Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Harper Govt approves Shell’s Jackpine oilsands mine despite ‘significant adverse effects’

December 9, 2013Energy and Resources, First Nations, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

Harper Government approves-Shell oilsands mine, despite significant adverse effects — ACFN Chief Allan Adam outside an Alberta court in 2012, challenging Shell’s Jackpine development

Shell Canada’s Jackpine oilsands mine expansion plan has received the go-ahead from Ottawa, despite the environment minister’s view that it’s “likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”

In a statement late Friday, environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq concluded that the effects from the 100,000-barrel-per-day expansion are “justified in the circumstances.”

The nearby Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said the project will violate several federal laws covering fisheries and species at risk, as well as treaty rights.

They said they had received so little information on how Shell plans to live up to conditions imposed on it by a federal-provincial panel that they asked Ottawa for a 90-day delay on the decision — originally expected Nov. 6 — to work some of those issues through.

They were granted a 35-day delay, but Friday’s decision didn’t even wait until that period was up.

Allan Adam, chief of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, was outraged that the federal decision came as the government was still supposed to be in talks with the band about how the project’s effects were to be mitigated, declaring:

[quote]They just kept us in the loop and strung us along and played games with us. To them it’s all a game.[/quote]

Although all 88 conditions the review panel placed on the project are now legally binding, Adam said neither the government nor the company has explained how those conditions will be met.

Adam said the government’s move to go ahead despite the serious environmental consequences of the project leave the band little choice.

“This government has to realize we’ll be holding them accountable,” he said. “We’ll be looking at legal action and we’ll pursue this through legal action.”

Greenpeace Canada issued a statement accusing the Harper government of putting the short term interests of oil companies ahead of environmental protection and First Nations treaty rights.

“Canada would be much better off diversifying its economy, investing in renewables, green jobs and projects that get us out of this madness not deeper into it,” the statement said.

[quote]How many more extreme weather events will it take till our Prime Minister realizes this is one problem he can’t mine his way out of?[/quote]

The Jackpine expansion would allow Shell to increase its bitumen output by 50 per cent to 300,000 barrels a day.

“We’re reviewing the recommendations and proposed conditions attached to the approval,” said Shell spokesman David Williams.

Williams added Shell must consult with the minority partners in the project — Chevron and Marathon — before making a formal decision to proceed.

A review panel concluded last July that the project was in the public interest but warned that it would result in severe and irreversible damage so great that new protected areas should be created to compensate.

The review concluded that the project would mean the permanent loss of thousands of hectares of wetlands, which would harm migratory birds, caribou and other wildlife and wipe out traditional plants used for generations. It also said Shell’s plans for mitigation are unproven and warned that some impacts would probably approach levels that the environment couldn’t support.

Shell has said Alberta’s new management plan for the oilsands area will provide more concrete data to assess and mitigate environmental impacts. The company has purchased about 730 hectares of former cattle pasture in northwestern Alberta to help compensate for the 8,500 hectares of wetland that would be forever lost.

$American fracker wraps controversial seismic work in Elsipogtog territory$

American fracker wraps divisive seismic work in Elsipogtog territory

December 6, 2013Energy and Resources, FrackingfeaturedCanadian Press

American fracker wraps controversial seismic work in Elsipogtog territory — Members of the Elsipogtog Nation and RCMP clash at a recent protest over fracking in New Brunswick

REXTON, N.B. – SWN Resources Canada says it has wrapped up seismic testing in New Brunswick.

The company’s work has been subject to ongoing protest by opponents of shale gas development in the province.

In October, a protest near Rexton turned violent when police enforced a court-ordered injunction to halt the blockade of a compound used by SWN Resources to store equipment.

Officers arrested 40 people and six police vehicles were burned.

SWN Resources, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.-based Southwestern Energy Company, was recently granted another injunction that provides a buffer zone around its equipment in order to complete its work.

Chief Aaron Sock of the Elsipogtog First Nation, whose community has been outspoken in its opposition to shale gas development, could not be reached for comment.

Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety

December 5, 2013Energy and Resources, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety plans — A group of professional engineers says the risk of a tanker spill is far greater than Enbridge suggests

While the Harper Government reacts to this week’s release of a federal report containing 45 recommendations on improving oil spill response capabilities on BC’s coast, a group of professional engineers is launching a campaign to point out the flaws in Enbridge’s tanker safety plans.

Concerned Professional Engineers (CPE) is a BC-based group boasting “many decades of experience in the design, construction and operation of large projects for the extraction and transportation of natural resources like coal and oil.”

Enbridge downplaying spill risks

The group recently kicked off an online “crowd funding” campaign to help publicize its work, which has involved in-depth analysis of Enbridge’s tanker plans and detailed submissions by its members to the National Energy Board hearings on the project. They say Enbridge’s claim of a 10% oil spill risk from tankers connected to its proposed Northern Gateway pipeline is far too low.

“We’ve performed our own, independent review and found Enbridge’s analysis to be lacking,” says CPE.

[quote]This is not good engineering.

[/quote]

Some of the group’s key concerns are as follows:

Enbridge provides no justification or documentation for the ‘scaling factors’ they used to calculate the 10% risk of a major spill.
Enbridge’s liability ends when the tankers leave the terminal. Who’s responsible for a spill along the narrow 300 km waterway from Kitimat to the open ocean?
Enbridge’s risk analysis planned for 220 tankers per year through Douglas Channel. New LNG projects will bring that number to over 600.
Federal scientists, testifying during the JRP hearings, say more research is needed on diluted bitumen before they can be sure a cleanup is even possible.

CPE also focuses on the proposed tanker route down BC’s treacherous coast:

[quote]The proposed route to the open ocean is nearly 300 km (186 miles) long through constrained channels, some of which are less than 1400 m (4600 ft) wide. This may seem large until you realize that the proposed ships are more than 300 m (1,000 ft) in length and can take several kilometers to slow down or stop. Furthermore, the route is on the northern BC coast, a place famous for its challenging weather, winds, waves, and heavy fog.[/quote]

Getting the word out

The group, whose members were official interveners in the National Energy Board’s Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, is seeking to raise $20,000 to produce and distribute educational media that goes into detail about the real risks posed by Enbridge’s plan. It is careful to point out that it is not opposed to development and trade, rather to unsafe practices:

[quote]We are not opposed to the development and export of natural resources, but we feel very strongly that these projects must be done in a safe and responsible manner, with a full accounting of the risks and visibility to the public.[/quote]

First Nations still unconvinced by safety measures

Enbridge tanker routes — Proposed tanker routes for Enbridge project

First Nations leaders who attended a press conference held Tuesday in Vancouver by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt were also disappointed with the government’s reaction to the new federal report on tanker safety measures, compiled by a panel of three experts appointed by the government.

In particular, Coastal First Nations President Art Sterritt told me after the conference, “There were no new technological advancements in spill clean-up and no commitment from the government to follow the report’s recommendation of removing an oil spill liability cap for operators.”

As it stands, oil spill liability along the tanker route is capped at $161 million – something the federal report recommends changing – but Oliver and Raitt have shown no indication of acting on that point.

Federal departments question tanker safety

The report follows the revelation that a number of federal departments – including Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada – concurred in a 2010 meeting that “Enbridge had not submitted enough information on the pipeline route,” according to a 2012 Postmedia story drawing on Access to Information documents.

More risks coming down the pipeline

It isn’t just oil tankers that are stirring up concerns with Enbridge’s proposal. Independent economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan has also flagged the lack of safety with Enbridge’s proposed pipeline across northern BC, noting the province lags far behind other jurisdictions in terms of funding for oil spill preparedness – despite claims of “world-leading” safety. In a recent Tyee op-ed, Allan said neither Enbridge nor the province have made any real progress on meeting Premier Christy Clark’s pipeline safety condition – one of 5 for endorsing Northern Gateway.

Allan raised the increased risk of moving diluted bitumen by pipeline – a core concern for CPE with tankers in the marine environment – which the BC Liberal Government seized upon during its own submission to the Joint Review Panel, but seems to have subsequently forgotten:

[quote]The province also raised unique challenges posed by diluted bitumen when it sinks in fresh water. Enbridge consistently denied this at the hearings, despite its own spill experience with the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Enbridge did not include the results of the Kalamazoo spill in its statistics or analysis of spill risk. Enbridge aggressively resisted filing as evidence the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on how the company handled the spill at the hearings.[/quote]

The CPE campaign runs for another three weeks on the crowd funding website Indiegogo – which has become a popular grassroots fundraising tool in recent years.

Ex-Harper advisor slams Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline promotion

December 2, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, UncategorizedfeaturedCanadian Press

WASHINGTON – A former Harper government appointee used a keynote speech at a Washington event Monday to trample Canadian authorities’ message on oil pipelines while describing the country as an environmental “rogue state.”

Mark Jaccard became one of the first people nominated by the Conservatives to the environmental file when he was named in 2006 to the federal government’s now-defunct National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Seven years later, the environmental economist delivered a lengthy rebuke of Canada’s climate-change performance at Monday’s event while the Obama administration grapples with whether to approve the Alberta-U.S. pipeline.

Jaccard, an adviser to different governments and a professor at B.C.’s Simon Fraser University, said he doesn’t want the oilsands shut down — he just doesn’t want them to grow. Said Jaccard:

[quote]On climate, Canada is a rogue state. It’s accelerating the global tragedy … The U.S. government should reject Keystone XL and explain to the Canadian government that it hopes to join with Canada (on a global climate plan).[/quote]

That message stands in sharp contrast to that of the Canadian government, which has spent millions to publicize the benefits to both countries of developing the oilsands.

Jaccard was the headline speaker at a summit tied to a well-connected Democratic donor, the so-called “green billionaire” Tom Steyer, and attended by a number of U.S. media outlets.

Jaccard has become an increasingly bitter critic of the federal government. He was even arrested last year after joining a blockade on a train carrying U.S. coal from B.C.

His disenchantment with the Conservative government reached a boil after the 2011 election, Jaccard said in an interview after his speech.

He said he tried to work with the government — not only at the Round Table, but as an adviser to then-environment minister Rona Ambrose. But after the Conservatives won a majority in 2011, the rhetoric hardened, the Round Table vanished and it became clear they had no interest in tackling climate change, Jaccard said.

“In 2011, the gloves came off.”

In his career as an author, academic, and adviser to different governments since the Mulroney era, Jaccard also criticized the Liberals for a climate approach he still derides as a “labels-on-fridges-and-Rick-Mercer-ads” strategy to encourage behaviour changes.

More drastic policies are in order, he told his audience: greenhouse-gas emissions need to drop 50 to 75 per cent by 2050 to limit temperature growth to a 2C target — an impossible task with a growing oilpatch, Jaccard said.

The event, and the choice of location, were designed to arm-twist the Obama administration as it faces its Keystone dilemma.

It was held in Georgetown, where President Barack Obama delivered a speech in June saying Keystone would not be approved if it significantly increases greenhouse-gas emissions.

The title of the event was, “Can Keystone Pass The President’s Climate Test?” One speaker after another suggested that, no, Keystone cannot be approved without a significant increase in carbon pollution as a result.

In the hallways, the many Obama supporters speculated about when the long-awaited decision might come down. And some suggested they’ve become increasingly hopeful the project will be blocked, given Obama’s choice of words.

Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm even allowed herself to daydream about what an eventual presidential rejection speech might sound like. A decision is expected in early 2014.

“I think he could deliver a speech that could give him a legacy he would be proud of,” Granholm, the event moderator, said from the stage.

Earlier, Steyer described Keystone as a logical investment for the oil industry that would drive up the value of Canadian oil and ramp up development — which is precisely why he believes it shouldn’t be allowed to proceed.

“(Keystone) is a literal and a figurative line in the sands,” Steyer said. “Keystone is the economic key to unlocking the tarsands and, as such, it fails the president’s test.”

The other side of the Keystone debate was not represented at the event. TransCanada boss Russ Girling (TSX:TRP) and Gary Doer, Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., both declined to attend.

Germany shows a thriving green economy is possible

November 29, 2013Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

When Prime Minister Harper is challenged on his environmental record, one of his standard replies is that between economic development and sustainable development, he must give priority to the economy. While it suits Harper’s ideological agenda to imply that economic and environmental objectives are opposing forces, the facts suggest otherwise.

[quote]In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in the nation’s clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.[/quote]

Canada falling far behing world leaders like Germany

Indeed, as indicated in my previous Common Sense Canadian articles, the clean technology sectors are among the world’s fastest-growing and highest job-creating sectors of our times. Unfortunately, each year of Conservative rule represents a rapidly expanding green jobs gap between Canada and its competitors.

Among nation-specific models that disprove the Harper economic paradigm – to the effect that a natural resource-based economy is the best vehicle for prosperity – Germany is a case in point. That is, Germany, while rising to become one of the globe’s strongest national economies, reduced its emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, thus exceeding its Kyoto Protocol commitment to reduce its emissions by 21% below 1990 levels for the 2008 to 2012 period.

This is an especially remarkable achievement in light of the economic troubles in much of Europe and in the world at-large.

Components of the German Success Story

This German success story is a result of numerous factors – one might say a holistic approach.

One of the important pillars of this success story is the 2001 German Renewable Energy Act, which introduced the concept of a Feed-in-tariff (FIT) and right to connect (RTC) formula to the world – a concept entailing: 1) the paying of above-market rates for renewable energy sources over a specified time period, combined with 2) a requirement that all sources of renewable energy production within a given utility’s region must be connected to, and given priority within, the network.

This concept makes sense economically in that all new sources of energy cost more than existing sources that were developed some time ago and may be fully paid for. Over time, the plan calls for a reduction of FIT rates for new renewable power entries to the grid, thus providing incentives for manufactures to invest in innovation to lower costs.

Attesting to the success of the formula is the fact that the German model has since been emulated by 19 of the 27 EU states and 40 jurisdictions around the globe, including China. Up until recently, Ontario offered such a system.

Community ownership of renewable energy

The success synergies resulting from the aforementioned FIT/RTC model and the rapid uptake of renewables also comprise attractive terms of engagement for community and individual ownership of renewable energy production. To this effect, in 2013, 50% of the entire Germany production of renewables is owned by individuals, communities and cooperatives – with the sources ranging from home rooftop solar panels to wind power and biogas production on agricultural land. With regard to the latter point, farmers account for 11% of total German renewable production.

In effect, the individual homeowner uptake has been so successful that a March, 2013 survey showed 60% of homeowners are considering adding rooftop solar for heating or electricity generation.

An equally significant symptom of success is the fact that in May, 2013, a €50m ($66.5M) program was introduced for power-storage systems for owners of small and medium-sized PV solar installations in order to kick-start the storage sector and take pressure off grids. This has become necessary because grids are increasingly struggling with rising amounts of homemade renewable energy flooding the system at midday, creating an imbalance in supply and demand and having a distorting effect on the market.

As for the role of the utilities in the clean energy high-local-ownership landscape, only 13.5% of the nation’s renewable power is produced by Germany’s 4 major utilities and regional and municipal utilities.

Few countries have outdone Germany on this score, other than Denmark, where 83% of the renewable power sources are owned by individuals and communities.

Perhaps the most significant bottom line success of the German approach is the job numbers – once more demonstrating that the Harper economic paradigm is dated. In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in the nation’s clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.

Fukushima accelerates migration to renewables

A major acceleration force for the German migration to a green economy was the Fukushima meltdown in 2011, the German Energiewende (the energy transition). The program saw 8 of its oldest nuclear power plants shut down immediately after the disaster struck and includes plans for the shutting down of the remaining 9 plants by 2022.

As for filling the gaps left by the remaining planned shutdowns, a study by engineering form BEW concluded that onshore wind could replace all nuclear plants, with backup from other renewable sources.

Offshore wind a key component of Germany’s energy future

Accordingly, among other things, the new Energiewende package comprised: 1) an increase in the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) for offshore wind; 2) a commitment from kfw, the state development bank, for $7.2B of investments in offshore wind development, and 3) a plan to cut electricity consumption by 10% by 2020.

To be eligible for the premium for offshore wind, originally, Energiewende projects were to be completed by 2017, but given delays in the construction of the underwater offshore TenneT cable and 30 year project lifecycles, the offshore wind industry’s lobbying efforts were rewarded by the newly re-elected Merkel-led government with a November 2013 decision to extend the completion date requirement to the end of 2019.

Germany aims for 80% emissions reduction by 2050

On longer-term Energiewende objectives, the 2050 goal is ambitious, calling for a reduction of emissions by 80% with 80% of its electricity derived from renewable sources by then. Not bad considering that only 23% of the nation’s electricity was attributable to renewables in 2012. Interim renewable electricity targets are set at 35% by 2020 and 50% by 2030.

With there being a strong renewables lobby in the country – unlike Canada, where the fossil fuel industry plays a dominant role – the German renewable industry is exercising its clout to suggest a 47% renewables target for 2020.

In this regard, the results of the September, 2013 German federal elections may in fact mean that the interim goals could become more stringent because: 1) Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) are forming a coalition with the Social Democrats (SPD); and 2) the SPD had campaigned for a 40-45% target for renewable electricity sources by 2020 and 75% for 2030. The SPD campaign also included a 25% target by 2020 for co-generation, the combining of heat and power generation.

Clearly, the Energiewende will be high on the political agenda because it was a component of the Merkel election platform.

Shift away from Nuclear still not fast enough, most Germans say

Notwithstanding the impressive speed of the energy transition away from nuclear, for much of the German public, the abandoning of nuclear power is not going fast enough. A March, 2013 poll by Infratest Dimap showed that 57% of Germans believe the shift away from nuclear is going too slowly, while only 30% feel it’s advancing too fast.

This same poll also illustrated another big difference between the energy and climate change debates in Germany versus Canada. The poll had 39% indicating that environmental protection should be among the main criteria for political decisions.

Lastly, consistent with the Energiewende goals, Germany will be building 4,400km of new transmission lines by 2022, the year of the shutdown of all of the remaining nuclear plants. This includes connecting offshore wind resources in the North and Baltic Seas.

Clean Energy vs. Fossil Fuels for electrical power: the economics

Contrary to appearances, the premium rate for renewables does not involve subsidies, as the costs are passed on to consumers. As one would expect, the German fossil fuel industry has complained that the surcharge to consumers for renewables gives renewables an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.

But a Greenpeace study showed that the exact opposite is true. Specifically, while renewables received €17B ($22.7B) in aid via the surcharge in 2012, the fossil and nuclear sectors actually represented a staggering €40B ($54B) in hidden costs. The hidden costs are composed of direct state aid and tax breaks, as well as external damage costs associated with climate change impacts and costs resulting from nuclear accidents – all of which are borne by taxpayers. But – unlike the renewables surcharge – these costs don’t appear on electricity bills and aren’t transparent. If these hidden costs were slapped on electricity bills, consumers would be burdened with a surcharge of €0.102/kWh (14₵/kWh).

Wind, solar now close to on par with fossil fuel costs

Based on these calculations, currently wind, solar and hydro are the cheapest sources of electrical supply. According to a Nov, 2013 Fraunhofer ISE study, with innovation driving down production costs, actual costs for wind are now lower than coal and gas. Solar production costs are still higher than fossil sources but the ratio is expected to favour solar by 2030.

More generally, the impact of the German energy model on the country’s electricity mix has been that of pushing of gas-fired plants out of the market, and the lowering of load factors for both coal and gas-fired plants, expected to decline to 33% by 2015.

Taking into account the popularity of the German model throughout Europe and the influence of the European cap-and-trade scheme – The European Trading System (ETS – cap and trade system) – E.ON, one of Germany’s largest utilities, indicated it may close 11 gigawatts (GW) of fossil fuel capacity across Europe by 2015. In July 2013, EnBW, another German utility, announced plans to mothball 668 megawatts (MW) of fossil fuel production, involving 4 power facilities.

Lessons for Canada from Germany, European Cap and Trade

Germany’s achievements mean that it will be one of the most, if not the most, important contributor to achieving the EU-wide aggregated goal for a 20% reduction in GHG’s by 2020. (Note: to achieve the EU goal, member states have also taken on nation-specific targets related to national wealth for GHGs not covered by the EU ETS, such as the housing, agriculture, waste and transport sectors – sectors representing 60% of total EU emissions).

As Canadians contemplate the possibility of adopting some cap-and-trade scheme like Europe’s ETS, it is worth considering: 1) The degree to which the ETS has helped put EU nations on track for meeting their respective Kyoto targets; 2) the fact that it has become less influential in reducing carbon as the price of carbon has dropped considerably in recent years. Indeed the price of carbon declined from €13.09/tonne in 2010 to a new record low of €2.63/tonne in April 2013.

The European Commission has recommended backloading 900 carbon credits – that is temporarily removing them from the market. In July 2013, the European Parliament approved the measure, which now must be ratified by the European Energy Ministers.

For Germany’s part, the backloading details will largely be a funtion of the outcome of coalition government negotiations. The CDU wants backloading to be an integral part of a long term plan, while the SPD wants a onetime one-of solution.

Accordingly, the lesson for Canada here is that any cap and trade system that Canada sets up should include a mechanism for annual reviews of the supply and demand for emission credits to ensure no oversupply occurs that can drive down the price of credits.

As well, for select sectors which may have difficulty in complying with Canada’s cap-and-trade scheme, a loan guarantee program – with a maximum of one-loan/firm – may be in order.

Harper government spending $40 million to clean up Tar Sands’ image

November 28, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

Harper government spending $40 million to improve Tar Sands image — Stephen Harper is trying hard to convince other nations not to shun Tar Sands bitumen (Adrian Wyld/CP)

by Bruce Cheadle

OTTAWA – The Conservative government is spending $40 million this year to advertise Canada’s natural resource sector — principally oil and gas — at home and abroad.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver revealed the figure Wednesday as his department seeks another $12.9 million to augment an international campaign designed to portray Canada as a stable and environmentally responsible source of energy.

That will bring NRCan’s 2013-14 ad budget to about $40 million — $24 million for advertising abroad and $16.5 million for the domestic market.

“The government has a responsibility to provide Canadians with facts to assist them in making informed decisions,” Oliver, under opposition questioning, told a Commons committee.

[quote]This engagement and outreach campaign will raise awareness in key international markets that Canada is an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources.[/quote]

The entire federal government advertising budget last year was about $65 million, according to preliminary estimates, with $9 million allotted for Natural Resources.

In 2010-11, NRCan spent just $237,000 on advertising, according to the government figures.

Outside the committee room, Oliver justified the spending by linking it directly to winning over American public opinion in order to get approval of TransCanada’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The $5.4-billion project to carry Alberta bitumen to the Gulf Coast has become a lightning rod for environmental activists as it awaits a decision from U.S. President Barack Obama. Said Oliver:

[quote]Let’s understand what is at stake here,” Oliver said. “When we’re looking at Keystone, for example, we’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs.[/quote]

Asked to justify ad spending for one industrial sector that’s swallowing up almost two thirds of last year’s total government ad budget, Oliver was emphatic: “You justify it by what it’s going to achieve and there are billions, tens of billions of dollars, in play.”

Peter Julian, the NDP natural resources critic who teased out the ad spending at the committee, isn’t buying the government rationale.

“I don’t see how the Harper government can justify spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ money to do something that the private sector could choose to do,” Julian said after the hearing.

The New Democrat said the ads won’t work because the Conservatives, through their policy choices, have “killed the possibility of social licence” — getting public buy-in, essentially — for major resource projects.

He said that by slashing environmental assessments and limiting “meaningful public consultation” on pipeline proposals, the government has sparked a public backlash.

The backlash, Julian asserted, is “worldwide. Canada has a black eye. There’s no doubt.”

He cited the Obama administration, which has openly urged Canada to up its environmental game, and the European Union, which is targeting higher emissions from oilsands production.

Rather than millions on ads, said Julian, “the way the Harper government can start to gain back the social licence is by starting to make better decisions on the environment, on the economy and on the whole process of approving these new projects.”

To that end, the government is making an effort to establish a baseline of research on cutting edge oilsands technology.

Natural Resources has asked a panel of experts to help catalogue and chart a way forward for technologies that can help reduce the environmental footprint of oilsands development.

Oliver has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to turn its gaze on new and emerging technologies for extracting bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.

A 13-member panel will study what’s currently working and has been asked to identify economic and regulatory hurdles that slow the spread of the most promising technologies.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric, there’s a lot of exaggeration,” Oliver said of the study.

[quote]People can come to different conclusions based on the facts, but let’s start all together. We should all start with the facts.[/quote]

The council was created in 2005 with a 10-year, $30-million government grant and is designed to provide peer-reviewed, science-based assessments to help inform public policy.

Canada is not on track to reach its international pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, but the Conservative government has frequently held out hope that technological breakthroughs will alter that trajectory.

A spokeswoman for the academy, a not-for-profit corporation, says expert panels typically take between 18 and 24 months to report and do not make policy recommendations — but instead provide a base of solid evidence to use in the policy mix.

The panel is to be co-chaired by Eric Newell, the former CEO of Syncrude Canada, and by the head of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Scott Vaughan.

MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan

November 27, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

MLA, Mayor turn up heat on Fraser River jet fuel, tanker plan — Fisheries expert Otto Langer and MLA Vicki Huntington take on Fraser River jet fuel plan (Tanya Zboya)

A group of BC politicians and community leaders held an emergency meeting yesterday near the mouth of the Fraser River, in the Richmond community of Steveston, to voice their concerns about the plan to build a jet fuel terminal, tank farm and pipeline on the banks of Canada’s largest salmon river.

Independent MLA for nearby riding Delta South, Vicki Huntington, a vocal critic of the project in the Legislature, was joined by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie, retired DFO scientist Otto Langer, and the community group VAPOR in a final plea for the B.C. government to reject the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project.

Fraser River jet fuel project would mean tankers in salmon river

The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office has been reviewing a $100 million proposal by the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) to build an 80-million-litre fuel terminal and tank farm on the South Arm of the Fraser River in Richmond and run a 15-kilometre pipeline to Vancouver International Airport. A decision is expected soon from the Ministry of Environment. Critics of the jet fuel project are concerned about the consequences of a spill in critical salmon habitat and health risks to residents.

Said Brodie at the Tuesday press conference, “These are tankers that are 950 feet in length — that’s like three football fields long.”

[quote]They’re going to be loaded with jet fuel. They’re going to be regularly coming up the river, introducing an unnecessary risk to the people and to the city of Richmond.[/quote]

The new project would supplement or replace a current pipeline from Chevron’s Burrard Inlet refinery and the use of tanker trucks. Chevron has seen its crude supply from the Trans Mountain Pipeline dwindle as owner Kinder Morgan moves to export more and more of its Alberta oil to other markets – something Chevron complained about to the National Energy Board last year.

The irony is that YVR is now seeking to import jet fuel from Asia, while Kinder Morgan exports unrefined oil to foreign markets.

Decision expected soon

A decision on the project, which has stalled at various points over the past several years, is expected from BC Liberal Environment Minister Mary Polak by December 24. Huntington and other critics say alternatives to the plan have not been properly explored. Huntington charges:

[quote]Unfortunately, our rubber-stamp EAO process has presented the Environment Minister with a Faustian bargain: By Christmas she must decide whether to trade catastrophic environmental risk for tanker access to the Asia-Pacific jet fuel markets.[/quote]

The terminal, tank farm and pipeline would directly impact the local community, posing health risks and “introducing catastrophic risk to the globally-recognized Fraser River estuary,” says Huntington.

After several delays following its 2011 introduction, the proposal cleared a major hurdle with the October release of a pair of reports by the Ministry of Environment, outlining best practices and industry standards and presenting the province’s marine spill response framework.

“The marine report is already in the news for raising red flags about B.C.’s spill response capacity,” says Huntington.

[quote]Yet even if B.C. surpasses world-class standards, our government knows no procedure in the galaxy could fully contain a large jet fuel spill in heart of the fragile Fraser River estuary. It would be a disaster…Just one gallon of jet fuel can spread up to 300 feet on the water’s surface. The Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project would feature Panamax-class fuel tankers carrying over 10,000 gallons of fuel.[/quote]

A pipeline or terminal incident would also threaten vital habitat from 5 million migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, Huntington notes.

A jet fuel spill in the Slocan Valley this summer served to heighten concerns about the risks of this proposal for the Fraser.

Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests yet another attack on enviros

November 27, 2013Energy and Resources, Oil&GasfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Greenpeace Arctic 30 arrests another attempt to silence environmentalists — Friends of the Earth-UK shows its solidarity with the Arctic 30

Early November marked the 18th anniversary of the tragic murder of outspoken writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight colleagues by the Nigerian government. Saro-Wiwa and the others had waged a long campaign to stop multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell from drilling in the lands of the Ogoni people in the Niger delta.

Nigerian military harassed and intimidated members of the Ogoni community for years because they opposed Shell’s drilling program. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues defended their communities and local environment from a notoriously toxic industry. In November 1995, a special court established by the military government illegally detained and tried them on spurious charges. Convicted without due process, they were executed 10 days later, despite enormous international outcry.

700 activists murdered over past decade

Sadly, this is not an isolated occurrence. A recent report by human rights organization Global Witness documents the murders of more than 700 environmental and indigenous-rights activists over the past decade – more than one killing a week, on average. They reviewed databases, academic studies and news reports, and consulted with the United Nations and other international agencies. They found citizens are often harassed, intimidated, beaten up, sexually assaulted and sometimes killed for opposing endangered wildlife poaching, illegal logging, dams and activities of foreign mining companies – including some Canadian firms.

I experienced this reality in 1988 when we interviewed rubber tapper Chico Mendes about his battle to save the Amazon rainforest in Brazil for The Nature of Things. He was assassinated two weeks later. The following year, Kaiapo Chief Paiakan asked me to help stop a dam proposed for Altamira, Brazil. My wife, Tara, and I helped raise $70,000 for a demonstration, and the World Bank was persuaded to withdraw its project loan. Paiakan was then subjected to death threats. We brought him and his family to Vancouver until the danger subsided.

Most attacks occur under democratically elected governments

Many instances of persecution and killing have occurred in countries with atrocious human rights records, such as Sri Lanka, Guatemala and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet surprisingly, most attacks on environmentalists have been in countries such as Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines, with democratically elected governments, independent judiciaries and other institutions intended to protect their citizens’ rights to voice concerns about the environment without facing harassment, intimidation and violence. These countries have also signed international agreements to protect human rights, like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Arctic 30 confronted Gazprom’s drilling plans

As the recent incarceration of 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists by Russian authorities clearly demonstrates, human rights are vulnerable at a time when governments aggressively promote the interests of corporations over a healthy environment, and are willing to use heavy-handed tactics to ensure people who disagree don’t stand in the way.

In this latest case, Russian special operations forces arrested the Greenpeace International activists, including two Canadians, Alexandre Paul and Paul Ruzycki, for attempting to hang a banner off the side of an oil rig in Arctic waters. They were peacefully protesting Russian company Gazprom’s plans to drill for oil in one of the most ecologically sensitive regions of the planet, and raising awareness of the consequences of climate change. For speaking out in defence of the Arctic, they were imprisoned for two months under difficult conditions and all but one were only recently released on bail. They now face the possibility of long, harsh jail sentences if found guilty on trumped-up charges of piracy and hooliganism.

Canada silent on Arctic 30 – including two Canadians

Although leaders of the Netherlands, Brazil and Germany called for release of their nationals and other members of the “Arctic 30”, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird have so far been silent. You can sign letters at Greenpeace.ca asking Baird to bring the Canadians home and Greenpeace.org asking Russian embassies to urge their government to drop the charges.

Too often, governments are quick to use excessive force and even pervert the course of justice to keep oil and gas flowing, forests logged, wild rivers dammed and minerals extracted. As the Global Witness study reveals, citizens are often killed, too – especially if they’re poor and indigenous.

We must remember the sacrifices of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Chico Mendes and hundreds of other advocates and defend people’s rights to peacefully speak out for the environment, without fear of intimidation, arrest and violence.

With contributions from from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director-General Faisal Moola.

With LNG, Asian takeovers of Canadian energy assets still booming

November 22, 2013Economics, Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedKevin Logan

Asian investment explodes in BC’s LNG market, rivalling the scale of resource development in the tarsands, as new trade deals threaten to entrench foreign state ownership of Canada’s key energy assets.

“The relationship is suffering,” or so goes the mantra in our mainstream press.

For the last number of months, politicians, media and the talking heads have repeated the story that foreign investment – read Chinese – has fallen of a cliff and bi-lateral relations are frosty due to Harper’s “tough” new, yet undisclosed, policies on investments from foreign state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) in particular.

Chief among the irritants causing the Chinese-Canadian bilateral “suffering” is the “delays” in ratifying the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA).

But how does that square with reality?

Yes, overall “investment” from Chinese specific SOE’s has fallen slightly, but that is largely because politicians and media compare it to when the largest investments in Canadian history occurred with the Progress Energy and Nexen takeovers – totalling over $20 billion.

Were they expecting a never-ending flow of SOE dollars at that rate?

Foreign investment still going strong

Well, as it turns out, that is exactly what has occurred despite the rhetoric. Asian SOE investment has at least doubled and more private Chinese investment was just announced this week!

What’s more, it’s been happening regiularly since the big takeovers, as investment from PetroChina in western Canadian natural gas plays occurred immediately after Harper announced his “new tough laws,” as we reported on their partnership with Canadian energy giant Encana at the time.

And foreign SOE investment has never really stopped since. Despite Harper’s bold claim at the time that the takeovers marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one,” and his infamous hard line:

[quote]To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments (Petro Canada), only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead.[/quote]

The Floodgates have opened despite media, government claims

Earlier this week, it was announced that in addition to PetroChina and CNOOC, Sinopec was in discussions with Rich Coleman about their LNG intentions for our coast, all negotiations are under non-disclosure as we were the first and ONLY ones to report.

This announcement comes on the heels of the Petronas (Malaysia’s SOE and according to fortune 500 Asia’s most profitable company) claim that they intend to “invest” 36 Billion dollars in BC LNG.

That one announcement alone is over twice the investment CNOOC made to acquire Nexen. And on November 8th Petronas/Progress moved to acquire a large swath of Talisman’s natural gas assets in BC, further displacing Canadian ownership with ever-growing Asian SOE dollars.

Also this week came the news that ENN, China’s largest natural gas distributor, intends on building two LNG processing facilities, one in Vancouver the other in Edmonton, to supply “gas stations” across the country with our LNG – making them the first, largest and only Canadian domestic retail distributor.

This all puts the lie to Harper’s claim that “it’s the end of a trend” and that we’re not divesting Petro Canada only to have foreign governments replace it..

Asian SOEs have lock on both export markets, domestic distribution

Thus far, of the approximately 80 million tonnes in 25 year LNG export licenses the Harper government has approved, or intends to, four Asian SOEs are on the receiving end. (PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC and Petronas)

To put that in perspective, 80 million tonnes of LNG is the oil equivalent of over 2 million barrels a day, every day, for twenty five years.

In this recent NEB filing, a total of six LNG project proposals in BC have received, or have submitted an application for, an export licence. According to a BC government press release, these projects include:

Douglas Channel Energy Project – Proponents are LNG Partners and Haisla Nation. Located in Kitimat (floating facility). Received a 20-year export licence in February 2012, authorizing the export of 1.8 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Kitimat LNG – Proponents are Apache Canada Ltd. and Chevron Canada Limited. Received a 20-year export licence in October 2011, authorizing the export of 10 million tonnes of LNG a year.
LNG Canada – Proponents are Shell Canada Ltd., Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS), Mitsubishi Corporation and PetroChina Company Limited. Located in Kitimat. Received a 25-year export licence in February 2013, authoring the export of 24 million tonnes of LNG a year.
Pacific NorthWest LNG – Proponents are Petronas, Progress Energy Canada Ltd. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Located in Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB on July 5, 2013, to export 19.68 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
Prince Rupert LNG – Proponent is BG Group plc. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 21.6 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
WCC LNG Ltd. project – Proponents are Imperial Oil Resources Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. Will be located in the vicinity of Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 30 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.

These figures were as of June of last year and totaled 105 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) for 25 years. There has been some shuffling since, and this does not include Sinopec who is scoping out a 30 million tonne project, and suggested this week it was making good progress with its BC LNG negotiations.

LNG plans rival tarsands in scale

But at the much lower 80 mtpa figure, that is still larger than the equivalent current tarsands production in oil. (conversion chart here)

Yet another LNG plant proposed for BC: Petronas' $9 Billion Prince Rupert plan — Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant (artist’s rendering)

Or put another way, at 80 mpta, it is four times the entire existing Australian LNG export market, and they are third largest exporters of the product in the world behind Qatar and – you guessed it – Petronas (Malaysia).

In the case of Petronas alone, they have already depleted much of their own natural gas resources supplying Japan and their stock was plunging until the Progress takeover. And while everyone was talking about it being a “tarsands takeover” with Progress and Nexen being swallowed up by bizarre late Friday night Federal government approval “processes”, the real takeover was occurring in BC’s natural gas industry.

There, the Haperites leveraged investment into the risky and marginal tarsands by handing over nearly the entire natural gas industry of BC. These deals are so sweet that Petronas has already begun selling off their piece by offering huge, lucrative partnerships in the whole LNG train from fracked well to regasification for their prospective partners to enjoy. Japan is already on board and we may see even more Chinese SOE involvement in this deal when all is said and done.

That covers off the export market, and this week’s ENN announcement that it intends to be the primary distributor across Canada means that foreign-based companies will have a head start on supplying retail LNG from coast to coast, as they intend to begin pumping by 2016.

Promised LNG Prosperity delayed and deterred

Also this week, Coleman announced yet another delay in rolling out the required royalty and taxation regime for the promised “prosperity” his Liberal government campaigned on.

Energy expert debunks Minister Coleman's BC LNG math — BC Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman (Damien Gillis)

Apparently, negotiations with the mostly Asian companies involved are so complicated that not only are they done under non-disclosure agreements, but the results we have been promised this month are now delayed until his government tables its budget next year.

If you are tired of waiting, simply go here and listen to Coleman deliver a speech to the Chinese Economic and Environment forum, where you will learn of a new ministry Coleman announced to ensure foreign workers can meet the fracking LNG demand.

You will also learn that Coleman intends to lock down the world’s lowest royalty and taxation regime, streamline approvals and that peace and stability exist among environmentalists, the government and First Nations as a result of revenue sharing agreements and “world-class” environmental regulations, as I recently wrote about.

Trade Agreements and Democracy Collide with TPP

The controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership will revolve around natural gas – BC’s in particular – as many of the proponents of the TPP are in on the BC LNG play that has been trumpeted as the largest deals in history.

In Malaysia, the government has announced an open and transparent process. TPP developments there will involve stakeholder consultation, public participation and debates in parliament. This is a sharp contrast to Canada’s secretive approach as we rely on Wikileaks to deliver our first peak at the agreements “cyber” oriented contents.

There is still no word on the TPP text outlining the new paradigm for Canada’s natural resources, but it is clear we are not on the winning side, as we are treated to more secrecy and backroom deals.

FIPPA implications and why we need to act now

Which brings us back to FIPPA and how our relationship with Asia is “suffering” as a result of the delay in ratifying this deal. Minister John Baird recently claimed that ratification was imminent, and as we learn more and more about the significance of the Chinese FIPPA – given their majority ownership position in both our LNG export and domestic markets, in addition to the full basket of other natural resource investments and their huge stake in our retail markets – you can see why China is interested in closing this deal.

However, if we are interested in true prosperity for Canadians, it’s high time we take a sober second look at the huge, far-reaching impacts of the FIPPA Treaty. You may recall the work done here at The Common Sense Canadian to bring attention to how the FIPPA Environmental Assessment was carried out against the letter of the law, and how it dismissed any impact on the environment whatsoever as a result of Chinese investment.

These conclusions are patently ridiculous as we learn to what extent Chinese investment permeates the entirety of our economy.

It’s time to follow up with the Cabinet and Chief negotiator of the FIPPA treaty on our request to clarify how they completed a successful Environmental Assessment, based on the flaws we pointed out and I detailed in a submission through the public process.

The LNG export approvals alone are going to result in such a massive escalation of fracking that we cannot let the FIPPA EA conclusions stand based on that one issue alone.

GO HERE for the orignal letter and instructions on how to register your concerns with the Harper Cabinet on this vital subject.

The day I discovered the Harper Government spying on me

November 21, 2013Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

by Emma Gilchrist – cross-post from Desmog Canada

Nov. 19^th, 2013. A Tuesday. The day started out sunny, but hail fell out of the sky in the afternoon. It was a Victoria day like any other until I found out the Canadian government has been vigorously spying on several Canadian organizations that work for environmental protections and democratic rights.

I read the news in the Vancouver Observer. There, front and centre, was the name of the organization I worked for until recently: Dogwood Initiative.

My colleagues and I had been wary of being spied on for a long time, but having it confirmed still took the wind out of me.

[quote]I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens.[/quote]

Harper Government spying on church gatherings

I told my parents about the article over dinner. They’re retired school teachers who lived in northern Alberta for 35 years before moving to Victoria.

I asked them: “Did you know the Canadian government is spending your tax dollars to spy on your daughter?”

Then I told them how one of the events detailed in e-mails from Richard Garber, the National Energy Board’s “Group Leader of Security,” was a workshop in a Kelowna church run by one of my close friends and colleagues, Celine Trojand (who’s about the most warm-hearted person you could ever meet). About 30 people, mostly retirees, attended to learn about storytelling, theory of change and creative sign-making (cue the scary music).

CSIS, RCMP, Enbridge working together

In the e-mails, Garber marshals security and intelligence operations between government operations and private interests and notes that his security team has consulted with Canada’s spying agency, CSIS.

To add insult to injury, another set of documents show CSIS and the RCMP have been inviting oil executives to secret classified briefings at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, in what The Guardian describes as “unprecedented surveillance and intelligence sharing with companies.”

These meetings covered “threats” to energy infrastructure and “challenges to energy projects from environmental groups.” Guess who is prominently displayed as a sponsor on the agenda of May’s meeting? Enbridge, the proponent of a controversial oilsands pipeline to the coast of British Columbia.

I asked my folks: “Isn’t that scary? CSIS is hosting classified briefings sponsored by Enbridge?” No answer. My parents are not the type to get themselves in a flap about things like this, but I prodded them: “Dad, this is scary, right?”

“It’s scary,” he admitted.

Is this Canada or Nigeria?

How much information is being provided to corporations like Enbridge? What about state-owned Chinese oil companies like Sinopec, which has a $10 million stake in Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker proposal?

What kind of country spies on environmental organizations in the name of the oil industry? It seems more Nigerian than Canadian.

I fought the urge to react with indignation, a sentiment I find all too common in the environmental movement. I also didn’t want to be overwrought about it. Fact is though, the more I thought about those documents, the more I began to feel a sense of loss for my country.

Enemies of the State

I’m not the touchy-feely type. Everyone from my conservative cousins in Alberta to my former colleagues at the Calgary Herald could attest to that. I grew up in northern Alberta playing hockey and going to bush parties. I think our oil and gas deposits, including the oilsands, are a great asset to our country — if developed in the public interest. Yes, that’s a big “if” — but Canadians own these resources and the number one priority when developing them should be that Canadians benefit.

For speaking up for the public interest and speaking out against the export of raw bitumen through the Great Bear Rainforest, hundreds of people like me have been called radicals and painted as enemies of the state, as somehow un-Canadian. That last bit is what hits me in the gut.

Exporting raw bitumen, Canadian jobs

I love my country. And in my eyes, there isn’t anything much more patriotic than fighting for the interests of Canadian citizens. I’ve argued that after 25 years of oilsands development, Albertans should have something to show for it — not be facing budget crises and closing hospital beds; that Albertans aren’t collecting a fair share of resource revenues; that we should develop resources at a responsible pace that doesn’t cause rampant inflation, undermining Canadians’ quality of life and hurting other sectors of the economy; that we should prioritize Canadian energy security (half of Canada is currently dependent on foreign oil). And I’ve agreed with the Alberta Federation of Labour that exporting raw bitumen and 50,000 jobs to China doesn’t make sense for Canadians.

Enbridge hearings drew unprecedented public turnout

Now, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s a stretch to portray any of those statements as unpatriotic or radical. In fact, one of my proudest moments as a Canadian was encouraging citizens to register to speak at the public hearings on Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker proposal for B.C. With a team of committed people at Dogwood, in collaboration with several other groups, we helped more than 4,000 people sign up to have their say — seven times more than in any previous National Energy Board hearing.

It was this act of public participation that sparked the beginnings of the federal government’s attacks on people who oppose certain resource development proposals. Helping citizens to participate in an archaic public hearing process is a vital part of democracy— not something to be maligned.

Corporate media ignores Harper Government spying

What makes me sad is the thought that we’ve been reduced to being the type of country that spies on its own citizens when they speak out against certain corporate interests. Not only that, but our government then turns around and shares that intelligence with those corporations.

Disappointingly, a scan of today’s news coverage indicates Canada’s major newspapers never picked up the spying story, save for one 343-word brief on page 9 of the Vancouver Province. Is it now so accepted that the Canadian government is in bed with the oil industry that it doesn’t even make news any more? Now that’s really sad.

Whether you agree or disagree with my ideas about responsible natural resource development, I’d hope we could all agree Canada should be a country where we can have open and informed debate about the most important issues of our time — without fear of being attacked and spied on by our own government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis was also featured in an email from CSIS to the National Energy Board, spying on Enbridge critics, as revealed in this story from The Vancouver Observer.