Read this article by Brian Morton in the Vancouver Sun
about a report by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, which says that closing the Kits base creates two high-risk situations: longer response times from the Sea Island base, 17 nautical miles away in Richmond; and potential overuse of the replacement inshore rescue boat (IRB), an open zodiac-style vessel to be used after the Kits base is closed.
We are reading a lot about “hearings” these days, especially as they relate to private rivers and pipelines/tanker traffic.
And, on the surface, what could be fairer than to let the public in on the decision making process?
I have indeed spoken of these things before.
The hearings are a fraud, plain and simple, for the public is denied the opportunity to make their views known on the wisdom of the project. The last hearings that meant anything were the BC Utilities Commission hearings about three years ago which reported back that the private rivers policy was “not in the public interest.”
The Campbell government immediately defanged the Commission, for embarrassing findings were not a good idea as far as the government was concerned.
There’s much to be said for technical hearings into environmental matters.
As long as the decision to hold them comes after the public has had a chance to air its opinions.
British Columbians had that right through the Regional District until 2008 when the Squamish Lillooet Regional District vetoed the plan to dam the Ashlu River. The Campbell government immediately took the power to evaluate away from the Regional Districts.
Ashlu is a cautionary tale, for everything the public and experts said about this proposed venture came true. It is an environmental nightmare with thousands of fish blocked from passage by the dam – so delicately referred to as the “weir” by the company.
I have been to a number of joint federal/provincial hearings and, as I have said before, I’d rather have a root canal without novocaine than attend another. The chair and the company representative are joined at the hip even demonstrably socializing before and after the “hearing”. The desirability of the project is off limits for the great unwashed, not so for the company spokesperson who can sing the project’s praises as much as he likes.
Now, let’s go to the root of the matter. Unless you live in an NDP riding. no one is raising questions on your behalf.
Isn’t it remarkable that with a project getting more and more opposed by the public, not one provincial Liberal MLA nor any federal Tory MP will utter a peep about the wisdom of the pipelines and tanker traffic proposed? When they do mention it, like my Conservative MP John Weston, they demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of what is proposed. Think on that – not one single government MLA or MP has demanded hearings into the wisdom of the project before it moves to the environmental assessment stage.
It’s worse, actually, for the Prime Minister has made it plain that no matter what the joint hearings into the pipelines and tankers recommend, the projects will go ahead.
Thus is the state of democracy in this province.
It has been accurately observed that in politics six weeks is an eternity. By April/May of 2013, who knows what the issues of the moment might be? I’ll tell you my bet in a moment.
It is this question which should spur the Liberals into doing something about their leadership – or lack of it.
I simply cannot see how, short of a fluke, Christy Clark can lead her party to victory in May 2013.
Ms. Clark didn’t have a chance from the start. With but one MLA supporting here she had to pull off a miracle in order to start putting Humpty Dumpty together again. Ms Clark doesn’t have it within her to lead in a forceful way – the sad fact is that she simply is not a leader, period.
For the good of her party the premier should step aside. If the Liberals held a leadership convention, soon, the new leader could hardly do worse. Let’s leave that for a moment.
The issues next May are likely to be energy and the environment. The Northern Gateway proposition has become huge; the state of BC Hydro being forced to pay hugely inflated prices to private power companies is catching on; the issues around Natural gas, LNG and “fracking” will be much more focused.
The NDP has had a free run with these issues and, in my opinion have not done a good job in stating a firm policy.
The energy critic John Horgan has, amazingly enough, supported the LNG plant and pipeline through very sensitive territory to it.
He has refused to condemn the increase capacity for Kinder-Morgan on the flimsy excuse that they have not filed their request yet, an amazing stance when you think that they will be pumping bitumen through sensitive areas which is what Enbridge proposes to do and the know all they’ll ever need to know about spills of bitumen. His policy on so-called run of rivers has been wishy washy.
Premier Clark has been pathetic on these subjects and this is the very reason the Libs should dump her.
Would Ms Clark leaving and a new leader chosen lead the Liberals back to power next May?
I very much doubt it – they would, however, at least have a chance whereas they don’t have any chance the way things presently look.
The leadership contest would have to have two results – a leader who had the backing of his MLAs and a clear energy and environmental program that could get public support. If the convention doesn’t give the party “bounce” in the polls, and more importantly, bounce with the voters, it will fail. Yet, as I have been saying, they’re dead in the water as it is and a change is their only chance.
Who could provide a leadership that British Columbians might follow?
I haven’t the faintest idea. The strong man in the caucus is Kevin Falcon but he scarcely could be seen as a man of the environment.
In any event, that’s not my problem.
It gets down to this – whether change would help is uncertain; without change it is all but certain that not only will they lose the election, they might lose their party in the bargain.
Read this article by Jeremy Deutsch in Coquitlam Now about singer/songwriter Joe Keithley filing nomination papers to be a candidate for the NDP nomination in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain (August 22, 2012)
Read more: http://www.thenownews.com/news/punk+rocker+looks+nominee+Coquitlam/7130489/story.html
The proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan bitumen pipelines through BC are finally receiving the attention they deserve – as is the much-needed corollary conversation on the Alberta Tar Sands and their true impact on Canada’s economic future, elevated to national prominence by Official Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair. Yet, as big of a game-changer as oil pipelines and tankers would be for BC, one could argue that the collection of proposed natural gas-related developments on the table is, taken together, at least as transformative for the province’s future – though you wouldn’t know it from the relative silence on the topic.
Until recently, that is. The past several months have seen a number of highly significant events related to this matter.
First, in mid-June, Apache Canada announced a massive new shale gas find in the Liard Basin, which stretches from northeast BC into the southeast corner of the Yukon. The Liard play, being touted as the “best shale gas reservoir in North America”, is west of the Horn River basin play, already one of the world’s largest. The find is undoubtedly a game-changer, elevating northeast BC to the world’s mecca for the relatively new, yet highly controversial process for breaking open shale gas formations deep underground, known as “fracking”.
The next big development came the day after Apache’s announcement, when the NDP, led by Energy Critic and likely future Energy Minister John Horgan, came out fully supporting an expanded natural gas industry in Northeast BC, downplaying environmental concerns about fracking. In the same breath, the Official Opposition showed clear support for the Liberal plan to build a number of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants in Kitimat to export the resource to Asia.
The party’s position was solidified last week when the Georgia Straight reported it was fully backing a new pipeline from Summit Lake, north of Prince George – Encana, EOG and Apache Canada’s joint venture Pacific Trails Pipeline – to carry natural gas from northeast BC to three proposed LNG refineries in Kitimat.
Finally, Premier Christy Clark announced a week later that her government will be reclassifying previously dirty natural gas as “clean” – but only when it’s burned to power these proposed LNG plants in Kitimat. The Campbell/Clark Government previously banned the development of new gas-fired electrical plants, putting the emphasis on renewable or so-called “clean” energy alternatives – wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro.
The premise for these new multi-billion dollar LNG plants is to access new markets in Asia which currently pay far more for gas than North American customers. Prices in China, Japan and Korea range up to $17 per thousand cubic feet versus a historic low of two to three dollars in North America today – largely thanks to the glut of natural gas flooding the domestic market as a result of new shale gas plays. The idea is to turn some of BC’s plentiful gas supply into liquid, put it on tankers and ship it to Asia to reap big profits. Without these prices, big finds like Apache’s in the Liard Basin simply don’t make sense to develop.
While the plan looks financially (though certainly not environmentally) promising on the surface, it’s fraught with complications:
1. The process of converting gas to liquid is enormously energy intensive. According to Christy Clark, all the the power from BC Hydro’s proposed new 1,100 Megawatt Site C Dam on the Peace River would be required for just Shell’s one proposed LNG plant in Kitimat. That may have changed, now that these plants are allowed to burn their own cheap gas for power, but, curiously, Site C Dam has not been taken off the table in the wake of that announcement. The otherwise energy self-sufficient BC has nowhere near enough electrical supply to power three new LNG plants and all the new mines the Clark Government is pushing forward.
2. The whole plan is contingent on this high price differential carrying forward – which is doubtful for a number of reasons. China’s economy is already showing signs of slowing down, while Japan is looking to restart its nuclear program; where will its energy demand be in 10 years when these plants are built and supplying the Asian market with LNG?
3. We’re not the only horse in the race. China has its own shale gas plays – which it is now starting to develop. Moreover, a number of other countries are thinking the same way we are – chief among them Australia, which is much further along and has already secured contracts to sell LNG to China.
4. The main method of supplying these plants – gas from fracking operations – is coming under increased scrutiny globally, with various moratoria having been instituted in other regions, relating to concerns over water use and contamination, earthquakes, and myriad human and animal health concerns. Fracking producers may well (and should) face increased regulation – meaning added costs and further reduced profits – or, worse, outright restrictions and shutting down of operations as awareness and evidence build against this controversial technique.
LNG and Mines Mean Site C
As befuddled and full of flip-flopery as the Liberals have been on this file, the NDP are in quite a pickle too. First, they give their environmental seal of approval to shale gas, while supporting the massively risky undertaking that is building and fueling multi-billion dollar plants on BC’s coast to turn this gas into liquid and ship it to new markets in Asia. But when the Liberals reclassify gas as “clean” (remember, the NDP just did as much themselves not a week previous) in order to allow these plants to use their own gas to power the enormously energy-intensive liquid compression process, the Opposition cries foul. Why? Because burning gas isn’t clean. So which is it, Mr. Dix?
I filmed a rally in Victoria two years ago led by First Nations and farmers from the Peace Valley in opposition to Site C Dam. NDP Energy Critic John Horgan, to his credit, attended the rally and spoke – but he stopped short of outright opposing the dam. He would only say that it required a full environmental assessment and that it should only proceed if the science supports it.
Then, in January, 2011, Horgan told the Georgia Straight that he didn’t think Site C was “necessary” at the time – though still leaving the door open to the project:
They want some peace in the valley, and as long as the spectre of Site C hangs over their head, there’s never going to be a comfort level in the community,” Horgan said. “They want a full-fledged, full-on environmental assessment, so that they can put on the table the science of the sloughing, the costs of dredging, and the total costs on ratepayers of a $6- to $7- to $8- or even $9-billion project.
Earlier this year, my colleague at the Common Sense Canadian, Rafe Mair put NDP leader Adrian Dix on the spot regarding Site C and got more of the same fence-sitting.
To my understanding, the NDP is on the fence or publicly committed to the above schemes – Site C, fracking, LNG – for three main reasons:
1. It is conscious of not allowing itself to be branded by its political opponents as “anti-progress” or “anti-industry”, especially after having taken a strong position against the Enbridge pipeline
2. It is wary of not stepping on the toes of First Nations who have signed onto to the LNG scheme – particularly the Haisla Nation of Kitimat, who have also been vocal opponents of the Enbridge pipeline.
3. It recognizes how much the province’s coffers have come to depend on royalties, licenses and other fees related to the natural gas industry and doesn’t want to disturb that flow, leading to big deficits that will play into its opponents’ hands.
While these are all politically understandable reasons for supporting this massive industrialization of northern BC, they do not excuse the arguments against this program.
In the very least, the environmental and health concerns associated with fracking and the loss of vital farmland and fish and wildlife habitat from Site C – not to mention the notion of massive public subsidies for an industry on less than solid ground going forward – should argue for a more mature position from the province’s government-in-waiting. They know this whole scheme is fraught with complications and this outright endorsement of it shows the NDP is ready to put short-term politics ahead of reasoned, long-term policy for the province.
Subsidizing Energy for Industry
Clearly, Site C, mining, fracking, LNG are all interrelated. Even if Site C isn’t used to power LNG, there are over a dozen proposed new mines in northern BC – each of which is hungry for taxpayer-subsidized electricity. This begs the question – one answered by economist Erik Andersen in a recent interview with Rafe Mair: should the public be subsidizing new industry at all, with skyrocketing power bills and new $10-plus billion dam projects like Site C?
One of the key bones of contention at this year’s failed Rio climate conference was the matter of ending subsidies for hydrocarbon production. Plainly, this is a no-brainer, if we are to get on with the necessary transition away from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. Moreover, the wealthiest corporations in history are the last entities that should be receiving public subsidies. And yet, we learned through a leaked memo that the Harper Government was leading the charge against the move to end hydrocarbon subsidies. So much for the “free market” Stephen Harper and his fellow Milton Friedman disciples keep railing on about!
So in that regard, it makes abundant sense for the natural gas industry to use some of its own product to supply the enormous energy needs of these LNG plants. And yet, anyone should be able to recognize the environmental folly of reclassifying gas as “clean” to enable its burning, to ship more gas half way around the world to be…burned. And that’s ignoring the myriad environmental problems associated with the initial extraction of the gas through fracking.
A Looming Boondoggle
No matter the degree to which Site C or our public hydroelectric system are used to power this LNG program, the taxpayers of BC, as shareholders in our gas resource, are impacted by the choices the industry makes on numerous levels. We need to ask whether this LNG-Asian market vision is an economically viable, environmentally responsible idea, or an epic resource boondoggle in the making, as we have seen in the past with similar forays into the Asia market with our coal and timber.
These political parties and the industry are banking on achieving a higher price for their gas in Asian markets – particularly China and Japan. But China has its own shale gas potential and is only just beginning to develop it. On top of that, China’s economy – and thus energy demand – is showing real signs of faltering. It will take us 5-10 years to build all these LNG plants and the additional energy assets to power them. Will China still be paying premium prices for LNG a decade from now, given the volatility of the various factors which enable that pricing today?
There are other players, such as Korea and Southeast Asia who might. Petronas Energy of Malaysia recently scooped up Candian gas company Progress Energy for over $5 Billion.
But this raises another question: how will this benefit the BC and Canadian economy – especially in light of new labour laws from the Harper Government that allow companies like Petronas to import foreign workers and pay them 15% less than Canadian employees. So under this system, we could see many jobs going to foreigners (excepting those that are too technical to be done by cheap, imported workers), while these new profits flow out of Canada, along with the energy resource.
This LNG scheme – as with plans to export Alberta bitumen to Asia – should be viewed as a hail mary pass to try and get the Canadian oil and gas industry out of the financial pit into which it is presently sinking. With prices where they are, there is a real danger that BC’s once-thriving industry could collapse, without a North American market willing to pay a reasonable price for its product. And yet, Site C, LNG and fracking, taken together – as they should be – constitute a massive gamble for the citizens of Birtish Columbia, both environmentally and economically. As such it’s time we have a frank conversation about the issue before rushing headlong into a potential boondoggle of unprecedented proportions for our province.
Perhaps what needs to happen here – from both an environmental and economic perspective – is a planned ramping down of the North American natural gas supply, until prices begin to stabilize again. As energy economists like Jeff Rubin argue, the most effective way to regulate energy consumption is through price. Clearly, at $2-3/unit of energy, there is no incentive for the North American public or industry to conserve natural gas. Nor does this price point benefit the gas industry or the public, who are partners in the resource through the royalties and tax dollars we receive from its sale – all of which are significantly diminished in this climate. And yet, reducing supply in the North American market would be a tremendous undertaking that requires a level of collusion – and may not be practical, regardless, with hundreds of companies looking out for their own short-term interests.
In any event, while the public reaction and much-needed discussion around these issues have been delayed, there are signs they are now developing quickly. The political discussion surrounding the issue is intensifying, as is the media’s coverage of it. Already, the bubble shows signs of bursting, as Kitimat LNG – the joint venture between Encana, EOG and Apache – was recently delayed by another year as the consortium has yet to sign the contracts it needs with Asian buyers to finance the project. Meanwhile, some First Nations and environmentalists are beginning to organize protests against the consortium’s Pacific Trails Pipeline – the primary connector between fracked gas of northeast BC and this and other proposed LNG plants on the coast. Opposition to Site C Dam has been steadily growing as well, as I documented at this year’s record-setting ‘Paddle for the Peace’.
It’s high time this issue generated some of the intensity that the Enbridge project has received – as it would likely have as big, if not an even greater cumulative impact on the future of this province, environmentally and socioeconomically.
In this piece, the first of a series of three, we explore why a National Energy Program is political suicide, yet something called a National Energy Strategy is all the rage.
Decades ago Canadians were treated to a strategy that involved the oil and gas industry called the National Energy Program – its implications still resonate today. The program entailed Canada getting its fair share of the abundant natural resource wealth while establishing Petro-Canada as a vertically integrated, well to pump, crown corporation and an integral component of the industry. At no point did this move represent nationalizing the industry, as most of the world’s industry is, but instead simply aimed to have Alberta’s resource bounty diversified throughout the nation, while working in conjunction with private industry and its major players. What James Laxer explains as a “Canadianization” of the industry.
Through price controls that kept domestic consumption affordable and taxation on exports, which filled coffers in Ottawa by targeting foreign-owned players in the Canadian oil and gas patch, the federal government was able to offer a wide array of attractive incentives designed solely to encourage the upstart, growth and stability of wholly owned Canadian firms, while at the same time developing the public crown corporation to serve Canadian domestic needs and Interests.
This allowed for a threefold approach which involved: limiting the excessive dominance of foreign oil majors, creating “Oil independence” from the international – OPEC led – market, and encouraging development of private Canadian owned oil companies while nationalizing some of the benefits in an effort to facilitate a strong Canadian stake in the game, important operational inroads into the industry, and a handle on its reserves and future direction.
Since Harper’s regime was installed by the oil giants operating in Canada, a much diminished and demonized Petro-Canada was quietly privatized for a song (marking the single largest share divesture in history). Five years later, in what was billed as a bid to bolster Canadian Nationalism, Suncor, the Tarsands behemoth, sucked up Petro-Canada in a merger that saw share prices rise once again, a reoccurring event after the public divesture of the remaining 45 million plus shares. The 2004 dumping of Petro-Canada marked the end of reasonable policy making in the oil and gas patch and the final victory for an unbridled global corporate free-for-all.
Under the NEP of old, foreign operators such as CNOOC would not be anywhere near the Tar Sands control-and-command centre, let alone slowly becoming a dominant player. Instead, they would have a place in developing the resource and exporting it but that would come at a significant cost in the form of export taxes going directly to Ottawa, something domestic companies could avoid. Moreover, had we still run with NEP-style policies, domestic prices would be capped and Canadians would enjoy both a secured supply into the future, eastward flowing supply lines (limiting our reliance on imports) and affordable petroleum products, while at the same time encouraging wholly owned and private Canadian companies to be at the very center of the growing industry, with the resulting fiscal rewards remaining within our borders and in the pockets of Canadians.
That is the fundamental difference between a National Energy Program stickhandled in Ottawa on behalf of Canadians and a National Energy Strategy stickhandled by oil majors on behalf of Global Corporate interests and executed by our politicians. Fundamentally speaking, the NEP goal was a fully integrated domestic industry shielded from the whims of the global market place, while a National Energy Strategy is the exact opposite. It is instead fully integrated with the global markets and largely owned and operated by foreign interests. One offers the people of Canada an integral role, adequate returns and a myriad of perks, while the other is a complete capitulation to some of the most powerful forces on earth in lieu of governments standing down and implementing the strategy drafted in corporate board rooms and rolled out by the EPIC corporate “think tank” (the secretive group of energy and political power-brokers previously detailed in these pages).
It is not difficult to comprehend the stark contrasts between the two approaches and why the rhetoric resulting from them is drastically different. When governments implement policies such as the NEP of old, people will benefit in the form of stronger public budgets, greater control over the resource and its extraction processes and policies, secure energy supplies into the future and a greater share of the pie, not to mention perks like affordable petroleum by-products and a much reduced price at the pump.
By contrast, the policies being ushered in by EPIC and its compliant politicians result in the mirror opposite. A reduction in our ability to protect the environment and a gutting of processes designed to uphold Canadian values. Exposure to globalized petroleum markets resulting in high prices at home, little control over the development and export of the resources and royalty regimes that cater to multi-national interests as Canadians are left exposed to the whims of market volatility. And, of course, there is the over all socializing of losses, costs and environmental impacts, as well as, a privatization and off-shoring of the wealth that is generated while governments are left to file deficits and increase debt.
The “benefit” to Canadians accrues to the very few plugged into the higher levels of the petroleum industry, their lackies and those lucky enough to obtain the few high paying “jobs.” In the final instance of jobs it seems those lucky few will in fact be American service men and veterans as apparently the talent pool in Canada does not exist, even with the swelling unemployment lines resulting from the 500,000 manufacturing jobs shed during Harper’s oily regime.
These fundamental underpinnings are never raised in the corporate media. Instead we are treated to a now decades-old demonizing of the NEP and similar policies while celebrating a new “National Energy Strategy” which is designed to fleece Canadians as illustrated above. Our mainstream media and politicians are only too happy to dish up an array of ridiculous rhetoric which amounts to hollow grandstanding and politicking while avoiding the real issues Canadians care about, all the while paving the way for the aggressive globalization of the agenda.
This is done through the implementation of the National Energy Strategy which has seen its most pivotal times occur during the height of the Summer vacation season in Kanaskis and again this summer on the east coast, in a less than transparent bid to keep the protests at bay and the implications under wraps.
With these fundamental points established, I will continue explore the details of the new National Energy Strategy offered up by EPIC and dutifully carried out by Canadian politicians on behalf of the corporations interested in transitioning Canada into an Energy Superpower in the remaining two pieces of this three-part series.
Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on evidence that despite his feigned commitment to “listen to science” on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, Prime Minster Stephen Harper has “disembowelled” the science budget for the pipeline review. (Aug. 20, 2012)
VANCOUVER – While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.
And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.
Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.
The department didn’t have them.
“As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a five-page letter dated June 6, 2012.
The response went on to say there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but Fisheries rated it medium to high.
DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required.
“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response.
“Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.”
Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.”
He went on to say “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.”
But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.
The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.
All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.
The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.
“He (Harper) says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”
Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.
Check out this interview from Aug. 15 on Vancouver Co-op Radio’s “Discussion”, with host Charles Boylan. Guest Damien Gillis and Boylan cover a wide range of topics relating to energy and the future of the BC and Canadian economy. The pair discuss the myriad alternatives popping up of late to the embattled Enbridge pipeline, including Kinder Morgan’s planned twinning of its Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver, and shipping bitumen by rail. They also cover natural gas development in northern BC – including controversial hydraulic fracturing and the building of a new pipeline to carry this gas to Kitimat and covert it to Liquified Natural Gas to sell in Asian markets – plus an alternative economic vision for BC that doesn’t depend on becoming a major fossil fuel corridor to the world. (Aug. 15 – 1 hr)
Read this story from The Georgia Straight on the BC NDP’s support for a new pipeline designed to take natural gas from controversial hydraulic fracturing operations in Northeast BC to Kitimat on the province’s coast to be converted to Liquefied Natural Gas and shipped to Asian markets. (Aug. 15, 2012)
The B.C. NDP is opposing the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline, but it supports a pipeline that will transport gas produced through fracking.
For Michael Jessen, the Green Party of B.C.’s energy critic, that’s a clear double standard.
“The NDP is trying to have its cake and eat it too,” the Nelson-based Jessen told the Straight in a phone interview. According to him, New Democrats are wrong to back the planned 463-kilometre Pacific Trail Pipelines project that will run a pipe from Summit Lake, 55 kilometres north of Prince George, to a liquefied-natural-gas plant in Kitimat. The project is a joint venture of Apache Canada Ltd., EOG Resources Canada Inc., and Encana Corporation.
Kitimat is also the western end of Enbridge’s 1,170-kilometre pipeline that would move bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands.
Jessen said that the B.C. NDP’s position on the two projects that involve exports to Asia, in particular China, is contradictory. “Every credible scientist in the world says that we are in very grave danger of passing a tipping point when the planet may reach temperatures that cause considerable havoc,” he said. “And the solution that many of these scientists say we need to follow is to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.”
Fracking is the practice of pumping fresh water and toxic chemicals deep into the ground to fracture shale bedrock in order to release natural gas.
“It’s been proven that when fracking occurs, there is a considerable amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere,” Jessen explained. “Methane is a far more immediate threat in terms of greenhouse gas when it is released.”
John Horgan is the B.C. NDP critic for energy, mines, and petroleum resources. “In terms of the notion that there’s a contradiction in NDP policy, I don’t think there is,” the Juan de Fuca MLA told the Straight in a phone interview.
Although the extraction and use of both oil and gas affect the environment, Horgan stressed that the impacts of gas are “not as devastating”.
“One of the arguments being made is that they’re both the same, and they’re not,” he said about the two fossil fuels.
The two-term MLA noted that his party supports the expansion of the natural-gas industry in B.C. “provided that appropriate regulatory regimes were in place”. The two-term MLA added that if the B.C. NDP forms the government next year, it will strike an expert panel to review fracking.
“We think that the industry is mature here, as opposed to other places where they’ve had concerns,” Horgan said.
Read more: http://www.straight.com/article-755826/vancouver/bc-ndp-favours-fracking-pipeline
The following statement was made by Miranda Holmes today at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in Comox, BC.
——————————————————————————————
Many voices have been heard during these hearings, yet one has remained silent: the oily character at the centre of the debate. I think that’s a shame and so I am using my time before the panel to allow this character’s case to be made.
Hi, my name’s Dil Bit. That’s short for Diluted Bitumen, but I feel like I’m amongst friends here, so let’s not be too formal.
I come from the tar sands and, as you know, Alberta totally digs me. Alberta’s so generous she wants to share me with everyone.
If she gets her way, I’ll be passing through British Columbia a lot in the future, so I thought I should introduce myself properly.
As fossil fuels go, I’m a bit unconventional. But, as Alberta’s favourite son Steve will tell you, I’m totally ethical. (And don’t let those jet setting celebrities tell you any different.)
I’m also way better than conventional crude oil.
For instance, my total acid concentrations are up to 20 times higher than conventional crude. My sulphur content is up to 10 times higher and I’m up to 70 times thicker. Pretty impressive, eh?
Yeah, it’s true I can be a bit abrasive. Bits of quartz, pyrite, silicates, sure I carry them around. It’s just the way I’m made.
So conventional crude doesn’t have my grit. So what? No need to point out, like those granola eaters at the Natural Resources Defense Council did, that putting me in a pipeline is “like sandblasting the inside of the pipe.”
I don’t know why the Americans have taken against me, because – like so many of them – I pack some serious heat. Thanks to my true grit and my thickness (I like to think of it as strength), I make pipes hotter than conventional crude – and harder to monitor. In fact, pipelines carrying me are16 times more likely to leak.
See? I told you I was better.
I’m Alberta’s most precious resource. You think she and Steve are going to let just anyone transport me? No way.
For my travels through British Columbia, they’re going to use Enbridge, a fine, upstanding company with an excellent track record. Why, it took Enbridge 10 years to spill half as much oil as the Exxon Valdez. And they didn’t just spill it in one spot – they spread it around.
Regulators in the US thought the three million litres of me Enbridge spilled in Michigan was so funny they compared the company to those great comedy characters the Keystone Kops.
If Enbridge maintains its current success rate it should be able to meet Steve’s federal standards, which allow undetected pipeline leaks of less than 2% of capacity per week.
For the Northern Gateway project that means Enbridge could legally leave 11 million litres of me a week behind on my way to Kitimat without getting into any serious trouble. And why should they? Eleven million litres of me would be more than three times funnier than Michigan, right?
That’s good news for me, because I’ve heard there are some mighty pretty places in northern BC and I think it would be a shame not to get to know them better.
And it’s good news for BC, because your premier’s promising lots of jobs out of oil and gas exports, and cleaning up after me will sure keep people employed.
Sorry if any of the spots I’m going to wreck is one of your favourites, but I’ve got to keep Alberta happy. You know what she’s like.