Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Texas Passes Landmark Fracking Legislation

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas,
Share

From EnergyBoom.com – June 20, 2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry has signed into law the United States’
first bill which will require natural gas operators to publicly disclose
the chemicals they use in all hydraulic fracturing (fracking) projects
in the state.

The bill,
sponsored by Representative Jim Keffer (Republican-Granbury), seeks to
be a model other states can use to monitor and regulate the country’s
burgeoning natural gas industry. 

The legislation requires full, public disclosure of the chemical
composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid used at each and every
well in Texas.

Read full article

Share

The cost of oil on B.C.’s priceless coast – Sun op-ed

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From the Vancouver Sun – June 18, 2011

by Chris Genovali and Misty MacDuffee

If the Enbridge Northern Gateway project is approved, an estimated
225 supertankers a year would enter Kitimat to load about 318 million
litres (two million barrels) of oil for shipment to American and Asian
markets (“Pipelines to prosperity,” Harvey Enchin, Issues & Ideas,
June 16). Loaded tankers would pass directly through Wright Sound, a
body of water with more than 5,000 vessels moving through it annually.
More than 400,000 vessel movements occur annually on the B.C. coast, so
it is not surprising that accidents are common, including collisions,
groundings and fires on board. Even vessels with state-­of-­the­-art
navigational equipment are vulnerable.

The marine approaches to
the coast of northern B.C. and the port of Kitimat are dangerous. This
area is at least as dangerous as Prince William Sound, where the Exxon
Valdez hit Bligh Reef in Valdez Arm, in a navigable channel almost 10
kilometres (6.2 miles) wide. To enter Kitimat, supertankers will need to
transit Douglas Channel, which is 1.35 kilometres (0.84 miles) wide at
the narrowest point. Severe weather heightens the risk of shipping
accidents.

Should an accident occur involving a large ship,
serious inadequacies in response capabilities would hinder rescue and
containment operations. The south coast, for example, relies heavily on
the availability of American rescue tugs based out of Washington state
to respond to problems. Moreover, procedures between the provincial
government and the federal government to coordinate responses to large
vessel incidents at sea are not well harmonized. In the past, this has
resulted in considerable delays, as evidenced in the Leroy Trucking
barge incident, or no response at all, as in the sinking of the Queen of
the North.

A November 2010 article by Postmedia News revealed
that, according to an internal audit, “The Canadian Coast Guard lacks
the training, equipment and management systems to fulfil its duties to
respond to offshore pollution incidents such as oil spills … The audit
paints an alarming picture of an agency that would play a key role in
Canada’s response to a major oil spill off the world’s longest
coastline.” The article also identifies the relatively paltry budget of
$9.8 million for the coast guard’s environmental response unit.

Enbridge
manager of engineering Ray Doering’s recent claim in the Kitimat
Northern Sentinel that a spill “is likely never going to occur”
contradicts Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel’s statements in an April 2010 Globe
and Mail article in which he said, “Can we promise there will never be
an accident? No. Nobody can.”

Enbridge officials assert they
would not be financially liable for any oil spill at sea, while a June
2010 Vancouver Sun report revealed that owners of the tankers are liable
for the costs of oil recovery, cleanup and compensation for
environmental damage ― but only to the limit of their liability
insurance. Economists have tried to predict the costs of an oil spill
cleanup.

Globally, the cost to industry for spill cleanup averages
$16,000 US per tonne, not including the costs to restore habitat or
repair socio-economic damages to the communities impacted.

In
2003, the cost of cleaning up a 378,000-litre heavy fuel oil spill in
San Francisco Bay was an estimated $93 million. Forty to sixty per cent
of the estimated cost was attributed to restoring habitat and
compensating for socio-economic losses. However, in 2007 when the Cosco
Busan spilled a little over half that amount into the bay, the cost for
the cleanup alone was $70 million. In other words, true costs
dramatically exceeded the estimates.

Attaching a dollar value to
the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is
an extremely difficult task. The Exxon Valdez spill was the most
expensive in history; the true costs were estimated to be $9.5 billion,
of which only $2.5 billion were related to the cleanup. While
Exxon-Mobil paid more than $1 billion, U.S. taxpayers ended up footing
the bill for the rest.

But does any oil spill damage cost estimate
even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to
extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

Chris
Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.
Misty MacDuffee is a conservation biologist with Raincoast.

Read original article

Share

Site C Would Destroy Prime Farmland, Fuel Fracking & Tar Sands

Energy and Resources, Farmland and Food Security, Food, Fracking, Hydropower, Tar Sands, WATER, , , , ,
Share

At a recent event in Vancouver, biologist and Peace Valley Environment
Association representative Diane Culling discussed the enormous
consequences of the proposed Site C Dam – including the flooding of
prime farmland at a time when the province faces major food security
challenges. Culling also pointed out that much of the electricity
generated from the project would go to fueling destructive shale gas
development in northeast BC, and, by extension, the Alberta Tar Sands. (3 min)

Share

NDP MP Fin Donnelly Reintroduces Bills on Salmon & Oil Tankers

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

This week in Ottawa, NDP MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam-Port Moody Fin Donnelly reintroduced two private members bills he authored last year. The first calls for a legislated ban on oil supertanker traffic on BC’s North and Central Coast. The second, called the Wild Salmon Protection Act, calls for open net pen salmon farms to be transitioned to land-based closed-containment technology.

Donnelly reintroduced his oil supertanker bill yesterday, seconded by BC MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, whose riding would encompass much of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline route and tanker port in the coastal community of Kitimat.

“British Columbians have been clear. They want to protect our north coast and permanently ban oil tanker traffic though the Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound,” said New Democrat Fisheries and Oceans Critic Fin Donnelly. “A major spill off BC’s north coast would be catastrophic to the ecosystem and would negatively affect the economy in this area.”

A recent poll reconfirmed 80% of British Columbians oppose oil tanker traffic off the province’s rugged north coast – which is consistent with polling figures over the past year.

Donnelly said in Ottawa, “I urge Parliament to consider the risks associated with oil super tankers travelling off BC’s north coast and legislate a permanent ban.”

As the NDP’s Fisheries Critic, Donnelly has also been pushing his wild salmon bill in Ottawa for over a year now, with support from the likes of renown biologist Alexandra Morton, Hollywood icon and sports fisherman William Shatner, Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Broughton First Nations, and famed Vancouver chef Robert Clark.    

According to Donnelly, “The bill would direct the Fisheries Minister to develop, table and implement a transition plan to move to closed containment.”

“My bill has received tremendous support since I first introduced it in Parliament last year,” said Donnelly. “Thousands of British Columbians have signed postcards and petitions to encourage the federal government to adopt this legislation. I hope that the federal government will listen and pass this critical legislation.”

Share

MarketWatch: Regulatory fight in a Canadian oil-sands box

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From MarketWatch.com – May 26, 2011

By Bill Mann

PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. (MarketWatch) — A big battle is shaping up over
environmental regulation of Canada’s oil sands, the second-largest oil
deposits in the world. And, surprisingly, it’s Conservatives against
Conservatives.

In this corner, it’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s federal
Conservatives, who just gained a majority government. In that corner,
it’s Alberta’s conservative provincial government, led by hard-nosed,
oil-industry friendly premier Ed Stelmach.

A diplomatic cable recently released by Wikileaks highlights the
problems: It revealed an exchange between then-Canadian Environment
Minister Jim Prentice and U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobsen, in
which the American said he believed Ottawa was being “too slow” about
regulating the expansive oil sands.

The U.S. wants a big part of that “non-terrorist” Alberta oil but it
doesn’t want its chief supplier to look environmentally dirty, for
obvious political reasons. Canada is now the U.S.’ largest oil supplier.

Canada, being a helpful vendor, apparently agrees, so last week, new
Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that Ottawa will
introduce environmental regulations later this year for the oil-sands
sector designed to reduce greenhouse gases spewed from one of the
country’s most polluting industries.

The water quality at the oil sands — or, as environmentalists call the
bitumen mines, the tar sands — is also very much an issue. A leak that
fouled the water and killed hundreds of waterfowl in the far-north oil
fields two years ago may have spurred the U.S. ambassador’s plea for
Ottawa to toughen up environmental controls.

Part of this new Ottawa vow to assume environmental control over what
the Alberta government insists is a provincially-owned resource may well
be tied in to Harper’s visit this week to the G8 summit in France.
There’s a good chance environmental groups will show up with pictures —
or billboards — of oil-soaked Alberta waterfowl. Harper doesn’t want
Canada to be known on the world stage as the world’s “dirty-oil”
producer. (Although extracting crude from bitumen is indeed, at best, a
dirty, water-and-energy consuming business).

A group of U.S. Senators visited the oil sands last December and said,
not surprisingly, they were satisfied with the environmental protections
in place in Alberta. Ottawa apparently isn’t, despite Alberta’s belated
environmental-protection moves.

Alberta will fight back

Alberta isn’t going to give up in this battle with fellow Conservatives without a fight.

Provincial finance minister Lloyd Snelgrove criticized Ottawa for
regulating a provincial resource, which would add “multiple layers of
government trying to the same thing, [where] nobody wins.”

Snelgrove
told the Calgary Herald
that Stelmach’s Alberta government has been worried for some time
Ottawa would step in and regulate the provincial resource, adding
unnecessary duplication and costs to the multibillion-dollar sector.

“The federal government has sat on the sidelines for years and years and
years. Now they see their little golden goose is under attack and they
want to be the voice for Canada on the world stage and we respect that,”
Snelgrove told the Calgary Herald.

The Wikileaks cable, little-reported in U.S. media, which is a bit
surprising, considering its importance to the U.S. energy future, also
revealed that the Obama administration inquired about a possible
moratorium on new oil sands development as global criticism mounted over
the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world.

A San Francisco-based environmental group has run anti-oil sands
billboards and newspaper ads in Canada, the U.S. and in Europe, urging
tourists not to come to Alberta. Stelmach, who recently announced he’ll
be leaving office soon, replied angrily, buying billboards and print ads
of his own saying Alberta is addressing environmental concerns.

Read full article

Share

First nations speak for themselves on pipelines

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers,
Share

A response from chiefs of five First Nations to the patronizing accusation made by Peter Foster in the Vancouver Sun that they are being manipulated by environmentalists to oppose the Enbridge pipeline. “The lands and rivers which the proposed Enbridge pipeline would cross
are habitat for moose, grizzly bears, salmon, deer, migratory birds, and
other wildlife. Our food, stories, ceremonies, and our entire culture
is tied to the land and the wildlife it supports – a spill could
devastate our way of life.” Read article

Share

Fracking Companies Look to Drain Williston Reservoir for Water Needs

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons, ,
Share

From the Alaska Highway News (Fort St. John) – June 8, 2011

by Ryan Lux

Applications have been submitted by two
energy companies to the Ministry of Forests, Land and Natural Resource
Operations, to pipe water out of the Williston Reservoir for use in
fraccing operations on the Montney shale gas play.


According to the OGC, Talisman Energy
and Canbriam are both seeking to withdraw 10,000 cubic metres of water
per day – 7,300,000 cubic meters per year in total – to provide water to
their various drilling sites through a network of pipelines.


Up to this point, both energy companies
have been depending on short-term water use permits, which allow
industry to draw water from surface sources and shallow wells. One
surface source, which has generated tension, is the Lynx Creek boat
launch where Talisman has been withdrawing 4,000 cubic meters per day.


The tension created by trucking water
out of the popular recreation spot will be eliminated, according to
Talisman spokesperson, Phoebe Buckland, if the company receives approval
to pipe the water from the Williston Reservoir.


“We’ve been using temporary permits
over the last couple of years through the OGC and now we’ve applied for
two permanent licenses for the Williston Reservoir, one to withdraw the
water and the other to construct a pipeline,” said Buckland.


“After reviewing our options we feel
that the this is the best solution, as the Williston Reservoir provides a
reliable source of water and the pipeline would reduce tanker traffic –
reducing the impact on residents and our greenhouse gas emissions at
the same time.”


If approved, the water would come from
the reservoir south of Hudson’s Hope and run to Talisman’s Beryl Prairie
Road facility, where it would be stored in pits and tanks until used
for fraccing operations.


Talisman plans to withdraw 3.6 million
cubic meters a year, a figure which Talisman claims represents only 0.01
per cent of the average yearly flow through the W.A.C. Bennett Dam.


Despite the fact that their proposed
water withdrawal only represents a fraction of the river’s flow,
Buckland explained her company plans to recycle almost all of the water
they use.


“Water management is something we take
very seriously and we are aware that fraccing requires large volumes of
water,” acknowledged Buckland, “We’re recycling close to 100 per cent of
the water to be used in future fracs.”


Buckland explained that following a frac, the water returns to the surface where Talisman captures it for re-use.


Even with assurances of solid water management, critics have raised concerns about Talisman’s proposal.


Sustained drought has placed a strain
on water levels in Williston Reservoir, which was four metres below
average in September 2010, a situation that forced BC Hydro to import
$200 million of electricity last year.


Ben Parfitt, of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives, explained what concerns him about the permanent
water licensing proposals is the prospect of locking public water
supplies into private companies for what could be decades.


Chief Roland Willson expressed concerns
over the consultation process: “As far as I’m concerned, the Oil and
Gas Commission should not be leading any consultation on water rights or
allocations in our territory,” Willson said. “That’s a job for
provincial water regulators. The other thing that really concerns me is
that when they finally send us information they neglect to mention that
Talisman is not alone in seeking to divert massive amounts of water out
of Williston Reservoir.


“In fact, there is at least one other
major water diversion proposal that has been filed with the provincial
government. If they want to present us with the ‘bigger picture’ they
need to give us all the information, not half of it.”


BC Hydro didn’t return calls by press
time to discuss whether or not the Crown Corporation would receive
compensation for the diverted water, which otherwise would be used to
produce electricity. At present, energy companies don’t pay for the
water they draw from surface sources and shallow wells.


Buckland said Talisman is confident
their proposal will meet provincial requirements and that the process
has engaged the public through consultation and awareness campaigns. To
date, Buckland couldn’t recall any water applications submitted by
Talisman that haven’t been approved.


Construction on the pipeline could
proceed as soon as this summer and be completed within several months,
pending regulatory approval.

Read original article

Share

Kinder Morgan proposes SECOND KITIMAT BITUMEN PIPELINE

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands,
Share

From Northwest Coast Energy News – June 2, 2011

by Robin Rowland

In a story broken early Thursday, June 2, by the Vancouver website Tyee
and confirmed by Northwest Coast Energy news,  another major energy
player, Kinder  Morgan is proposing a second pipeline to carry bitumen
from the Alberta oil sands to the port of Kitimat.

The proposal
was part of a presentation to industry analysts  during a conference on
March 24, 2011, with a PDF of the Power Point presentation posted on the
Kinder Morgan Website.

The  likely controversial proposal was not picked up by the media until Tyee broke the story.

The
presentation says the proposed pipeline is one of several alternatives
proposed for the expansion of the existing Kinder Morgan Transmountain
Pipeline.  In this scenario the pipeline to Kitimat would branch off
from the Transmountain Pipeline go through Prince George and then
apparently follow existing pipeline routes to Kitimat and not follow the
proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway route.

The Kinder Morgan presentation says the Transmountain pipeline branch to
Kitimat would cost $4 billion, compared to the $5,5 billion that
Enbridge has budgeted for the Northern Gateway project.  The
Transmountain pipeline would have a capacity of  450 thousand barrels a
day compared  to the Northern Gateway capacity  of 550 thousand barrels a
day.

Tyee says:

A power point presentation
for investors by Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan Canada Group,
provides a wealth of information that has not been widely shared with
the general public or local governments:

Tyee says Kinder Morgan is also asking the National Energy Board for a
immediate jump in the bitumen going through the port of Vancouver

They are also requesting to divert more Alberta crude and bitumen
capacity to the Westbridge tanker terminal in Burrard Inlet and away
from existing land-based refineries in B.C. and Washington. If approved,
this would immediately expand crude capacity through Vancouver from
52,000 bpd to 79,000 bpd — an increase of more than 50 per cent

.

According to the documents seen by Tyee, the Vancouver end of the
project would require the dredging of Second Narrows to allow large
supertankers to visit the port. Tanker traffic in Vancouver would
increase, Tyee says

Tanker transits through Vancouver will increase to 216 per year in 2016, up from 71 in 2010 and 22 in 2005.

All this is being propelled by increasing energy demand from China. It
also appears that Kinder Morgan wants to increase the Vancouver capacity
because of the delays in the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, which
means that Alberta oil patch is seeking new ways to get the raw bitumen
to China.

Links:
Kinder Morgan Canada presentation on the Kitimat pipeline and the Vancouver port expansion (PDF)

Kinder Morgan application to the National Energy Board (PDF))

Read original article

Share