Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Trade Mission: China targeting tens of billions in Alberta oilsands investment

Energy and Resources, Tar Sands
Share

From the Calgary Herald – May 30, 2011

by Chris Varcoe

SHANGHAI – Alberta government and business leaders
who sat down with Chinese energy executives this week were told tens of
billions of dollars in new oilpatch investment will flow in the coming
years — if export capacity issues in Canada are improved.

Finance
Minister Lloyd Snelgrove said Sunday that senior officials from Chinese
state-owned oil firms anticipate future investment will dwarf —
potentially tripling — what they have already spent in Canada’s energy
sector in recent years.

In the past 18 months alone, Chinese oil
companies have pumped more than $13 billion into developing crude oil
and natural gas prospects in Western Canada.

However, future
spending is contingent upon Canada building new pipeline capacity to
transport oilsands — such as the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project
planned by Enbridge Inc. — and natural gas to the West Coast, where
liquefied gas could be shipped by tanker into the Chinese market, he
said.

“They said the critical part to them was having access to
the product and now it’s stranded in the North American market. They
believe we need the Gateway pipeline ASAP,” the finance minister said in
an interview.

“It’s absolutely massive amounts of dollars when
you look at it … Between bitumen expansion and the liquid natural gas
opportunities they’ve got, you’re probably talking in excess of $20
billion over the next 10 years from one of the companies — and the
others all talked about investments — so it’s enormous. It’s huge
dollars.”

The high-level meetings were part of a trade mission to
China organized by Calgary Economic Development to promote tourism and
investment with the most populous country in the world.

Officials
with the state-owned oil companies weren’t available for comment, but
China’s Ambassador to Canada told an Alberta audience recently that
“China-Canada co-operation in energy has become a highlight of our
economic relations.”

Chinese state-owned oil producers “play by
the rules of global competition …. Therefore, they deserve equal
treatments as other foreign companies,” Zhang Junsai said at an Edmonton
address earlier this month. “With a population of 1.3 billion, China is
a major energy consumer. We need fossil fuels.”

The issue of
growing Chinese oilpatch investment is a complex matter that touches
upon energy geopolitics and foreign investment, as well as First
Nations’ rights and environmental concerns in Canada.

The debate
also comes as China’s economic expansion is expected to fuel a
75-per-cent rise in the county’s energy demand by 2035, according to an
International Energy Agency, and an upswing in capital flowing into
Alberta.

Most of the money that has already been invested has
targeted the massive oilsands reserves of northern Alberta, although
Encana Corp. signed a $5.4 billion natural gas venture in February with
PetroChina.

The Fort McMurray area is home to the world’s
second-largest proven crude reserves, and oilsands output is projected
to reach as much as five million barrels a day in the coming years, up
from about 1.5 million barrels last year. To secure such growth, though,
the industry needs massive amounts of capital.

A Canadian Energy
Research Association study recently predicted the oilsands will require
$253 billion in capital for necessary construction.

To diversify
Canada’s export options for bitumen, the Alberta government and some
producers are aggressively backing efforts to expand pipeline access to
the West Coast, such as the Gateway project that has stirred up
opposition from environmental groups and some First Nations. Much of the
line route crosses traditional First Nations territory in British
Columbia that is subject to treaty negotiations.

The proposed
1,170-kilometre pipeline would run from the Edmonton area to a port in
Kitimat, B.C., and is now under federal review.

“First Nation
people are concerned about a pipeline going through their property,”
said University of Calgary professor Bob Schulz of the Haskayne School
of Business, who is on the China trip and has been following the
project’s development.

“Each band has a separate territory and it’s like going through separate countries.”

There
are also potential environmental issues with having new pipelines cross
the area, as well as the movement of crude oil tankers off the Pacific
Coast.

Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Pembina
Institute, said governments and industry should have to produce a
clearly defined development plan for all oilsands projects before
approving unneeded infrastructure.

“We still have concerns with
the pace and scale of development and what that means for increased
pressure on … land, water, air impacts — not to mention the climate,”
he said. “If they put in a new pipe, then obviously you want to fill it
and we’re worried that’s going to drive production increases.”

Pipeline access is a key interest for the Canadian oil and gas sector.

Baytex
Energy Corp. chief financial officer Derek Aylesworth said a new
pipeline would help ship Canadian crude to Asia, where it could
ultimately fetch a higher price than in the United States.

Right
now, Canada only exports the tar-like bitumen south of the border, so
any line that allows for Asian exports would help the industry diversify
away from just one international customer, said Aylesworth, who is in
Shanghai.

“Today, we’re obviously captive to the U.S. market and
we sell heavy oil at a significant discount,” he said Sunday. “The
industry is losing out on revenue, the government is losing out on
revenue.”

Ian Wild, executive vice-president of ATB Corporate
Financial Services, said he heard from Beijing oil executives this week
that they are growing frustrated by delays in Canadian pipeline
development and future investment is clearly at risk.

“I know
they’re saying to me that their patience has run out,” he said. “They
told me specifically that there’s at least $10 to $20 billion in
jeopardy here for the province.”

As for promises that larger investments are coming, Schulz said no one should be shocked given the scale of recent moves.

“The
amount of money is not a surprise,” said the director of petroleum land
management with the university. “This is just an incremental bite and
they’re ready for the next one. And each bite will be bigger.”

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Read original article

Share

Canada leaves out rise in oilsands pollution from UN climate report

Canada, Climate Change, Energy and Resources, Politics, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From ipolitics.ca – May 30, 2011

by Mike De Souza

The federal government has acknowledged that it deliberately excluded
data indicating a 20 per cent increase in annual pollution from
Canada’s oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on
climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.

The
numbers, uncovered by Postmedia News, were left out of the report, a
national inventory on Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution. It revealed a
six per cent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008
to 2009, but does not directly show the extent of pollution from the
oilsands production, which is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions
of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.

The data also indicated
that emissions per barrel of oil produced by the sector is increasing,
despite claims made by the industry in an advertising campaign.

“The
oilsands remain Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas
pollution, and they’re the subject of a huge amount of attention and
scrutiny in Canada and internationally,” said Clare Demerse, director of
climate change at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental
research group. “So it’s very disappointing to see Environment Canada
publish a 500-page report that leaves out these critical numbers —
especially when last year’s edition included them.”

Overall,
Environment Canada said that the oilsands industry was responsible for
about 6.5 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2009,
up from five per cent in 2008. This also indicates a growth in emissions
that is close to about 300 per cent since 1990, which cancel out many
reductions in pollution from other economic sectors.

The report
attributes the six per cent decrease in Canada’s overall emissions to
the economic slowdown, but it also credits efforts by the Ontario
government to reduce production of coal-fired electricity as a
significant factor.

Environment Canada provided the oilsands
numbers in response to questions from Postmedia News about why it had
omitted the information from its report after publishing more detailed
data in previous years. A department spokesman explained that “some” of
the information was still available in the latest report, which still
meets Canada’s reporting obligations under the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change.

“The information is presented in this way to be
consistent with UNFCCC reporting requirements, which are divided into
broad, international sectors,” wrote Mark Johnson in an email.

He
was not immediately able to answer questions about who made the decision
in government to exclude the numbers from the oilsands or provide a
detailed explanation about changes in emissions.

An industry
spokesman said it favoured more transparency from the government,
suggesting that some of the figures may be misleading because of changes
in methods used to identify and calculate emissions.

“It’s just
too bad you weren’t able to get a hold of (Environment Canada) on this
one, because here I am telling you my understanding of what’s going on,
but really it’s best to hear directly from them,” said Greg Stringham,
vice-president of oilsands and markets at the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers. “We report the information to them, and they choose
to pass it on — they must pass it on the UN. But then they choose how
to disclose it and put it out there.”

Although Stringham said that
the industry figures did not show any significant growth in emissions
per barrel of oil produced, the full report noted an intensity increase
of 14.5 per cent from 2008 to 2009, “mainly the result of a new
integrated mining and upgrading facility as well as a new integrated
in-situ bitumen extraction and upgrading facility,” that were not
operating at “peak efficiencies.”

Emissions from a mining
category, which includes oilsands extraction, saw a 371 per cent
increase in greenhouse gas pollution, according to the report. But other
categories showed significant decreases due, in part, to the recession,
but also because of changes in use of fuel and manufacturing
operations.

Environment Canada’s report recognizes that climate
change is occurring, mainly due to an increase in heat-trapping gases in
the atmosphere. The objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize these
emissions in order to prevent dangerous changes to the climate.

Critics
have suggested the Harper government is deliberately trying to delay
international action to fight climate change, following revelations,
reported last fall by Postmedia News, that it had set up a partnership
with the Alberta government, industry and several federal departments to
fight pollution-reduction policies from other countries that target the
oilsands through lobbying and public relations.

Environment
Minister Peter Kent has said the federal government is committed to
reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions and will introduce its plan
to regulate pollution from the oilsands within months. But he has also
acknowledged that existing federal and provincial policies would still
result in an increase in emissions over the next decade.

Although
the report was due in April, during the last election campaign, Canada
was the last country to file its submission. Environment Canada even
filed its submission after earthquake-stricken Japan, and was unable to
explain in detail why its report was late.

Read original article

Share
Nuclear Thorium

Thorium: Nuclear Power’s Last Hope…Maybe

Energy and Resources, Nuclear,
Share

Awhile back I did a piece on nuclear energy and you would have thought I was in favour of hanging petty thieves (that theory belongs to the Harper Conservatives). I said nothing in favour of nuclear but only made the point that before anything is rejected, it (the modern version) should be studied so we can understand our options. At that point we had had Chernobyl and Three Mile Island but not, of course, Fukushima.

In the Globe and Mail for May 23 last, on the op-ed page is an article by Neil Reynolds, headlined “With Thorium We Could Have Safe Nuclear Power”.

Here is the opening paragraph to set the stage:

[quote]In the beginning, nuclear scientists identified two fuel sources for the atomic age: uranium and thorium. They went with uranium. Why? It wasn’t because uranium was the better fuel. Thorium is more abundant. It is simpler. It is safer. (Although slightly radioactive, it can’t sustain a chain reaction in a nuclear reactor and, hence, can’t “melt down.”)[/quote]

Incidentally, why did we end up taking what was so obviously the wrong path? In short, because you can’t make Plutonium from Thorium – while you can from Uranium. And Plutonium was essential to building nuclear warheads. As Reynolds explains, “In the Cold War, the science goal was synonymous with the military goal:
nuclear weapons. Plutonium delivered the deadliest mushroom cloud.” Nuclear power from Uranium was a two-for-one proposition: energy and weapons.

Now, Dear Friends, did old Uncle Rafe come out in favour of nuclear power? Is it time we all set our hairpieces on fire? Does he want to have reactors like they have (had, I suppose) in Japan?

No, I want no such thing! Nuclear power as we know it has been thoroughly discredited as dangerous and expensive – and we still haven’t found a safe way to get rid of the waste.

Nor am I ready to accept a column in the Toronto Globe and Mail as definitive of the matter. Mr. Reynolds is an experienced and able columnist but he is not the scientific community. His proposition requires a hell of a lot more information from not only science but regurgitated from a thorough public debate.

If there is to be a debate it must be about Thorium, not Uranium, and free of the sort of cant by which debates are too often destroyed.

If Thorium is what Reynolds says it is, there would be an end to the destruction of our rivers and Site “C” would be abandoned (which it should be regardless).

Which brings on the other side of the debate:
What if our energy customers decide to abandon us in favour of Thorium? In the island mentality that is the hallmark of our American cousins, they will always opt for their own supply of whatever is critically needed – so long as they have that option.

Ironically, it was the US cancelling of our Uranium which had got us into big time trouble in the late 70s. So sure were we of American customers that Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. stockpiled a huge quantity which it was now stuck with. That led the way for Canada, under then Deputy Energy Minister and later Senator Jack Austin, to form a worldwide cartel of uranium producers.

My own history was as BC Minister of Environment, banning exploration for and mining of Uranium in 1979.

But, let’s get back to the theme – we are not talking about Uranium but Thorium and for all the reasons above and more it makes abundant good sense to find out what it does and judge its use based on the Precautionary Principle – meaning that proponents must demonstrate its safeness.

Now, once again, dear friends, as loudly as possible, and in unison, shout: “Rafe Mair is not in favour of nuclear power – only of examining an alternative which is alleged to be a safe, and efficient alternative!”

Share

Enbridge claims opposition is better funded than oil lobby, only in it for the money

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers,
Share

Enbridge opposition is a lucrative business, says oil company president

From the Prince George Citizen – May 19, 2011

by Gordon Hoekstra

Enbridge put a challenge to the Calgary
business community Tuesday to fight back against critics of the
proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline.

In a speech to a Calgary Economic
Development luncheon Wednesday, which was disseminated via e-mail and
social media, Enbridge senior executive Stephen Wuori said opposition to
business and development is itself a big business, with professional
protesters plying their trade and raising hundreds of millions of
dollars.


A Prince George-based environmental group opposing the project took issue with Wuori’s notion.


Sea-to-Sands Conservation Alliance
representative Mary MacDonald said their Prince George-based group is
certainly not receiving outside money. She characterized the alliance as
group of concerned citizens working with a few local donations and
volunteer effort.


She added it was ridiculous for a big
oil company to criticize the financial resources of opponents of the
pipeline. Enbridge has said it will have spent about $250 million on the
project once the regulatory process is complete.


“Enbridge could out-money the opposition easily,” said MacDonald.


Enbridge reiterated its position that
it is critically important for Canada to get a stronghold in other oil
markets, such as Asia.


“First, Canada desperately needs to
diversify its crude oil customer base. Northern Gateway does exactly
that and will deliver tremendous economic benefit to all of Canada,”
said Wuori, president of liquid pipelines for Enbridge, in the text of
the speech.


Wuori asked the business luncheon
audience in Calgary to help balance the discussion about the pipeline,
saying he expected that what they have heard of the project was
alarmist, inaccurate and didn’t tell the whole story.


He called on the audience to challenge information they viewed as not factual.


Wuori’s list of one-sided stories
included that oil sands can’t be safely transported in pipelines.
Enbridge has pointed to its 2010 record of transporting 99.99 per cent
of its 750 million barrels of oil safely.


Wuori argued Northern Gateway is a game changer for Canada, needed to turn it into a world energy super power.


“We need to do a better job of telling
that story and connecting the dots in the public discussion,” he said.
“And finally, as leaders we need to stand up, answer the tough
questions, challenge misinformation and proudly defend the work we do.”


Opponents say that any economic benefits are not worth the environmental risks from a pipeline or tanker spill.


MacDonald took exception to Enbridge’s
efforts top claim ownership of economic development in northern B.C.,
arguing the pipeline could have negative impacts on the existing tourism
and fishing sectors.


The Northern Gateway project, which
will pass just north of Prince George, is meant to open up new markets
in Asia for crude from the Alberta oilsands. Virtually all of Canada’s
oil is exported to the U.S.


The controversial 1,149-kilometre
pipeline has attracted increasing opposition from First Nations,
environmental groups, some communities in northern B.C., as well as some
tourism and fisheries groups.


First Nations from north-central B.C.
who oppose the pipeline staged a protest in downtown Calgary last week
to coincide with Enbridge’s annual general meeting. The protests
generated national headlines.


Another protest was staged in Prince
Rupert the same week during the North Central Local Government
Association’s annual convention.

Read original article

Share

Gas Pipeline Blazing Trail for Enbridge Gateway Project?

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , ,
Share

During an eight-minute interview with Fox News’ Mad Money host Jim Kramer last week, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel made a revelation that was at once startling and hardly surprising – one with profound ramifications for several of the key environmental challenges facing British Columbia.

Here’s what he said (approx. 6 min mark in the video):

We think we’re in a very strong position with regard to exporting Canadian natural gas in particular. We’re currently putting forward our credentials to the proponents – EOG, Apache, Shell and others – that are working on moving Western Canadian natural gas out to the West Coast; and we would hope to be able to see some synergies with the right-of-way that we’re working on with our Gateway pipeline out to the West Coast. So, yes, we’re very interested in doing that and we would hope to be the the pipeline provider for one or both of those alternatives. (emphasis added)

For the past several months, as I’ve been delving into the business of hydraulic fracturing in Northeast BC, a number things have become clear to me:

1. The proposed Pacific Trail Pipelines line from Summit Lake (just north of Prince George) to Kitimat, referred to as the KSL line, will connect natural gas from Northeast BC to a soon-to-be built Liquid Natural Gas processing facility in Kitimat. Both the pipeline and the plant are partnerships of some of the key players in BC’s natural gas business – notably Apache, EOG and Encana.
2. The Kitimat plant (KLNG) will convert this resource into liquid form, which large tankers will then carry across the Pacific to the ravenous Asian market.
3. Because the Asian market is now paying approximately $10-$12 per 1000 cubic feet (the standard metric for gas sales), while we’re paying in the region of $3.50-$4.00 in North America, you can see why these producers want to access this new market.
4. Transforming natural gas from a continental commodity into a global one will likely intensify pressure to extract increasing amounts of natural gas through unconventional methods like fracking and the equally precarious coal bed methane in BC.

A few more revelations have clicked into place recently, cemented by the above comments from Mr. Daniel. For one, the Kitimat-Summit Lake pipeline bears a very similar proposed right-of-way from Central BC to Kitimat as Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Tar Sands bitumen pipeline plan. And while that project has faced intense opposition from First Nations, conservation groups and citizens across the province, its natural gas counterpart has slid through much of the regulatory review process to the point it’s pretty well a fait accompli. The only remaining hurdle for the gas pipeline and LNG plant to clear is the upcoming National Energy Board hearing on June 7 in Kitimat on the 20-year export license required to sell this gas abroad.

This has got me to thinking of late that the KSL line could very well be used to blaze the trail for the Gateway pipeline. But now we have it straight from the horse’s mouth, Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel – this is, indeed, precisely where things appear headed: “…we would hope to be the the pipeline provider for one or both of those alternatives” – that’s both gas and bitumen. (What the safety logistics of running a potentially explosive gas pipeline in close proximity to a crude line are is an important question to consider).

There may not be much that can be done at this stage with regards to this movement of natural gas from BC to China. PetroChina recently invested $5.4 Billion in Encana, the biggest player in BC’s gas patch (whose former CEO is a key advisor to BC Premier Christy Clark). But to those who oppose the Enbridge crude pipeline, let this be a warning of things to come. It will be critical to stay on top of Enbridge’s movements and ensure that one pipeline doesn’t beget the other.

For detailed information on the nuances of this unconventional natural gas development in BC and North America, check out the following reports:

Share

Andrew Nikiforuk on New Report: Debunking the ‘Shale Gale’

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

From TheTyee.ca – May 16, 2011

by Andrew Nikiforuk

For several years now, the natural gas industry has
been exclaiming Hallelujahs about the marvels of shale gas with the
passion of a church choir belting out Handel’s “Messiah.”

The hallelujahs, which spring from the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) or the likes of Chesapeake
Energy (“American’s Champion of Natural Gas”), come in three happy
choruses.

The first says that the shale gas
revolution will miraculously create 100 years worth of methane; the
second chorus maintains that the price of natural gas, a volatile
commodity, will stay low for decades; and the last chorus says that
natural gas will green the economy and arrest climate change.
Hallelujah.

But a new report by J. David Hughes, one of
North America’s foremost coal and gas experts, challenges every single
one of these faith-based assumptions with hard science and clear-eyed
math. In the stunningly lucid 64-page report
for the Post Carbon Institute, Hughes squarely concludes that all three
assumptions are highly questionable, if not total “impossibilities.”

Hughes is no wide-eyed greenie or industry
basher. He happens to be one of Canada’s most credible energy
scientists. The geologist worked for Natural Resources Canada for 32
years and mapped Canada’s coal and coal bed methane fields. He has also
served on Canada’s Natural Gas Potential Committee and is regarded as
one of the continent’s top global energy analysts. (B.C. politicians
take note: Hughes lives on Cortes Island on the West Coast.)

“Natural gas is a truly important resource.
But industry has overblown what shale gas can do for us,” says Hughes.
“Shale gas is an exercise in creating greater complexity with lower and
lower returns.”

Shale industry ‘hubris’

Until shale gas appeared on the scene,
analysts predicted a high noon for natural gas. Gas production in the
U.S. peaked in 1973, and has been on a bumpy production plateau ever
since. But then companies started to use horizontal drilling, combined
with hydraulic fracturing, to open deep rock formations once considered
as inaccessible as bowhead whales in the Arctic.

Hydraulic fracking, a high-energy technology that uses millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals to blast open methane trapped in dense rock, created a shale boom from Pennsylvania to northern B.C. and beyond.

The fracking energy binge, which
industrializes rural landscapes, sparked moratoriums in Quebec and New
York due to widespread concerns about surface and groundwater
contamination, and earthquakes from reinjected fracking fluids. U.S.
Energy Minister Steven Chu just ordered a high level investigation on fracking issues. Even France has banned the practice to protect its water-dependent cheese makers and grape growers.

Although T. Boone Pickens, the natural gas
lobby and some environmental groups now champion shale gas as a
“transition fuel” that could possibly retire coal plants and even power
vehicles, Hughes says the real production numbers don’t add up without
unprecedented levels of drilling.

For starters, industry hubris simply defies
the law of thermodynamics. From 1990 levels, U.S. gas drilling tripled
to 33,000 wells per year between 2006 and 2008 before collapsing back to
20,000 wells. In order to build a modest 21 per cent increase in
natural gas production, the gas industry constructed a complex
infrastructure nearly 100 per cent larger than what previously existed
in 1990.

“What matters are flow rates and how fast
the gas can be produced,” explains Hughes. “There may be 100 years worth
of methane in the ground, but it may take 800 years to produce it.”
Meanwhile, conventional gas production in both Canada and the U.S. is
declining rapidly. In other words, shale gas might temporarily replace
some of the air leaving the conventional gas tire — but not for long.

Read full article

Share

Standing up to Enbridge in an Undemocratic Canada

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

Last article I spoke of civil disobedience, a legitimate tool of dissent in a democracy when a government makes political decisions without public consultation and to the exclusion of all but the powerful. We have just such a decision forthcoming with federal and provincial approval of the Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and huge oil tankers moving that sludge down our treacherous coastline to Asia and the US.
 
The governments will no doubt say that this decision has been democratically decided by democratic process, which is pure barnyard droppings.
 
In fact the public has not been consulted and won’t be until after the deal is done.
 
Since last week there have been two major events to report.
 
Stephen Harper will likely face five vacancies on the Supreme Court during this term – including two recent retirements and others on the way – which he will fill with Conservatives, thus ensuring “right thinking” dominance of that court for more than a decade to come.
 
Harper is good on political pay-offs.  Look at how he rewarded David Johnston, whose terms of reference for the hearing into the investigation into Brian Mulroney’s shenanigans ensured that he would get off lightly and no nasty reflections on the Conservative Party would surface. Mr. Johnston was rewarded by appointment as Governor-General.
 
The second event was Harper confirming that his government will approve the massive oil tanker traffic to come down our coast from the Enbridge pipeline delivering Tar Sands bitumen to Kitimat. Displaying breathtaking candour, combining arrogance and ignorance, Harper approved this deadly policy saying that tankers already go down the Atlantic coast and are widely used in the Great Lakes! That shows you how much Harper and Co. knows about BC and indicates to me how unimportant our local Tory MPs are or, perhaps, they aren’t able to understand what BC is all about. About one thing we can be certain: no environmental concern will ever even slow down any moneymaking scheme of those who care only for money. Corporations don’t have a soul because they’re not supposed to; the government has no soul because they rely on corporate money to stay elected, while the people who do possess souls are stonewalled from standing up for real values.
 
There are also the fish farms which Harper, through his Minister, Gail Shea (easily the worst Fisheries minister ever, and that covers a lot of ground) actively uses Fisheries and Oceans as an advertising agency for these environmental nightmares.
 
I hope I’ve demonstrated why we cannot rely upon democratic processes to save our environment.
 
Last Saturday’s Globe and Mail had a full page story by Josh Wingrove in their national edition. It chronicles recent oil spills, especially the Rainbow disaster – the largest spill in Alberta in more than 30 years. My advice is to get that article, download it off the Globe and Mail website for the entire story.
 
The truth is that spills cannot be avoided and when they happen are utter disasters.
 
It’s not hard to understand why this is so. It takes time for a spill to become evident and when it does, huge damage has already been done. You can stop the oil being transported but you can’t do anything about what is already in the pipe.
 
It’s important to understand where the two Enbridge pipelines will go and it must be remembered that we’re dealing with two pipelines – one to bring the bitumen to Kitimat and one to take the gas condensate to Alberta, in order to dilute the bitumen to be transferred.
 
It must be carefully noted that we’re not talking about “risk” here, but a certainty. It’s as simple as this – if one runs a “risk” continuously it becomes a reality waiting to happen and when it does happen it’s a first class calamity.
 
The Enbridge proposed pipeline runs through one of the last true wildlife areas in the world – 1000+ km and over 1000 rivers and streams.
 
The catastrophe can come from several possible sources – earth tremors, aging and rusting, terrorism, and plain negligent construction. The Rainbow disaster came because a small section of the pipe was not sufficiently buttressed against the earth settling – a simple but catastrophic event caused by one shift in one minute area of the pipeline.
 
How can these be inspected?
 
The short answer is they can’t be, as the Rainbow case makes eloquently clear. They are largely located far away from populations and hard to get at. Moreover, as in the Rainbow case, the problem is seldom discernible to routine inspection.
 
In summary, the proposed pipeline from the Tar Sands will fail, and when it does it will be a catastrophe of epochal proportions.
 
What then of the tanker traffic down our treacherous coast?
 
A wreck or serious leak is even more dangerous than a pipeline leak and will make the Exxon Valdez pale into insignificance. Moreover it will happen and, when addressing this point, remember that at least pipelines stay still.
 
What an irony – here we are trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we sacrifice our land and water on behalf of Asian customers after our fossil fuels!
 
And bear this in mind: BC gets nothing out of all out of all this – we’re and easement, a right-of-way to suffer consequent damage from pipelines we have no interest in.
 
Don’t be fooled into thinking that jobs come with this exercise. Once the pipeline is built, the only labour is custodial. Even most of the construction jobs will go to those who do this sort of work on an ongoing basis and will almost all come from out-of-province.
 
What remedies are there for us to pursue?
 
Write a letter to our MP?
 
Mine gave money to Plutonic Power (General Electric in drag), without the remotest idea as to what this independent power company was doing or even a faint notion of what the provincial government’s Energy Plan was all about. Why would he be any more caring about oil spills on land and sea?
 
There are no remedies within the system and any attempts to proceed down that path are an utter waste of time.
 
Our only hope is to protest and, if necessary, practice civil disobedience with the expectation that the rotten justice system will put us in jail.
 
That tells you what democracy, Canada-style, is all about.
  

Share

France bans ‘fracking’ after months of protest

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

From The Tyee – May 13, 2011

by Andrew MacLeoad

France’s parliament voted this week to ban a controversial method of
extracting shale gas, but don’t expect British Columbia to follow
anytime soon.

“I don’t know what France’s environmental standards are
and how they do their work,” said B.C.’s Energy and Mines Minister Rich
Coleman. “I know we’ve been doing fracking here for probably over a
decade or more . . . We have pretty high environmental standards. We
track it, we watch it, and we’re going to continue to do so.”

Fracking is a process that involves injecting rock
formations with water, chemicals and sand to break them apart and allow
the fossil fuels they contain to be extracted. Opponents say the process
uses toxic substances and contaminates groundwater.

“What we’re doing is a lot different even mix wise than
some of these other jurisdictions,” said Coleman. “We’re so much deeper
than they are. We’re way down three or four thousand feet . . . and our
ground water in the area we’re doing is probably up at 300 or 400 feet,
so we’re way beyond below it and we haven’t had any leaching.”

The province plans to do a health study related to
fracking, but unlike in some other jurisdictions the process is used in
remote areas of B.C. far from residential areas, he said.

France’s fracking ban still needs to pass the country’s
senate to become law. “The overwhelming vote by the National Assembly
follows months of protest across France against a technique that
environmentalists say threatens to pollute the water table,” wrote the Financial Times.

Read original article

Share

May 26 Campbell River Event: “Oil and Water: Navigate the Facts”

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share

From the Campbell River Courier-Islander – May 13, 2011

The Museum at Campbell River will host a presentation by Katie
Terhune of Living Oceans Society on Thursday, May 26, at 7 p.m.
Entitled ‘Oil and Water: Navigate the Facts’, this presentation will
examine the impact of introducing oil tankers to the North and Central
Coast.

British Columbia’s coast is a truly incredible part of the
planet. It’s rich with life, resources and natural beauty. It has
sustained First Nations for millennia and coastal communities for
generations. Its waters are world renowned for their fishing and
tourism opportunities. All of that is now threatened by Enbridge Inc., a
transnational pipeline company.

Enbridge wants to run twin
pipelines from the tar sands to the coast. If it’s allowed to proceed,
the Northern Gateway Project will bring 220 crude oil tankers per year
to the waters washing against the shore of the Great Bear Rainforest.
These supertankers will be carrying up to two million barrels of crude
oil — nearly eight times more than the infamous Exxon Valdez spilled
in Alaska — from a proposed marine terminal in Kitimat to markets in
Asia. It is a project that benefits Big Oil corporations at the cost of
coastal communities.

Living Oceans Society is working to ensure
B.C.’s North and Central Coast remain tanker free forever. They’ve
created a Google Earth map, called Oil and Water. Navigate the Facts,
an interactive map where you can explore what’s at stake if oil tankers
come to the coast. Google Earth lets you zoom in close to the coast so
you can explore nature’s riches with photos and facts about features
like salmon streams and eel grass beds, orca habitat and herring runs.
Other layers show the human presence on the coast, the places where
people live, work and play.

Read original article

Share