Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Norway says will not pull Statoil out of tar sands

Share

From Reuters – March 31, 2011

* Investing in tar sands is up to firm, not state -trade min

* Environmental groups Greenpeace, WWF condemn decision

OSLO, March 31 (Reuters) – Statoil’s majority owner, the
Norwegian state, will not ask the firm to get out of Canada’s
tar sands, killing a proposal at the upcoming annual general
meeting to abandon the controversial oil project.

“There will be no intervention from the Norwegian government
on Statoil’s involvement in oil sands,” Norway’s trade and
industry secretary Trond Giske told Norwegian daily Dagens
Naeringsliv on Thursday.

“We have concluded that investing in oil sands is a decision
that is not up to us as an owner. This is a decision for the
company.”

The Norwegian state owns 67 percent of Statoil’s shares.

Green groups Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund For Nature
(WWF) have for several years campaigned for Statoil (STL.OL: Quote) to
pull out of its Kai Koh Dehseh project in Alberta, which it
bought in 2007 in order to diversify from its ageing North Sea
oilfields.


Earlier this month the groups scheduled a motion for
Statoil’s AGM on May 19 calling on the company to avoid
exploiting the Canadian soil saturated with bitumen.
[ID:nLDE6491O0] It was the third year in a row they did so.

They have the backing of several Statoil investors,
including major Norwegian insurer Storebrand (STB.OL: Quote).

“Unfortunately the Norwegian government has decided to
ignore a key issue in the climate debate, which is what
resources it is possible to base our future energy production
on,” Rasmus Hansson, head of WWF Norway, told Reuters.

“The production and use of tar sands produce such massive
amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that they will make it
absolutely impossible to stay below the 2 degrees (increase in
global temperature targeted by the UN).”

Canada’s oil sands represent the largest crude reserves
outside Saudi Arabia. That and the country’s relative political
stability have attracted Statoil and a host of other foreign
investors.

But environmentalists are highly critical of the impact of
development on air, land, water and local communities.
(Reporting by Gwladys Fouche; editing by James Jukwey)

Read original article

Share

Europe moves to ban imports of tar sands oil from Canada

Share

From The Ecologist – March 29, 2011

by Will McLennan

An attempt to classify tar sands oil as more
environmentally-damaging than conventional oil would effectively ban its
sale within European Member States


The European Union is moving to prevent tar sands oil from entering
the European market due to the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
associated with its production.

Oil from the tar sands industry
is set to be classified as having greater GHG emissions than
conventional oil in a review of the European Union’s Fuel Quality
Directive. Recognising the greater environmental impact of tar sands oil
will effectively ban its use in EU states, where fuel providers are
legally bound to aim for 6 per cent reductions in GHG emissions by 2020.

Tar
sands are deposits of oil-rich bitumen mixed with clay and sand
embedded in rocks often buried beneath the surface. Two tonnes of
topsoil have to be removed to produce each barrel of bitumen, creating
vast open mines. Extracting the deposits is estimated to be three times more carbon-intensive than conventional oil sources.
It also causes the loss of natural habitats with vast areas of boreal
forest cleared in order to mine the sandy bitumen – and pollution of
local waterways with toxic chemicals.

The largest reserves of tar sands in the world are held in Canada, which plans to increase production from 1.5 million to 7 million barrels a day by 2020. Both Shell and BP
are major investors in tar sands with BP having acquired a 50 per cent
stake in the Sunrise Project, a tar sands extraction site near Alberta.

The
EU had previously dropped the attempt to classify tar sands oil as more
environmentally-damaging than conventional oil after strong lobbying by
the Canadian government and the oil industry. However, following a
year-long campaign by a coalition of environmental groups led by the
Co-operative and including WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and
Transport & Environment, it is now being reconsidered. Campaigners
hope changing tar sand’s status in the Fuel Quality Directive will halt
the tar sands expansion.

Canada had argued the move would create a
trade barrier, however, European politicians believe by changing tar
sand’s status the EU is putting the onus on fuel suppliers to reduce
their emissions.

‘Nothing that we do will stop people importing
tar sands, it will simply label tar sands accurately, so people who are
under a legal obligation to reduce their carbon footprint are more
likely to chose cleaner fuels,’ said Linda McAvan, Labour MEP, who
helped bring this issue to the European Commission’s attention.

The
Co-operative led alliance will now be engaging with EU member states,
to counterbalance any pressure being applied by the Canadian government
and oil industry, and guarantee the new value for tar sands oil is
included in the revised Fuel Quality Directive.

‘This is a clear
signal to oil companies and investors that tar sands expansion is a
risky business, as Europe is a global leader in environmental standards,
it will likely lead to similar standards being adopted elsewhere around
the world,’ said Colin Baines, toxic fuels campaign manager at the
Co-operative. ‘The oil industry should think twice about investing
billions of dollars in expanding tar sands developments. They could end
up producing a fuel that nobody wants.’

Read original article

Share

B.C. to continue ‘fracking’ for gas, despite bans elsewhere

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – March 30, 2011

by Jeff Lee

British Columbia has no worries about the controversial use of
hydraulic fracturing in natural gas production, even though other
governments have recently instituted moratoriums on the process, Energy
and Mines Minister Rich Coleman said Tuesday.

Earlier this month
Quebec halted the use of so-called “fracking” technology, which involves
pumping large volumes of water, sand and chemicals into shale gas
deposits to fracture the rock and force the gas into collection pipes.
Several U.S. states, including New York, and France have also halted the
use of fracking over concerns that not enough is known about the
long-term effects of the extraction method.

A number of
jurisdictions have worried that the method may lead to the contamination
of groundwater supplies and there have been periodic complaints from
neighbours, including allegations of gas seeping from domestic water
taps.

But Coleman said B.C. gas extraction companies have been
using fracking for many years without problems and have to meet what he
termed “the world’s most stringent environmental regulations.”

“I’m
actually pretty comfortable with the maturity we have in this
particular field,” he said. “I have seen nothing to date that would tell
me that we are not out front on all the environmental issues compared
to other jurisdictions.”

Doug Bloom, the president of Spectra
Energy Transmission’s western division, says he doesn’t believe
“fracking” in B.C. is as much an environmental problem as it is one of
access to sufficient water supplies.

“We know it has become an
issue elsewhere, but frankly … fracking is not a new technology,” said
Bloom. “We’ve been fracturing wells in Western Canada for decades and to
my knowledge there haven’t been any problems associated with that.”

Spectra
Energy, a Fortune 500 company, has five natural gas-processing plants
in B.C. In North America it has more than 30,000 kilometres of
transmission lines and more than eight billion cubic metres of storage
capacity.

Natural gas is one of B.C.’s most valuable resources.
This year royalties from gas exploration will deliver nearly $1.4
billion into provincial coffers. Nearly a third of Canada’s entire
natural gas reserves are in B.C. But it comes with the use of technology
that some opponents and environmentalists say has yet to be proven.

The
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives suggested in a recent paper the
long-term effects of fracking have yet to be understood.

And in
the Peace region, a group of residents called the Peace Environmental
and Safety Trustees Society has asked the province for a formal inquiry
into the health effects from sour gas wells.

But Bloom said the
use of fracking in B.C.’s northeast gas fields “has more to do more with
the water supply” than any long-term environmental concern.

“The
bigger issue in British Columbia is water use, what water supplies you
will use for fracking. Increasingly, what we’re seeing producers do is
recycle water so that they can reuse it and not use as much.”

He said Spectra isn’t concerned about the technology’s safety.

“We worry to the extent that the debate is informed and that it is science and fact-based.”

But not everyone is convinced that fracking is environmentally harmless.

John Walker, president of FortisBC, thinks B.C. will likely have to look at the impacts of the technology at some point.

“There
is a challenge. I think it is a challenge [of] how you manage this from
a regulatory point of view,” said Walker, whose company is the largest
natural gas distributor in Western Canada.

“You have to manage
the environmental impacts as you go forward and that is absolutely one
of the challenges that we have to work with.”

Bloom and Walker
were part of a Vancouver Board of Trade panel Tuesday that looked at the
benefits and business opportunities of natural gas in B.C. Both believe
natural gas production will lead to the continued development of new
forms of use, particularly in the area of transportation.

Fracking
has in recent years led to the revival of natural gas exploration
because it has solved a problem that has long vexed companies: how to
unlock gas trapped in shale deposits.

Ten years ago when B.C.
began to seriously expand gas exploration, it had a 10-year supply of
gas reserves, Coleman said. Now it has more than 100 years of proven
reserves in the northeastern part of the province, the Horn River and
Montney Basin deposits, and that doesn’t even include new reserves being
developed in the Liard, he said.

But that same technology has
also led to the development of numerous shale gas reserves elsewhere in
North America, with the result that the U.S. also has a 100-year supply.

As a result, gas prices have plummeted from a high of about $14 to $4 per gigajoule.

Walker,
who is not opposed to fracking, said the moratoriums against it in
other jurisdictions may have an impact on B.C.’s market.

“If you
curtail the use of fracking, there is no doubt that is the technology
and methodology that drove the ability to exploit these shales.

“I think we are going to have to find a way to manage it.

“Life
is always about trade-offs, whether we build a hydroelectric dam and
dam a river, whether we put windmills in bird migration routes. We’re
trading on that balance we have to strike between energy policy, the
environmental policy and economic outcomes.”

Read original article

Share

Enbridge turns a deaf ear to Ta’Kaiya’s song

Share

From the Province – March 25, 2011

by Suzanne Fournier

Ta’Kaiya Blaney is only 10 years old, but she has a heartfelt song
and a tough message to the Enbridge pipeline people that she wanted to
deliver in person on Thursday.

But Ta’Kaiya, who had a
carefullyrehearsed talk on coloured cards and a video of her song, was
halted in the lobby by security guards who said they had “locked down”
the sixth-floor offices of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines.

“I wanted to sing my song and I didn’t think I was scary,” said Ta’Kaiya.

Headquartered in Calgary, the company, which has proposed twin
pipelines and oil tanker traffic down the B.C. coast, has a few
technical staff in the Bentall building in Vancouver but had no one
available to meet Ta’Kaiya.

A member of the Sliammon First Nation,
Ta’Kaiya is home-schooled in North Vancouver by her mom, Anne, who
accompanied her daughter Thursday. Ta’Kaiya said she did a lot of
research for her environmental issues unit.

“It’s true that the
oil pipelines and the tankers will give people jobs, but if there is an
oil spill like the Exxon Valdez or the Gulf of Mexico, that will take
other people’s jobs and the wildlife will die,” said Ta’Kaiya.

“This is the 22nd anniversary of the Exxon Valdez and there is still oil in the water, that can’t ever be cleaned up.”

Ta’Kaiya’s
message and song, which she co-wrote, was sent far and wide by
Greenpeace, which emailed her video and statement to all provincial and
federal politicians.

Greenpeace B.C. director Stephanie Goodwin called Enbridge “contradictory.”

“They
say they want public input, but won’t even hear the concerns of a
10-year-old First Nations girl who presented her views respectfully.”

After
Ta’Kaiya and her mom were sent out to the sidewalk, B.C. Premier
Christy Clark sent the girl an email, saying she had “watched your
YouTube video and commend you for your talent. Your message is very
clear -we must be concerned about the environment.”

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said the company had no one available to greet Ta’Kaiya, but “will be responding” to her letter.

Stanway
noted that the Northern Gateway pipeline project is undergoing a
comprehensive, rigorous review by an independent panel under the
auspices of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environment
Assessment Agency.

Read original article

Share

Gasland Filmmaker Josh Fox in Lethbridge: Solidarity, determination needed to halt fracking

Share

From the Lethbridge Herald – March 25, 2011

by Sherri Gallant

Josh Fox, the Pennsylvania producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary
“Gasland,” told those assembled Thursday at a conference on fracking in
Lethbridge that stopping the controversial drilling practice will take
solidarity and determination.

The sought-after filmmaker explained
to the crowd – mostly First Nations people from the Blood Reserve – how
his movie began as a grassroots project that started when he was asked
to lease his land for natural gas. His investigations took him down a
road he hadn’t anticipated, and the project quickly evolved into a force
for change, the notoriety of which has brought him both praise,
criticism and outright attack.

Today, he’ll be filming segments in southern Alberta which could end up in the “Gasland” sequel he’s working on.

“These interviews were so compelling and the stories started to become
so vast, I started showing them to people, friends of mine, with a
little voiceover that sort of explained the situation, and they said,
‘what have you got your hands on here? You have the ‘Inconvenient Truth’
on your hands, you have to set some time aside and work on this.'”

It wasn’t an easy commitment to make. Fox’s film and theatre company had
several long-term projects on the go and the fracking iceberg showed
signs of being a hulking monster under the surface. But he knew he
couldn’t ignore it.

Hundreds of hours of interviews and 15 months
on the road later, the film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival – an
immense coup.

“We were making a project for our friends, for our
neighbours, for our community, so that people could see what was
happening – and not just our community, but then our friends and
neighbours that we met in Colorado, and Wyoming, and Texas. So that they
had a resource, because information about what was happening with
hydraulic fracturing wasn’t available, it was scarce.

“Anyway, all of a sudden, everybody starts talking about fracking. The festival was a great success.”

Before long “Gasland” aired on HBO, was picked up in Canada, Australia
and the U.K. Fox has taken it on tour to 110 cities in all those
countries.

“I’ve witnessed such an unbelievable outpouring of
concern and support,” he said, “and resilience and integrity and dignity
on behalf of an enormous amount of people across the world. Hundreds of
thousands, if not millions who are right now directly in the crosshairs
of a huge natural gas development campaign that rivals anything that’s
ever happened before.

“I did find the same story again and again –
water contamination, air pollution, health problems, a sense that the
people had been lied to. And governments that were unresponsive to their
plights.”

People need to invest in and use renewable forms of energy, he said, and lobby their governments to make the same commitment.

“It’s no longer about ‘oh, don’t drive so much,’ or ‘conserve energy at
home.’ This is right here. It’s going to be a defining struggle for the
next 20 or 30 years. How do we get away from fossil fuels? We know we
have to. We can see what’s going on with climate change. We can see
what’s going on with all the toxic poisoning. The Gulf of Mexico.
Nuclear is the not the answer. The solar fields in Germany generate as
much power as that whole reactor in Japan.”
Every house, he said, can be its own power plant.

In a special naming ceremony after his talk, Fox was given the
Blackfoot name Ih Ka Mo Dahm (phonetic spelling), meaning survivor or
people who have survived. Elder Martin Eagle Child said it was chosen
not only because of the work Fox is doing, but because his father and
grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust.

The Blood Tribe
Conference on Fracking was organized by Kainai people in response to a
deal made by band chief and council with two oil companies to allow
fracking on two thirds of reserve lands. The deal came with a
$50-million signing bonus and potential for further revenue down the
road. A full slate of speakers throughout the day included Fiona
Lauridson, producer and director of the film “Burning Water,” which will
be screened tonight at 7 p.m. at the Lethbridge Public Library as part
of the International Film Festival.

Tribal officials have stated
they will go through every environmental step necessary to make sure the
drilling is safe. To date, no public notice has been made of any actual
applications to drill under the new agreement.

Read original article

Share
Enbridge's catastrophic 2010 oil spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan

Enbridge: When Intentions Are Not Offers

Share

The response of Enbridge to its spill of over 3 millions litres of oil from its ruptured pipeline into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in July, 2010, should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks assurances negotiated with corporations are of any durable substance. In the single-minded quest for winning prospective profits or avoiding public relations catastrophes, corporations will typically make promises that are eventually fulfilled only in their own interests. Enbridge’s current legal manoeuvrings are a model example.

 

Immediately following the spill that contaminated about 55 km of river, Enbridge said it would pay for all damages. While a serious environmental impact could not be avoided, at least the public outrage could be quelled by a promise of compensation. Enbridge is now retracting its promise and contesting the claims against it. The legal thinking employed in this evasion of responsibility is worth noting.

 

Enbridge is arguing that it is not responsible for all the assessed damages of the spill because the actions of government officials in declaring a state of emergency, in recommending evacuation, and in closing the river to all public activity, incurred costs for which the corporation should not be legally liable. In int own words, Enbridge’s defence is that “federal, state and/or local authorities and agencies have mandated, directed, approved and/or ratified the alleged actions or omissions” for which Enbridge is expected to pay. Had the various authorities not taken the actions they deemed necessary to safeguard the public, the costs to Enbridge would have been lower. An assessment of Enbridge’s financial obligations will be mired in litigation for years.

 

Given this protracted litigation, Enbridge’s soothing assurance that it “remains committed to paying all non-fraudulent claims that are directly related to the incident” appear to be another empty public relations promise. In the legal challenge Enbridge is undertaking, the meaning of “directly related” must now be determined. So, too, must “non-fraudulent claims”, a determination now complicated by the degree to which the “actions or omissions” of government officials de-legitimized such claims. Add more years to the litigation process.

The lesson to be learned from this particular event is that corporations will initially provide whatever assurances are necessary to advance their profit objectives or to avoid a public relations fiasco. However, when confronted with the actual social, economic and environmental costs of their actions or oversights, the well-being of their shareholders becomes paramount. While affable executives may present a positive public image of corporations, the profit imperative commonly dilutes any admirable principles. Corporations are not philanthropic organizations interested in either fairness or justice; they are amoral legal entities that will only pay what is in their own interests to pay. Their explicit and fiduciary duty is to their shareholders. And in the world of law, where sophisticated legal strategists can discover complexities that can stall settlements nearly indefinitely, the length of the delay is determined by the net benefit to the corporation. Victims are not a consideration ‹ if they ever were.

 

Examples abound beyond Enbridge and its oil spill in the Kalamazoo River. Biologists have noted that BP’s strategy of spraying an estimated 7.2 million litres of toxic dispersants on the estimated 700 million litres of oil that erupted for months from its Macondo drilling site in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may have been far more environmentally damaging than letting the oil wash ashore where it could be collected for safe disposal. But the public relations image of such visible contamination was far worse for BP’s reputation than hiding the oil with dispersants. The implication is that the corporate interest superseded the environmental interest.

 

The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska is a classic case of corporate litigation taking priority over fairness and justice. Exxon policy was to continually challenge the initial damage penalty of $5 billion, litigating details of the judgement until the human victims of the spill either died, were exhausted by the protracted court cases, or simply moved elsewhere to rebuild their shattered lives. After years of litigation, the US Supreme Court eventually reduced the damages to $507.5 million ‹ a profitable corporate strategy, despite the massive legal fees.

 

Business, of course, is always business. This is the heartless and amoral rationale that is supposed to comfort individuals, communities and environments that fall victim to corporate actions, omissions or oversights. Pulp mills open with lofty promises until they close with obligatory regrets. Lumber mills sustain families and towns until unfortunate necessity requires their demise. Salmon farms pledge risk-free ecological operations until biological reality collides with untenable assurances. Mines promise responsible operation until unforeseen circumstances create unmanageable problems.

 

Now Enbridge is proposing to build a 1,172 km Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat through some of the most challenging and remote territory on the planet, a project that will expose rivers, landscapes and a pristine BC coast to inevitable oil spills. Enbridge is enticing reluctant First Nations with financial incentives approaching $1 billion. Its corporate machinery will comfort the public with the usual assurances of safety, precaution and reliability.

 

But the public should always be wary of corporations bearing promises. Witness the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the Macondo site in the Gulf of Mexico and the Exxon Valdez in Alaska as three reminders that corporate promises can end in environmental disaster, personal grief and protracted litigation. The ingenuity that makes corporations so successful can also be turned against the society that is supposed to benefit from their existence. Forget ethics. Whether or not corporations keep their promises depends on the business of business.

Share

B.C. shale gas holds promise of new era in resource investment

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – March 14, 2011

by Gordon Hamilton

METRO VANCOUVER – Locked within the shale deposits of northeastern
British Columbia lies a natural gas reserve of unparalleled wealth that
could push the province into a resource boom unrivalled since the
development 50 years ago of the pulp-and-paper industry.

This
resource is nothing more than individual, tiny bubbles of hydrocarbon,
all that remains of a single organism that lived and died in a
primordial sea and was buried in the mud millions of years ago.

But
the accumulation of billions of such organisms over time adds up to gas
deposits of 250 trillion cubic feet to 1,000 trillion cubic feet,
according to the provincial energy ministry.

How much of that is
recoverable is a work in progress as companies drill into it. But even
at today’s low price for natural gas of $3 per 1,000 cubic feet at the
wellhead, those reservoirs could have a value beginning at $750 billion.

And the more companies drill, the more gas they find.

“We
haven’t finalized booking the reserves in the shale gas plays,” said
Ken Paulson, chief engineer and deputy commissioner at the B.C. Oil and
Gas Commission. “We are still getting information from some of the plays
which allows us to refine our estimates as to how much hydrocarbon is
actually in these reservoirs. But it’s a lot.”

Energy Minister Steve Thomson said shale gas is becoming mainstream development for the petroleum industry in B.C.

“The
magnitude and nature of B.C.’s shale gas resources creates
opportunities for long-term development planning by both industry and
government,” he said in an email to The Sun.

Northeastern B.C.
contains four major gas formations: The Montney basin near Dawson Creek,
the Horn River and Liard basins northwest of Fort Nelson, and the
Cordova Embayment, east of Fort Nelson. But the promise of wealth that
they offer is tempered by several facts: They are far from North
American markets for gas; they are more costly to get out of the ground
than conventional reserves; and the way the gas is being extracted is
drawing growing public concern.

The shale gas deposits have
triggered a slew of deals worth billions of dollars as global companies
jockey to gain a foothold in this new resource gold rush. Petro China’s
$5.4-billion investment with Encana, for a 50-per-cent stake in one B.C.
gas deposit alone, is the largest, while South African synthetic fuel
producer Sasol’s $2-billion investment in two of Talisman Energy’s gas
holdings perhaps brings the most promise.

Sasol is a world-leader
in technology of converting natural gas to synthetic diesel, and it has
agreed with Talisman to conduct a feasibility study around the economic
viability of a facility in Western Canada to convert natural gas to
liquid fuels.

“It’s exciting, innovative stuff,” said Travis Davies of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Development
of the shale gas deposits brings with it a whole new way of looking at
the province’s resource wealth. But it also brings questions on how the
gas is being extracted and whether it will trigger a round of
value-added investment similar to the sprouting of pulp and paper mills
that came when new provincial forest tenures and policies spurred
logging in Interior forests in the 1960s.

Or, will the gas simply be exported as a raw commodity, the equivalent of exporting logs?

The
province has three options: Tap into new offshore markets where gas
prices are higher, add value by converting it to liquid fuels, or use it
to generate electricity.

“We need to find new markets. There are a
number of projects on the books right now … such as a liquefaction
plant and possible export terminal in the Kitimat area. These projects
have big implications for markets for gas, not just for B.C. gas but
North American gas, ” said Paulson.

The potential for a
petrochemical plant converting gas to liquid fuel in the province’s
northeast is particularly tantalizing, but B.C. has no policy framework
to encourage a petrochemical plant here. It could be built in Alberta.

The
third alternative, using gas to generate electrical energy, is far from
being a perfect solution. It’s cleaner than coal, but is still a fossil
fuel releasing greenhouse gases, even if only half those of coal. But
when the price of gas rises above the equivalent price of coal, power
producers can switch back to burning coal.

To access B.C. shale
gas, companies use a technique called hydro-fracturing, or fracking, to
release the trapped bubbles, which can be in shale deposits one to two
kilometres below the surface. The technique involves drilling a vertical
well about 18 centimetres wide until it reaches the shale layer. The
drill bore then is gradually curved to horizontal, where it can go for
another two kilometres through the shale.

Water, sand and a lubricating solution are then pumped at high pressure into the well.

The
water pressure fractures the shale into tiny pieces, creating millions
of surfaces, which release their gas. The sand keeps the pieces apart
and the gas within the shale is then forced to the well by the pressure
of the rock above.

But fracking is raising concerns over the
chemicals being used and the wisdom of fracturing part of the earth’s
crust. (Some are blaming it for a series of mini-earthquakes in
Arkansas, a region that is generally quake-free.)

Further, environmentalists fears of contamination of the aquifer if gases or chemicals escape.

Last
week, the province of Quebec placed a two-year moratorium on fracking
in shale gas deposits in that province while it develops regulations.

Energy minister Thomson said the situation in Quebec is far different than here.

“This
is a province where oil and gas exploration has been taking place for
decades. Quebec, on the other hand, is only beginning to establish an
oil and gas sector,” he said in the email. “It makes sense for Quebec to
take a prudent approach as they do not have the background and
regulatory structure in place like we do.”

Paulson said the province has kept abreast of technological change by expanding its regulatory regime to include fracking.

The
Oil and Gas Activities Act, which came into effect last October,
contains regulations that specifically address drilling of shale gas
wells and hydro-fracturing, Paulson said. Water stewardship is addressed
in regulations and companies are required to dispose of chemicals
safely.

Companies keep their chemical solutions secret, saying
they are proprietary. It amounts to less than one per cent of what is
injected, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The
commission does not require them to divulge their chemical mix, but
they must keep on-site a list of the chemicals they use in fracking. If
for example, cross-contamination by one fracture full of fluid extended
into an adjacent fracture created by another well, then the commission
would want to know what exactly is in the solution.

That has never happened, Paulson said.

Read original article

Share

Tyee Special Report: In America’s Capital, a Fierce Fight over Oil Sands

Share

From TheTyee.ca – Match 14, 2011

by Geoff Dembicki

In the hallways and offices of America’s capital city, a
war is being quietly waged out of view of most Canadians and Americans.

The outcome will decide North America’s energy future and its impact on the planet’s climate.

The tactics are all the high pressure
persuasion and hard-ball politicking that tens of millions of dollars
can buy — many of those dollars contributed by Canadian taxpayers.

The war pits America’s largest
environmental groups against some of the world’s wealthiest corporations
and their “allies” in the Canadian and Albertan governments.

The battle line divides two viscerally
opposed camps: Those arguing that North America’s deepening dependence
on Alberta’s oil sands industry represents a pragmatic solution to
looming energy crises, and those who say relying on oil sands crude
marks an irreversible step closer to climate change catastrophe.

The prize, at end of the day, will be votes cast by politicians.

Will Washington’s legislators pass laws
that have the effect of opening the oil sands spigots wider, assuring
that Alberta’s bitumen crude increasingly, and permanently, flows into
the U.S. market?

Or will they legislate against high carbon
emissions fuel sources as a measure to reduce climate change? That could
severely constrict the flow of oil sands’ output into the U.S., dashing
the profit dreams of corporations — and some Canadian officials — who
have already bet hugely on providing bitumen-derived crude for American
consumption.

The Tyee goes to the story

With so much on the line, there has been
surprisingly scant coverage of how this battle is being waged and by
whom. Until now. Beginning today, The Tyee is publishing The War for the
Oil Sands in Washington, an in-depth, multi-part series that begins
with three stories this week and many more in the coming weeks.

The reporting comes out of months of research capped by a week spent
in Washington late in February, during which I interviewed oil sands
lobbyists, environmental advocates and the congressional insiders either
side hopes to influence.

What I found was an intense lobbying
campaign being waged by each camp, both battling for the sympathies of
Congress and the White House administration. The odds are clearly in
favour of the oil sands coalition, which holds enormous political
influence and has won major legislative victories on several fronts. But
the green coalition, especially with Barack Obama in power, has more
clout than its limited resources might suggest. 

Read full article

Share

Rafe Mair Visits Williams Lake

Share

From the Williams Lake Tribune – March 11, 2011

Author and social commentator Rafe Mair and documentary film maker
Damien Gillis will be in Williams Lake March 25 for a town-hall style
presentation on their new online non-profit journal The Common Sense Canadian — a voice for the public and environment.

Mair and Gillis are touring 30 B.C. communities and
will make their presentation in the Williams Lake secondary commons
theatre from 7 to 9 p.m. on March 25.

The two-hour event will feature Gillis’ new short documentary on the proposed Enbridge pipeline to B.C.’s North Coast, called Oil in Eden, plus a keynote speech by Mair.

There will also be an opportunity for the audience to
ask questions and discuss issues with the speakers on topics such as
rivers, hydro bills, oil tankers and democracy.

“These aren’t matters of left and right, but of right and wrong,” Mair says.

“It’s time for common-sense Canadians to band together —
through our own media and community organizing — to address our
greatest challenges: protecting our environment and democracy.”

Mair adds: “We can be the generation that lost B.C., or together we can be the one that saved it.”

Mair is a former lawyer and minister responsible for constitutional affairs in the Bennett cabinet during the 1980s.

He went on to become a broadcaster and writer on public affairs.

His commentaries and books have been punctuated with what has been called his “wicked sense of humour.”

Books include The Last Cast about fly fishing; Canada: Is Anyone Listening?; Rants Raves and Recollections that made the B.C. best seller list; Still Ranting; and Rafe: A Memoir.

The event is co-presented by the Council of Canadians Williams Lake Chapter.

Admission is by donation.

Read original article

Share

Environmental group is concerned about the potential dangers of the gas released in northern B.C. fracking operations

Share

From the Vancouver Sun – March 9, 2011

by Ben Parfitt

Early last year, an army of workers at a remote
natural gas operation in northern British Columbia set a world record
for hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” a procedure that is rapidly
becoming the norm in the global gas industry.

They pumped nearly
400 Olympic swimming pools worth of water along with 500,000 kilograms
of sand underground to fracture deeply buried shale rock, thereby
releasing its trapped gas.

As fracking becomes more common, people
living in natural gas-rich northeast B.C. are increasingly alarmed over
the associated public health and safety risks.

The pressure at
which water, sand and undisclosed chemicals is pumped below-ground is so
intense that it triggers tiny earthquakes. In using such brute force,
unforeseen and unwelcome problems can -and do -surface elsewhere,
problems that may include dangerous releases of gas containing hydrogen
sulphide, also known as sour gas.

Long before fracking arrived on
the scene, the health threats posed by chronic exposure to sour gas with
low levels of hydrogen sulphide were well known and ran the gamut from
irritated eyes to miscarriages. But it was the uncontrolled releases of
gas containing 300 parts per million or more of hydrogen sulphide that
filled people living in B.C.’s Peace River region with dread. Such
releases killed or seriously injured industry workers; caused deaths,
birth defects or miscarriages in cattle; forced people to abandon their
homes by dead of night; and led at least one school district to station
buses outside an elementary school in case sour gas escaped from a
nearby well site, forcing an emergency evacuation.

These and other
uncomfortable realities of living in the heart of B.C.’s natural gas
development zone, recently prompted a local citizens group -the Peace
Environment and Safety Trustees Society (PESTS) -to call upon the
provincial government to launch a formal inquiry under B.C.’s Health Act
to delve into the health risks associated with sour gas. The
justification for such an inquiry was laid out in chilling detail with
the assistance of Calvin Sandborn, at the University of Victoria’s
Environmental Law Clinic, and Tim Thielmann, an environmental lawyer.

The
initiative has since snowballed. Letters of support for an inquiry have
come from the Peace River Regional District, public health officers,
first nations and others. A common refrain in the correspondence is that
when it comes to key decisions on oil and gas industry activities -for
example, the locating of gas wells and pipelines that can release toxic
gas -public health officials are cut out of the loop. Yet it is they,
and the public they serve, who are forced to respond when things go
wrong.

Things most decidedly did go wrong in November 2009, when
failed piping at a gas well in the Peace region spewed 30,000 cubic
metres of gas into the air. Hydrogen sulphide levels in the escaping gas
were six times above lethal levels. The estimated eight-hour gas leak
forced the evacuation of 18 residents living near the community of Pouce
Coupe, killed a horse and resulted in at least one emergency
hospitalization.

B.C.’s Oil and Gas
Commission (OGC), which approved the well owned by Encana Corporation,
later concluded that frack sand corroded the pipes and caused the
potentially fatal leak.

Over the past three decades, at least 34
workers in B.C. and Alberta have been killed in sour-gas related
incidents and hundreds more disabled. By sheer luck, massive
uncontrolled sour gas releases in B.C. have often occurred far away from
local communities. In 2003, residents near Gao Qiao, in Chonquing,
China, weren’t so lucky. A sour gas leak there forced the evacuation of
64,000 residents and killed 243 people in what became a
25-square-kilometre death zone.

Escalating fracking activities
increase the likelihood of such leaks. As a recent OGC “safety advisory”
notes, high-pressure fracking operations have on at least 18 occasions
resulted in what are euphemistically called “communications” between
northern B.C. gas wells.

What this means is that fracking at one
well causes unwanted problems at another. In one such event, the same
type of corrosive frack sand linked to the Pouce Coupe disaster was
blown between two gas wells spaced 670 metres apart.

Under the
circumstances, members of the Peace Environment and Safety Trustees
Society should be lauded for being “pests.” By highlighting the public
health and safety risks associated with sour gas, they may force the
provincial government to do the right thing: Call an inquiry that is
clearly in the public interest, but most particularly in the interests
of the women, children and men who call the Peace River region home.

Ben
Parfitt is a resource policy analyst with the B.C. office of the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and author of Fracture Lines:
Will Canada’s Water be Protected in the Rush to Develop Shale Gas?, a
report for the Program on Water Issues at the Munk School of Global
Affairs.

Read original article

Share