant and included in most of the export applications the NEB has approved? They belie what is actually happening with shale gas production in the US and what is likely to happen in the future with production and price.

With the exception of the Marcellus play in Pennsylvania and West Virginia (and associated gas from tight oil plays like the Bakken and Eagle Ford), major shale gas plays have peaked and are declining. The Haynesville play in Louisiana and east Texas is down nearly 35% from its peak just two years ago when it was the biggest shale gas play in the US. Other plays like the Barnett, Fayetteville and Woodford are also declining. As a result overall US gas production is flat, and Canada’s production is declining. Forecasting a radical increase in production, at low prices, to accommodate its client’s LNG export aspirations, as this consultant does, is not credible.

LNG exports mean 72% more than total current Canadian gas production

The NEB has approved seven export terminals with a total capacity of 14.6 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d). If the Aurora proposal is approved that will add a further 3.1 bcf/d for a total of 17.7 bcf/d of exports. Coupled with BC’s current raw gas production of 4.2 bcf/d that would require BC to produce nearly 22 bcf/d, which is 72% more than all of Canada’s current production.

My analysis estimated a conservative 50,000 new gas wells to meet just 14 bcf/d of exports, which would amount to tripling the 25,000 wells that have been drilled since the 1940s and quintupling the amount of gas produced since then. Questions posed at the hearing on what the environmental implications of fracking a well are one thing – drilling 50,000 of them are another. And what about the long term energy needs of the rest of Canada?

CDN-gas-production-NEB-Hughes — Fig. 2: Reference case projection of gas production by province through 2035

LNG exports could mean higher gas prices at home

Another important question posed during the Q&A to the NEB was what the price impacts might be on North American gas of LNG exports. Current NYMEX prices are nearly triple what they were in mid-2012, yet production is flat overall and falling in several major shale gas fields. Production can only resume rising with considerably higher gas prices. The Clark government’s plan, however, is to capitalize on the differential between the currently cheap North American gas price and the price of LNG in Asian markets. Given that the cost to liquefy, transport, and regasify a thousand cubic feet (mcf) of gas is about $6.00, the cost of the gas itself is about $4.50, and the price in Asia is $14.00 or more, there is a potential profit of $3.50 per mcf. If the domestic price of gas rises, as it must to avoid production decline, the profit margin disappears along with all the revenues for the “Prosperity Fund” and debt-paydown touted by the Clark Government.

The increased demand for natural gas in the US for power generation (given shutdowns of coal plants and nuclear stations), and for industrial uses, mean that US and Canadian LNG exports can only further strain supply and increase upward pressure on prices.

Regulators, governments missing the big picture

The attendees at the “Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing” hearings were well served on the details of hydraulic fracturing but the bigger picture of the wisdom of this unprecedented scale-up in extraction and what it means for the long term energy security of Canadians – The Elephant – was largely ignored. This is to our peril given the non-renewable nature of the resources being exploited, the scale and rate of extraction envisioned, and the need for these resources for the foreseeable future as inputs to Canadian energy requirements.