Category Archives: Energy and Resources

BC to study air pollution impacts from proposed LNG plants

October 4, 2013Energy and Resources, Health and Environment, LNGCanadian Press

BC's Fiscal Mess: Hydro, LNG Numbers Don't Add Up — Proposed LNG plant in Kitimat – artist’s rendering

VICTORIA – The B.C. government will spend $650,000 to study potential air pollution impacts of proposed industrial developments — including liquefied natural gas plants — in the Kitimat area, a decision opposition politicians and scientists are calling better-late-than-never.

The Liberals said Thursday the Kitimat Air Shed Impact Assessment Project aims to examine the cumulative air pollution effects of existing and proposed industrial air emissions in the so-called Kitimat air shed area, a long, thin, tunnel-like valley with mountains on either side.

The study will forecast the ability of Kitimat’s air shed — which is smaller, but similar in shape to the air shed that runs from Vancouver to Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley — to handle emissions from the existing Rio Tinto Alcan aluminum smelter, three proposed liquefied natural gas terminals, a proposed oil refinery and a crude-oil export facility.

The study will also consider the impact of emissions from gas-turbine powered electrical generation facilities used to create LNG and focus on the sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions from these facilities.

UBC prof: study too rushed

LNG plants require huge amounts of electricity and the companies appear to be looking to generate power by burning natural gas.

Prof. Douw Steyn at the University of B.C.’s earth, oceans and atmospheric sciences department, said the decision to study the ability of Kitimat’s air shed to handle potential air pollution from industrial development makes sense from business, social and environmental perspectives.

Steyn said earlier this year that business, government and the community all need to have a better idea of the area’s environmental capabilities before massive development occurs.

He said the study is much needed, but he is concerned the March 2014 deadline is too short.

“I think six months is screamingly fast for that,” Steyn said Thursday.

[quote]I can understand why they want it. The big question is: ‘Is that timeline being driven by the cause of industry or by prudent science.'[/quote]

The government said conclusions from the study will be used to inform environmental assessment work and regulatory decisions in the Kitimat area. A government-hired contractor is set to start collecting surface water and soil samples next week for analysis.

Kitimat prone to air pollution issues

Steyn said light winds and the long, narrow shape of the surrounding Kitimat area makes it prone to holding air for long periods, which could create pollution problems.

“It is trapped both by the topography, the valley that it’s in, all the way up from Kitimat to Terrace, down through the Douglas Channel,” he said. “It’s very restrictive, very tall, with flowing light winds.”

Opposition New Democrat natural gas critic Robin Austin, who represents the Kitimat-Terrace area, said the government air shed study should have been undertaken long ago, but at least it’s happening now. He said area residents want a better understanding of potential environmental impacts associated with the projects.

“Clearly, they need to examine our air shed and come up with what is the best solution,” he said. “How much can the air shed hold? So, I’m glad they are doing this ahead of any of the companies coming to a final investment decision.”

BC LNG could be far dirtier than other jurisdictions

Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver, who is also a climate scientist, said the government is taking a responsible approach by conducting the assessment before any major development occurs.

“Doing this all at once is a really wise idea,” he said.

Premier Christy Clark has pledged to develop the world’s cleanest LNG, an industry that she has touted will represent a trillion-dollar economic opportunity and will create 100,000 jobs for British Columbians.

Last month, Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, issued a report that warned natural gas-fuelled LNG operations in B.C. could emit more than three-times the carbon emissions produced at other plants around the world.

First Nations energy company floats oil refinery near Prince Rupert

October 4, 2013Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersDamien Gillis

First Nations energy company floats oil refinery near Prince Rupert — Eagle Spirit Energy’s Calvin Helin speaking the Vancouver Board of Trade

A new energy company with partial aboriginal ownership is floating the idea of an oil refinery at Grassy Point, near Prince Rupert on BC’s north coast, according to a letter sent to members of a local First Nations band.

The letter, obtained through a facebook posting, was signed by chief/mayor of the Lax Kw’alaams Band, Garry Reece. It invites band members to two separate meetings about proposed energy projects. The first is an oil refinery put forth by Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings, Ltd., a company that was founded last year by Calvin Helin, an author and entrepreneur who identifies himself as member of Lax Kw’alaams First Nation and son of a hereditary chief.

The meeting is being held today “to provide Eagle Spirit Energy an opportunity to present their idea on the construction of an oil refinery and the shipment of oil from Grassy Point,” the letter indicates.

Grassy Point is also the site of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal proposed by an international consortium of companies.

A second meeting tomorrow is being convened “to provide a report on the activities associated with LNG on our traditional territory.” The band’s lead LNG negotiator will “discuss negotiations for a benefit package for Lax Kw’alaams.”

Eagle Spirit was launched in September of 2012, touted in a press release as “a new ground breaking Aboriginal-owned and controlled company…to assist aboriginal communities and individuals to become successful with managing economic opportunities in their traditional territories.” In the release, Chairman and President Helin stated:

[quote]We want to work with communities to establish a First Nations Energy Corridor across northern British Columbia.[/quote]

Helin, who has written and spoken extensively on indigenous self-reliance, has picked up some heavy-duty backing from investors like Vancouver’s Aquilini family, which owns the Vancouver Canucks and significant real estate holdings.

A Globe and Mail story on Eagle Spirit earlier this year suggested:

[quote]At a time when Canada faces seemingly intractable conflict between first nations and a resurgent resource sector, Eagle Spirit also presents a shimmer of hope that a third way may be possible.[/quote]

It also acknowledged “Eagle Spirit’s path, however, is unlikely to be easy, given the tremendous complexity of negotiating with dozens of first nations, and the huge cost and expertise required to build pipelines and power lines.”

It remains to be seen the level of planning Eagle Spirit has done for its proposed oil refinery, among a long list of other concerns – such as how the oil will be delivered to Grassy Point and how Helin will deal with the tremendous First Nations-led opposition to pipelines crossing their territories.

Helin’s proposal is sure to raise eyebrows in the energy sector, across BC and throughout First Nations communities.

[signoff1]

Judge blasts Alberta government for silencing oilsands critics

October 2, 2013Energy and Resources, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaCanadian Press

tarsands industry-kris krüg — Oilsands infrastructure near Fort McMurray (photo: Kris Krüg)

EDMONTON – Alberta’s Environment Department has been rebuked by a judge for working behind the scenes to silence groups that question the effects of oilsands operations on the environment.

“This is a black mark for the government of Alberta,” Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank at the heart of the dispute, said Wednesday.

[quote]Alberta needs to walk the talk and be judged on its actions both in terms of environmental performance of the industry and its actions in terms of the regulatory process.[/quote]

In a ruling filed Tuesday, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Marceau said a provincial director who in 2012 refused the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition standing into a review of a proposed oilsands project was adhering to a 2009 internal department policy memo.

The coalition includes a number of environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association.

That memo, said Marceau, made it clear that the coalition was to be thwarted because its member groups refused to work with the government through such initiatives as the Cumulative Effects Management Association.

Marceau said the director then “breached the rules of fundamental justice” by beginning from a place of bias.

See no evil, hear no evil

Nowhere in the law, wrote Marceau, “is there a suggestion that promoting Alberta’s economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner permits the director to reject statements of concern from those persons or groups who voice negative statements about proposed oil sands development.”

The 2009 memo made it clear that the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition, or OSEC, should no longer be given standing at regulatory hearings into oilsands projects on the grounds it was not directly affected by the impact of the operations.

Up until that point OSEC had been routinely granted standing.

The memo, sent to the deputy minister, the top bureaucrat in the department, singled out the Pembina Institute, noting that the institute, “as reflected in (its) recent publications about the oilsands, are less inclined to work co-operatively.”

Marceau noted that the department’s director of the northern region, who is not named, then used that exact reasoning in June 2012 to reject the coalition’s application to be allowed to speak on a proposed Southern Pacific Resource Corp. (TSX:STP) in situ oilsands mining operation on the MacKay River in northeastern Alberta.

“The reasons provided (by the director) are so close to being identical (to the memo) they seem to have been cast from the same template,” wrote Marceau.

He noted OSEC was not made aware of the 2009 memo at the time and therefore could not respond to it.

Environmental coalition must be heard

In his decision, he quashed the decision to exclude the coalition from the hearings.

OSEC has argued it is directly affected by the project, given that it has a licence to occupy land for recreational purposes downstream. It argues there are larger environmental concerns, given that the project would require up to 1.7 million litres of fresh water every day. It says air quality could also be affected and says the project would be in the middle of the habitat for a threatened caribou herd.

Environment Minister Diana McQueen was not made available for comment Wednesday. She is in Europe meeting with leaders to try to head off a European Union directive that would label oilsands oil more environmentally harmful than conventional oil.

Government denies policy against environmental groups

Department spokeswoman Jessica Potter said no decision has been made on whether to appeal Marceau’s ruling. But she said there will be a review of the decisions on who gets to speak on the Southern Pacific proposal.

“As a result of the ruling we are preparing a new assessment for this project,” said Potter.

She declined to discuss the 2009 memo or whether McQueen was aware of it, but stressed, “We don’t have a policy towards the OSEC. There’s no specific policy against a specific group.”

“Banana Republic stuff”

NDP critic Rachel Notley said McQueen needs to cut short the European trip and return immediately to address the issue.

“This government has a law on one hand that they publish, and secret policies on the other hand that they implement behind closed doors,” said Notley.

“If that’s not bad enough, it turns out the secret policies that they’re implementing behind closed doors are designed to punish and to silence those who might disagree with their policies on the oilsands.

“This is banana republic stuff.”

Notley said if McQueen knew about the memo and didn’t act to stop it, “we need to talk about whether she should be in that position any longer.”

Notley also said Jim Ellis, the deputy environment minister at the time of the 2009 memo and now the CEO of Alberta’s new energy regulator, should resign.

Wildrose Party chimes in

Wildrose environmental critic Joe Anglin said the memo is further proof of a Progressive Conservative government that in its zeal to clamp down on dissent makes it even harder to prove to the world it is serious about reducing pollution in the oilsands.

“The worst thing we have ever done to our oilsands is we’ve gone out and created this story about how wonderful we are, but then we don’t practise it,” said Anglin.

“It does the industry a disservice and it does the public a disservice.”

[signoff1]

$Obey law, minister tells New Brunswick fracking protesters$

Obey law, minister tells New Brunswick fracking protesters

October 1, 2013Energy and Resources, FrackingCanadian Press

Obey law, minister tells New Brunswick fracking protesters — Fracking protest in New Brunswick (photo: Colin McPhail)

HALIFAX – New Brunswick’s minister of energy is urging people participating in a demonstration against exploration for shale gas fracking to obey the law.

Craig Leonard says while he recognizes the right to protest against the industry, matters will be turned over to the police if such protests break laws.

Leonard’s comments came as the RCMP monitored a protest today near Rexton.

Some people have blocked an entrance in the area where SWN Resources is storing natural gas exploration equipment.

Leonard was in Halifax to deliver a speech at an annual energy conference hosted by the Maritimes Energy Association.

During his speech, Leonard said a well regulated shale gas industry could create an economic renewal in his province, estimating there may be enough gas to provide the province with all of its electricity needs for the next half century.

BC LNG: The Real Story – exclusive series, presentations all week

September 29, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGDamien Gillis

British Columbians have been hearing a lot of glowing rhetoric from their political leaders about the economic promise of building a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. We’ve heard that our gas – which is fast running out of steam in the North American market – will be transformed into a $100 billion “prosperity” fund for our provincial treasury, all by cooling and exporting it to new markets in Asia.

The extraordinary claims being levied by the BC Liberals have gone largely unquestioned in the mainstream media – which is why, all this week, The Common Sense Canadian will be drilling down on the government’s policy.

For starters, I will be speaking in six different northwest BC communities, alongside local organizations like Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, Douglas Channel Watch and NoMorePipelines.ca.

Through these events – highlights of which will be taped and posted to The Common Sense Canadian – along with a series of articles and videos in these pages, we’ll be examining the entire BC LNG plan. From the fracking in northeast BC and Alberta that would need to be dramatically ramped up to feed these coastal plants, to the four-plus major, new pipelines that would cross BC’s wilderness and communities to pump the gas to Kitimat and Prince Rupert, to the plants themselves, to the world’s largest tankers that would carry the liquefied gas to Asia.

We’ll discuss the taxpayer subsidies that would fund the the world’s richest companies – from royalty breaks to infrastructure, to the $10 Billion proposed Site C Dam, whose power is only required for the enormously energy-intensive LNG cooling process.

We’ll expose the truth about the BC Liberals’ claims that this gas will somehow constitute “clean energy” – when it is in fact one of the world’s dirtiest and least efficient energy sources. We’ll examine the massive increase to BC’s greenhouse gases that would arise from this process – potentially upping the province’s total carbon footprint by several fold.

We’ll look at the tens of billions of litres of fresh water that would need to be drained each year from northeast BC’s rivers and lakes and shot full of unknown, toxic chemicals for fracking.

Finally, we’ll examine the economic realities of a program that promises to be the biggest boondoggle in the province’s history – marshalling the best available evidence from around the world, rather than the wishful thinking of Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman and his government.

In short, we will present the other side of the BC LNG fairytale being concocted by BC’s political leaders and media. And we’ll look at some sustainable economic alternatives that could provide a real, healthy future for the people and environment of BC.

If you’re in one of the communities in northwest BC that will be directly affected by these proposed pipelines, LNG plants and terminals, I invite you to join us for one of these presentations – to learn more about the consequences for the health of your community, environment, and economic future (click each link for more details).

And stay tuned to exclusive coverage and analysis from The Common Sense Canadian and our team of expert commentators. Together, we’ll get to the bottom of this BC LNG and fracking pipe dream.

With LNG emissions, BC will fail to meet climate targets

September 29, 2013Carbon Tax - Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Energy and Resources, LNGCanadian Press

VICTORIA – A report presented to the United Nations indicates British Columbia is meeting its legislated targets to cut greenhouse gas pollution, but environmental leaders say that won’t last much longer even if the province sets up a smokescreen to hide the air pollution created by proposed liquefied natural gas operations.

Environment Canada’s national inventory submission in April to the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change shows B.C.’s greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions have declined almost six per cent since 2007 when the province passed its law to cut the emissions by 33 per cent by 2020.

The inventory report, which measures GHG emissions from farms, factories, vehicles, gas fields and numerous other entities, measured B.C.’s carbon dioxide emissions at 59,100 kilo tonnes in 2011 — the most recent numbers. In 2007, when B.C. passed its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, Environment Canada reported that B.C. emitted 62,600 kilo tonnes of GHG’s.

The report stated Canada’s total GHG emissions for 2011 measured 702 megatonnes, up 19 per cent since 1990, when the report first started measuring pollution emissions.

Liberals not serious about GHGs: Former climate science advisor

But B.C. climate scientist Mark Jaccard, who helped the Liberal government develop its climate targets law and implement the carbon tax, said he’s given up on Canada’s GHG reduction plans and is now working with the California Energy Commission which is advising U.S. President Barack Obama on cutting emissions.

Jaccard said if B.C. really wanted its residents to know if the province was hitting or missing its targets Premier Christy Clark would call in independent reviewers to examine the results.

“If Christy were like (former premier Gordon Campbell), she would have them estimate, and then publicly release, the effect of LNG and other policies on B.C.’s GHG target,” he said. “If Christy were like (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper she would not.”

Jaccard said the B.C. government needs to feel continuous pressure from British Columbians about its legislated goal to cut GHG emissions by 33 per cent within the next seven years. Said Jaccard:

[quote]They are not interested in climate and GHG reduction. I work with groups making suggestions to the Obama government and associated institutions. And I work directly with the California Energy Commission. And I have done a bit for Canada’s Auditor General. But since Gordon Campbell left and since Stephen Harper got a majority there is no interest in people like me from our provincial and federal governments.[/quote]

B.C.’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets law mandates regular reporting of the most up-to-date emissions numbers.

Campbell’s Liberals also established a Climate Action Secretariat to support programs across the province that reduce GHG emissions. The secretariat now is part of the Ministry of Environment.

Weaver: LNG emissions make BC’s climate targets ‘meaningless’

Victoria-area Green party MLA Andrew Weaver, who with Jaccard once served on Campbell’s blue ribbon environmental advisory Climate Action Team, said Wednesday the B.C. Liberals want to tell British Columbians the province is meeting its reduction targets, but once the LNG plants fire up, those targets are meaningless.

“They simply cannot go down the path and produce the LNG they want to produce and stay within their targets without abandoning them,” said Weaver, also a noted climate scientist.

[quote]Natural gas is not clean energy. I always call it cleaner energy. It’s cleaner than coal, but it’s not clean energy.[/quote]

Weaver said clean energy is renewable energy like electricity or wind.

cleanest LNG in the world“British Columbians are essentially being sold a bill of goods when they are told that somehow we’re going to have the because the reality is we are not on that path,” he said. “Some honesty in this discourse would be really appropriate.”

Liberals water down Clean Energy Act for LNG

Earlier this week, a report by Tides Canada released a report that concluded B.C. will not achieve its goal to develop the cleanest LNG plants in the world because natural gas fuelled operations will produce LNG emissions three times dirtier than electricity-driven plants in Australia and Norway.

In July 2012, the Clark government amended its Clean Energy Act to declare that the natural gas used to fuel LNG operations would be clean energy, but Weaver said calling natural gas clean may help the B.C. government get around its own emissions law, but Canada is duty-bound to report the real numbers to the United Nations.

“We have to have an honest discussion, a transparent discussion, one where you’re constrained by the truth to say that we are heading down a path where we are willingly and knowingly going to break this law,” he said. “That to me is troubling.”

NDP vows to hold Liberals to GHG targets

Outgoing New Democrat Leader Adrian Dix said his Opposition party intends to hold the government to its emission targets.

“This is an example of a government divorced from reality,” he said.

[quote]They claim emissions aren’t emissions anymore.

[/quote]

Government offers no specifics on meeting targets with LNG emissions

But Environment Minister Mary Polak steadfastly maintains the government is committed to meeting its emissions reduction targets and she’s counting on industry and governments, local and provincial to find ways to cut GHG emissions.

She said her major challenge remains developing a clean environmental policy that doesn’t adversely impact the bottom line of the companies looking to develop the LNG market.

Polak wouldn’t speculate on suggestions by Weaver and Jaccard that the government will completely exempt emissions from natural gas fuelled LNG plants from the targets law.

“You’re still dealing with a hypothetical,” she said. “On top of that, there’s every likelihood that you will see a range of approaches from different companies and different technologies,” she said.

[signoff1]

Microgrids: Sustainable alternative to investment in “old energy”

September 26, 2013RenewablesCommon Sense Canadian

The Common Sense Canadian has made much of the Harper government’s promotion, facilitation and subsidization of big oil and the Clark government’s current LNG export fetish. The underlying messaging to Canadians in both cases is: support these projects or face economic and social armageddon.

What seems to get lost in the refrain is the vast business opportunity presented by “alternative energy”. Alternative energy in quotes because “alternative” is rapidly becoming a misnomer. What was alternative a decade ago is now mainstream and a viable job-creator. Often it’s just a matter of governmental emphasis, the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and entrepreneurial determination.

[quote]Microgrids promise to be a $3 billion industry in 2013 growing to more than $8 billion in 2020.[/quote]

One such opportunity lies in the application of technology to off-grid power systems which have been around forever and already number in the tens of thousands worldwide. Currently, these are powered primarily by diesel. What’s new is other systems using smart, far cleaner combustion technologies capable of reducing diesel consumption by as much as a third without any renewable generation. Even better, with renewable distributed energy generation (RDEG), relegating diesel to emergency or peak demand backup, for which it is ideally suited.

Developing nations will lead growth in electrical demand

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that demand for electric power will double by 2020 in the developing world. This projected demand is substantially higher than projections for the industrialized world, representing 80% of total growth in electric production/consumption by the year 2035.

Industry leaders point to the majority of this new power being produced and distributed via remote microgrids which are ideally suited to the demand. As small-scale versions of the centralized, conventional grid we are more familiar with, they provide the benefits of reliability and flexibility. With extreme weather now business-as-usual, according to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, this is good news. Plus key technology now allows for increased security and widespread customer participation at the community level.

Microgrids promise to be a $3 billion industry in 2013 growing to more than $8 billion in 2020 – and that’s a conservative scenario. Along with the $8 billion in revenue will come a wide range of long-term jobs.

How can Canada plug into microgrid market?

So…how does Canada fit into this grand opportunity? A recent report by Navigant points to”twenty promising players (both established and newly entering ones) in the microgrid market” and a market where the “competitive landscape…presents a very interesting picture, where large number of small players has become a force to reckon with.

“While the bigger players including the utility and software giants are venturing into the market and have earned big projects. Some of the key players in the microgrid market include ZBB Energy Corporation (U.S.), Chevron Energy (U.S.), Siemens AG (Germany), Echelon Corporation (U.S.), Mera Gao Power (India), Spirae Inc (U.S.), GE Energy (U.S.), ABB Limited (Switzerland), Power Analytics Corporation (U.S.), Virdity Energy (U.S.), Pareto Energy, Ltd. (U.S.), and Microgrid Energy, LLC (U.S.) among others.”

We haven’t yet cracked this particular top twenty, but Canada does have program appropriately titled Canada’s Smart Grid, which: “will be a network of integrated Smart Microgrids: geographically compact units capable of running autonomously from the main grid. Each microgrid will be capable of load side management, peak-shaving, power conservation and integration of local renewable energy generation”. Clearly a joint government and private industry program as one can tell from the mind bobbling list of associate acronyms the NSERC Smart Microgrid Network (NSMG-Net) looks like a good start. There is a nascent industry here and remote towns and villages that can serve as microgrid development test beds.

So where is Canada? A shift in political will on energy, a few strokes of the pen at the provincial and federal level, a bit of entrepreneurial elbow grease, and jobs and economic opportunity will follow.

BC LNG will be powered by massive taxpayer giveaways

September 25, 2013Energy and Resources, LNGKevin Logan

As we all know Christy Clark and the BC Liberals were elected on “prosperity” from BC LNG (liquefied natural gas) that will erase debt, lower taxes and deliver the services we rely on.

Of course, there is no existing BC LNG tax or royalty regime in place to deliver on those lofty promises, but Clark has been promising that is “coming soon.”

Indeed when cancelling the Fall sitting of the Legislature, it was because her government was busy devising the schemes that would erase our debt, lower taxes and employ British Columbians all by way of squeezing and freezing natural gas and exporting it abroad.

[quote]Clark continues to maintain that this industry will indeed turn BC into a debt-free province of prosperity. This despite having no deals done to build the facilities, no export markets, and no royalty regime.[/quote]

Clark delivers! But not a prosperity fund

As a result, many were expecting the next BC LNG announcement from the Liberals to be all about new royalties and the much-vaunted, long-awaited means of erasing debt and filling that 100 Billion dollar Prosperity Fund Clark campaigned on.

However, this week, the announcement came in the form of 116 million dollars worth of “royalty credits” to the natural gas players. Yet another multi-million dollar giveaway this time to build the pipelines! Of course, no one recalls that promise from the campaign.

Then there’s the ultimate in taxpayer handouts to this industry: a $10 Billion dam to help power the ridiculously energy-intensive cooling process to produce LNG. The public clearly does not need Site C Dam for homes and businesses – instead, it would deliver highly subsidized power to industry. Clark has acknowledged as much herself.In her announcement this week, the premier gave no indication of how BC is going to benefit from all the fracking, freezing and squeezing – instead she rolled out another giveaway to the world’s largest and wealthiest companies. Apparently they cannot afford to build their own pipelines.

This tradition started many years ago with “Oil and Gas strategies” and we have since devised more creative ways to give the resource away and pick up the infrastructure tab than anywhere else on earth, for almost twenty years now.

We have fracked 160 000 wells in Alberta and tens of thousands in BC, and what we have is record debt for both provinces – not record prosperity.

Prosperity right around the corner?

Regardless, Clark continues to maintain that this industry will indeed turn BC into a debt-free province of prosperity. This despite having no deals done to build the facilities, no export markets, and no royalty regime.

Yesterday, Harper met with the leader of Japan and CBC stated “Energy was the hot topic“, as Japan is one of our prime potential destination markets.

However, the US has already inked deals to provide LNG to Japan and by the time we are up and running for exports, no doubt Japan’s nuclear plants will be back online, reducing their need.Besides, Japan has already engaged in price fixing for its LNG supply and even if we manage to export there, they wont want to pay to fill Clark’s 100 Billion dollar party fund, now will they? That little Fukushima thing has got them cash-strapped, and while they may be sending over radioactive debris, it’s likely they wont be sending tens of billions our way anytime soon.

In fact, after forshadowing an upcoming Japanese LNG deal, yesterday the Harper Government could only a manage an Agreement in Principle (AIP) – and not even on LNG, but on a shared military agenda instead.No doubt China, often forwarded as another destination market, is a little off put by that, given their recent military agreement with Canada. The CBC neglected to report on the Japanese military AIP.

No royalty regime + no destination markets = Zero Prosperity

Oddly, the absence of Clark’s BC LNG prosperity tax is being held up as the reason why destination markets like Japan refuse to commit to import deals. In this Globe and Mail report, Clark’s 100 billion dollar promised prosperity is reduced to 30 billion over 30 years and Japan is still balking.

They and others don’t want to be blind-sided by a new tax, just to deliver on Clark’s promised prosperity.

Therefore, not only has Clark offered us empty promises to get elected, but she is also hurting the ability of the industry to establish markets abroad – all as a result of her consistent delay in delivering the promised prosperity taxation regime.

This puts BC in a tough place, and in the meantime, to keep the LNG players at the table and in the game, she has to give more away, like we saw this week with the premier all but promising to build their pipelines for them.

Enough is Enough

British Columbians need to demand a thorough accounting of the “giveaways” in the form of subsidies, royalty credits and beyond.

We need to better understand exactly who is prospering from natural gas development, who is getting the jobs and how our tax dollars are not only propping up this industry, but seemingly picking-up near the entire tab when all is said and done.

Through clever schemes – many undisclosed due to Coleman’s unreported non-disclosure agreements – the BC Liberals are putting taxpayers on the line for building the infrastructure, the facilities, the roads and the pipelines. And now through a renewed greenwash push, we will make BC LNG the “Cleanest in the world.”

With fracking, Site C dam, and all the carbon emissions from this extremely energy-intensive process, there is nothing “clean” about it.

The “Prosperity” is overwhelming isn’t it? Best cover your pocket book – it’s gonna be a rough four years.

BC LNG a gateway to carbon pollution, says new report

September 23, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGCanadian Press

BC LNG a gateway to carbon pollution — Australia’s Colongra gas-powered electrical plant – similar technology would be needed to power BC’s LNG

VICTORIA – British Columbia’s pledge to develop the world’s cleanest liquefied natural gas plants looks hazy to an environmental organization that says the province appears to be prepared to allow oil and gas companies to belch carbon emissions three-times higher than those in Australia and Norway.

A report released Monday by Clean Energy Canada, an affiliate of Tides Canada, warns that without B.C. government policy leadership, LNG produced in the province could emit more than three-times the carbon produced at other plants around the world.

“We conclude that this leadership gap can be closed if the government creates the policy environment that both directs and incentivizes the energy industry to employ a mix of strategies and technologies proven to drive carbon pollution down all the way across the life cycle of LNG production,” states the report entitled “The Cleanest LNG in the World?”

But B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak said the report may be making assumptions on government directions before they are officially decided.

Government blowing smoke?

Polak said she is under directions from Premier Christy Clark to develop the cleanest LNG industry and challenging negotiations are underway that take into account the province’s goal to be a world environmental leader without adversely affecting the bottom line of the oil and gas firms who want to invest in the province.

Clark’s Liberals have said LNG development represents a trillion-dollar economic opportunity that could create 100,000 jobs.

“They’ve outlined a whole number of ways in which we can address the challenges posed by LNG development and greenhouse gases,” said Polak about the report.

“For our part, we know that that’s part of the balancing that we need to do in our negotiations with the proponents because, of course, we have to balance our interest in protecting the environment with the viability of their projects, and so we have to take a look at what’s possible for them and what hits their bottom line.”

LNG in conflict with climate targets

B.C.’s environmental goals include the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act of 2007 that put into law the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020. The government has been steadfast in its pledge to meet those targets.

Clean Energy Canada spokeswoman Merran Smith said the emissions targets are already in jeopardy, but increased carbon emissions from proposed LNG makes the reduction target virtually impossible to achieve.

She said the Clean Energy Canada report focused on the carbon footprint that could be left from the proposed B.C. LNG plants if the government allows the plants and gas-field operations to be powered by natural gas as opposed to electricity, which is considered clean and renewable.

“There’s really no details on what does that mean, cleanest energy in the world,” she said.

[quote]What the companies are proposing to do in B.C. would be three times dirtier than the existing cleanest LNG in the world.[/quote]

Cooling gas by burning gas

Smith said most of the companies proposing LNG developments in B.C. are putting forward plans to power their operations with natural gas.

Earlier, Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman said at least two plants were proposing to run part of their operations with electricity. There are currently about a half dozen LNG plant proposals in B.C.

Smith said B.C. could reach its goal of the cleanest LNG industry in the world if electricity was used to power the proposed LNG plants on the northwest coast and the gas fields in northeastern B.C. She said gas companies should also move to carbon capture technology that involves storing carbon dioxide emissions underground.

“These technologies are proven and in places like Australia and Norway the government mandated them,” said Smith.

Carbon tax on way for LNG

Clark has said the Liberals will introduce legislation next spring that includes a taxation policy and regulations relating to LNG developments.

Polak said she was not about to speculate about the environmental rules that will be included in that legislation.

But the government did offer a package royalty credits of almost $116 million Monday to help companies build roads and pipelines for the natural gas industry in the province’s northeast.

More taxpayer subsidies for gas industry

The government said the royalty credits will go towards 12 new infrastructure projects in northeast B.C., that will eventually advance the growth of LNG development in B.C.

Last week, Clark offered municipal leaders from northwest B.C. concerned about an LNG-driven population boom $150,000 to conduct studies on their hospital, school, sewer, road, bridge and social needs.

[signoff1]

Harper getting desperate to move Alberta oil as pipelines stall

September 23, 2013Energy and Resources, International, Pipelines and Supertankers, PoliticsDamien Gillis

Harper getting desperate to move Alberta oil — Stephen Harper has been trying to win over Obama on the stalled Keystone XL pipeline (Adrian Wyld/CP)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper looks increasingly desperate to find ways for expanding the Tar Sands. While his government wants to ramp up bitumen production dramatically in Alberta, it faces export challenges at every turn.

This has led to some erratic and questionable moves by Team Harper in recent months – from a sudden u-turn for its aboriginal relations on the pipeline file, to aggressive US lobbying over the controversial Keystone XL project, to today’s news that it has been mulling an unprecedented plan to move massive quantities of bitumen to BC’s coast by rail.

Half a million barrels a day…by rail?

On that last point, we learned today from internal memos pried loose by Greenpeace that the Harper Government and Chinese-owned Nexen sought out CN to explore moving a similar quantity of oil to the embattled Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

Oil is moved by rail today, but in relatively small volumes – though that trend is changing, particularly in the US with the Bakken shale in North Dakota. This has had dangerous consequences, as we saw with the catastrophic derailment in Lac-Mégantic of a train carrying highly combustible shale oil. Even with oil-by-rail shipments on the rise around North America, this Prince Rupert plan is unprecedented in its scale and risks.

While the now-defunct operator behind the Lac-Mégantic disaster – the Montreal, Main and Atlantic Railway – moved half a million barrels of Bakken oil a month, CN would be doing that on a daily basis. The company would send seven trains a day, with over a hundred cars each, carrying bitumen to the Port of Prince Rupert.

The trains would travel along Canada’s second largest salmon river, the Skeena – a derailment would be a catastrophe waiting to happen. Pipeline proponents – especially since Lac-Mégantic – have long held up rail as a straw man to persuade the public of the relative safety of pipelines, making this alternative proposal all the more baffling. Unless, of course, it’s intended to frighten British Columbians back into embracing Enbridge.

Memo blacked out

Who can say what Harper and co. are really thinking here, especially since the section of the rail memo discussing the Department of Natural Resources’ views on the matter was entirely blacked out.

The undated memo was allegedly written prior to Lac-Mégantic, so it’s difficult to say to what degree it’s being taken seriously today. Any way you slice it, this is a crazy plan, coming from a government that looks like it’s flailing around for a lifeline, amid the increasingly troubled waters for Tar Sands expansion.

Keystone antics

This desperation has played out in Harper’s erratic attempts to win over President Obama on the controversial, proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf Coast. With Obama’s apparent conversion on the climate file, Harper looks lost.

When trouble first began brewing for Keystone, he sent his pitbull, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, to Washington, DC for some pipeline diplomacy. The only thing missing was the diplomacy, as Oliver’s brutish antics only served to insult his hosts and provoke ridicule from more enlightened political and media observers around the world.

[signoff1]

Harper’s draconian gutting of environmental regulation and muzzling of scientist s to protect his oil agenda is drawing widespread condemnation – visible everywhere from prestigious international journals to a recent New York Times editorial.

Following Obama’s bold climate speech this summer, Harper radically changed his tack, offering to commit to US carbon emissions targets in exchange for giving Keystone a pass. The jury’s out on how effective this tactic will prove, but it can hardly look like anything other than disingenuous, johnny-come-lately political maneuvering to Obama.

Mixed signals to First Nations

Finally, there’s Harper’s dramatic swings in his approach to First Nations on pipelines. Over the past year, he and Oliver have gone from alternately ignoring First Nations’ concerns to vilifying them as “radical” opponents of Canada’s national interest.

Then, out of the blue, we learned recently that Harper and a caravan of federal ministers would be venturing out to our hinterland west of the Rockies to get First Nations onside with the proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

If this apparent reversal wasn’t baffling enough for aboriginal leaders like Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the ministers’ attitude at the table took it to another level. Describing separate meetings with Oliver and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Velcourt to the Vancouver Observer, Phillip says the ministers made little effort to win him over:

[quote]There was just a lot of rhetoric about not dwelling on the past, looking towards the future, and realizing the benefits of the vast natural resource wealth that this country has been blessed with. Pretty much a Canadian Apple Pie lecture…There wasn’t any engagement or dialogue in terms of Minister Oliver saying ‘what will it take? What are your recommendations?…He just sat there and repeated his talking points.[/quote]

Phillip suspects this sudden action from Harper is about papering over consultation with First Nations that has been sorely lacking, paving the way for the pipelines through the argument of “national interest”.

Pipelines’ uncertain future

Whatever thinking is motivating Harper’s about-face with First Nations, if he continues down this path, his government’s actions will do little to mollify his agenda’s most powerful opponents.

It remains to be seen where Obama goes on Keystone and whether Harper gets any traction on Enbridge, Kinder Morgan – or new plans to pump bitumen East through Enbridge and TransCanada pipelines – but the more he fumbles for “radical” solutions to his pipeline predicament, the more unsure, vulnerable and desperate he shows himself to be.