Category Archives: WATER

Potential LNG Energy Demands Stall Hydro’s Long-term Planning

Share

Read this story from the Vancouver Sun on BC Hydro’s inability to accurately plan for future energy demands given the enormous potential requirements of proposed Liquefied Natural Gas projects on BC’s coast. (Nov. 19, 2012)

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.
However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgqEklP7

WASHINGTON – Paula Broadwell, whose extramarital affair with CIA chief David Petraeus led to his resignation, is telling friends she is devastated by the fallout.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Petraeus+biographer+Paula+Broadwell+devastated+regrets+damage/7570658/story.html#ixzz2Cgpo5BTa

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpT24MB

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2CgpIzrSC

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

BC Hydro is getting an extension on its mega-plan for new electricity development so it can calculate how a new liquefied natural gas export industry would impact British Columbia’s power resources.

Energy Minister Rich Coleman said Friday that the deadline for Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan or IRP, which was scheduled to be submitted to his office by next month, has been extended to August 2013 – three months after the next provincial election.

It’s the second delay – the original deadline was December 2011 – and it shows the challenges Hydro faces in developing a long-term electricity outlook amid rapid changes in the North American and global energy sectors.

The IRP is supposed to be a 20-year outlook on B.C.’s electricity needs, and Hydro has been working on it for several years. But just as Hydro released a draft version for public discussion, opportunities for LNG exports began to boom in Asia – particularly after the Fukushima nuclear disaster convinced Japanese regulators to look at other energy sources for electricity generation.

B.C., with vast, untapped natural gas reserves and proximity to Asia, is considered a secure potential supplier to that market.

Many of the world’s largest energy companies have indicated an interest in exporting LNG from B.C., and a half-dozen plants have already been proposed for Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

However, the industry requires substantial amounts of energy to process and compress gas for export – equivalent to at least 20 per cent of B.C.’s present electricity consumption. That demand spike is not factored into Hydro’s draft IRP.

As a result, the IRP was more or less out of date from the day it was released this summer.

Coleman said in an interview that the IRP deadline extension is intended to address that problem. He said the government is already engaging in negotiations with LNG project developers.

Those developers – according to Clean Energy B.C., a group representing the province’s independent power producers – are concerned that Hydro cannot in a timely fashion build the generating capacity and transmission infrastructure to meet their needs.

“I am very confident that it’s a valid industry, and if we get our fundamentals right, this is going to change our economy for generations to come,” Coleman said. “That’s why it’s such an important focus right now.”

Coleman said the government would amend its Clean Energy Act in spring 2013 to extend Hydro’s delivery date for the IRP. In the meantime, negotiations with companies such as Petronas, Shell, BG and Apache continue.

The Shell project alone represents a $12-billion investment. “The result of those negotiations are going to obviously help shape that 20-year electricity plan. It was really clear that we needed to make sure we had that piece nailed down as we entered into the IRP process. So that’s why I’m going to extend it,” Coleman said.

NDP energy critic John Hor-gan noted that the deadline extension means the public won’t see Hydro’s amended IRP until after next May’s provincial election.

“Clearly they are delaying this until after the election,” Horgan said. “The downside of that is that it exposes the absence of any coherent plan. The upside is that they won’t do any more damage until after the election.”

Horgan said the B.C. Liberals are in disarray on the topic of natural gas, with Premier Christy Clark proclaiming it a major potential source of revenue and jobs while Finance Minister Mike de Jong is blaming declining gas prices and demand for a significant drop in provincial revenue.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/prospects+delay+Hydro+mega+plan/7494384/story.html#ixzz2Cgp7Y2oH

Share

‘Canada’s Carbon Corridor’: Multi-Media Dialogue in North Vancouver Nov. 14

Share

This Wednesday evening, the Vancouver International Mountain Film Festival is hosting a multi-media discussion of “Canada’s Carbon Corridor” at Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver. The event is part of the festival’s Fall Series – a week of films and presentations on outdoor adventure and environmental themes.

The title for Wednesday’s event comes from a term developed by the team producing the forthcoming documentary film Fractured Landof which I am co-director. We came up with the concept to articulate a big-picture view of the interconnected web of major oil, gas, coal, mining and hydroelectric projects proposed and in development across northern BC and Alberta, and the Harper and Clark governments’ grand plan to export these resources to new markets in Asia. I view the Carbon Corridor as the biggest transformation to Western Canada’s socioeconomic, cultural and environmental fabric since the colonial, “nation building” days of the railroads of the last century. And I don’t think that’s an understatement.

I will be sharing the stage with six other “inspiring Canadians who are working to protect our coast, our environment and indigenous community’s rights and cultures”, according to VIMFF’s web page for the event. That list includes event organizer Megan Martin, young First Nations singer/songwriter Ta’Kaiya Blaney, Ben West of the Wilderness Committee, photographer Zack Embree, Great Bear Rainforest eco-tour guide and activist Norm Hann, and Kim Slater, who ran 1,177 km run across BC in search of alternatives to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline.

My 25 min presentation, titled “Traveling Canada’s Carbon Corridor Through Film: The Making of Fractured Land, will feature a series of short clips from our forthcoming film, which explores the industrialization of northern BC and Alberta through the eyes of a young First Nations law student, Caleb Behn. I’ll be retracing a recent two and a half week filming journey with Caleb across the Carbon Corridor – through the conversations we had with people in the various communities affected by these projects and visuals of both industrial activity and the spectacular, untouched wilderness threatened by this plan. 

In addition to the series of presentations on stage Wednesday evening, a number of environmental organizations will be on hand with additional information about these important issues.

The evening promises to be a dynamic, compelling discussion on the challenges and solutions facing the future of Canada’s economy, society and environment.

Tickets for the “Canada’s Carbon Corridor” event can be purchased here for $15.00 or $17.00 at the door. The show takes place on Wednesday, November 14 at Centennial Theatre in North Vancouver (2300 Lonsdale Avenue). Doors open 6:30 pm, show starts 7:30.

Share
A water pit for fracking on Fort Nelson First Nation territory

Audio: Damien Gillis Discusses Obama, FIPA and Water Licenses for Fracking on SFU Radio

Share

Damien Gillis and SFU Radio’s Sylvia Richardson discuss a wide range of energy topics – from the impact of Barack Obama’s recent presidential victory on North American climate and energy issues to the potential effects of the Chinese FIPA trade deal on Canada’s environment. The two also cover Fort Nelson First Nation’s campaign against long-term water licenses for shale gas extraction that would see billions of litres of fresh water taken from their rivers and contaminated. Listen to the conversation in three parts. (From Nov. 10, 2012)

Audio: How Obama’s Victory Affects Climate and Energy Issues in North America and Globally

Audio: Fort Nelson First Nation’s Campaign Against Massive Long-term Water Licenses for Shale Gas

 

Canada-China FIPA’s Impact on Energy and Environmental Issues in Canada

Learn more from Fort Nelson First Nation leaders about these water licenses and how you can support their efforts at a public dialogue in Vancouver on Tuesday Nov. 13 – details here.

Share

Fort Nelson First Nation to Discuss Massive Shale Gas Water Licenses Nov. 13 in Vancouver

Share

Leaders of Fort Nelson First Nation from northeast BC are coming to Vancouver to share their concerns over 20 new long-term water withdrawal licenses the BC Liberal Government is considering issuing for shale gas operations in their traditional territory.

One such license alone – for which natural gas giant Encana is expecting imminent approval – would enable the company to dam and divert up to 3 BILLION litres a year of fresh water from the Fort Nelson River, which is described by elders as the lifeblood of their territory and identified by the community as a cultural protection zone. Under the current Water Act, withdrawal licenses are valid for up to 40 years.

“We are extremely concerned about a massive giveaway of water from our rivers and lakes, without any credible process identifying what the long-term impacts will be on our land, our families and on our community” says Fort Nelson First Nation Chief, Sharleen Wildeman. The chief will lead a 10-person delegation of council members, elders and band staff to Vancouver Tuesday Nov. 13 to take their concerns to the media and public.

The public is invited to attend a town hall dialogue featuring Chief, Council and community members from Fort Nelson First Nation – Tuesday evening at the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House (800 E. Broadway). Doors open at 6:30 – event runs from 7-9:30 pm.

The evening, which is co-hosted by Council of Canadians and the Wilderness Committee, will also feature a presentation by leading independent water and energy expert Ben Parfitt of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Encana’s license application, which would involve constructing a 20-metre concrete barrier across the river, is just one of 20 similar applications throughout the region, which could ultimately represent over a trillion litres of fresh water being diverted to shale gas production in the long-term. According to community representatives, “The water will be permanently withdrawn and mixed with highly toxic chemicals for shale gas extraction. Ultimately the majority of the water will be disposed of via ‘deep oilfield injection’.”

They also point out that Fort Nelson First Nation has worked for years with the natural gas industry and government to provide economic opportunities for it members and the entire province through responsible resource development. But the plan to issue these water licenses has forced the community to draw a line in the sand. After pursuing every other avenue available to it – including repeated efforts to reach out to the Province, which have gone ignored – the community feels it must now appeal to the public for support to put a stop to this plan and ensure the public and First Nations are properly consulted in the development of a responsible water management plan.

They insist that plan must include a comprehensive suite of safeguards for water – such as adequate baseline studies, multi-year development plans submitted by industry, environmental and industry monitoring, cumulative impacts assessment, and the ability to designate culturally significant land and water resources as off-limits to development.

To learn more on this important topic and find out how you can get involved, come be a part of the discussion with Fort Nelson First Nation and independent water and energy experts this Tuesday evening at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House.

Share

Mike Smyth: NDP Have a Fracking Problem

Share

Read this column by the Province’s Mike Smyth on the NDP’s confusing position on fracking – the controversial natural gas extraction method. (Oct. 21, 2012)

There’s still some mystery around the science and practice of fracking, a system of drilling for natural gas that’s become more and more controversial in recent years.

But trying to figure out where Adrian Dix and the NDP stand on the issue? Well, that’s one of the biggest fracking mysteries in B.C. politics right now.

Let’s start with what fracking – short for “hydraulic fracturing”- is and how it works in B.C.

Fracking involves sinking a deep, narrow well into the earth and bedrock and pumping tonnes of fluids – about 99 per cent water – down the pipe at very high pressures.

The pressurized fluid cracks the rock at the bottom of pipe, releasing the natural gas trapped within it.

This technological breakthrough has opened up a large and rapidly growing natural-gas industry in northeastern B.C., which Premier Christy Clark and her governing Liberals want to expand.

But environmentalists such as David Suzuki are sounding the alarm, warning about toxic waste water, accidental spills, contaminated drinking water and even increased risk of earthquakes.

Some environmental groups have demanded an all-out ban or moratorium on fracking in B.C., which the Liberals say would cost thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

So where does the NDP stand on it? It all depends who you talk to.

John Horgan, the NDP energy critic, said the New Democrats support an expanded natural-gas industry. But he also said an NDP government would set up an independent scientific panel to study the risks.

Could that scientific review lead to a moratorium on fracking in B.C., like the one just imposed in Quebec?

“You can’t rule out anything,” Horgan told me.

“I wouldn’t rule it out if the evidence is we need to do that [a moratorium]. But I haven’t seen that evidence yet, and that’s why we need to have a scientific assessment.”

But while Horgan tells me a fracking moratorium is possible, NDP leader Adrian Dix tells the industry a moratorium won’t happen.

Dix told oil-and-gas executives at a private meeting last month that an NDP government would not introduce a moratorium on frack-ing, leaving them “pleasantly surprised,” government-relations consultant David Heyman reported in a recent newsletter.

When I sought clarification from the NDP, I was referred to environment critic Rob Fleming, who at first assured me there would be no moratorium.

“You’d have to wind the clock back – there’s activity already going on all over,” he said.

But when I inform him that Horgan told me a moratorium is possible, Fleming changed his mind.

“The review comes first, and if it identifies risk from fracking activity that’s not known now, then he [Horgan] is correct,” Fleming said.

For those of you scoring along at home: that’s the NDP leader saying one thing, the energy critic saying another, and the environment critic saying both.

Read more: http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=48ea4881-04b3-4516-8dd5-361f42fe19f6&p=1

Share
A fracking rig in northeast BC's Horn River Basin (Damien Gillis photo)

Time the NDP Came Clean on Dirty Fracking, Gas-Powered LNG Plants

Share

My colleague, Damien Gillis, has been doing some superb work on “fracking” and I enter the discussion with considerable temerity. He is, after all, the brains and filmmaker of the organization and I the mere mouth.

It has seemed to me that we are moving – indeed may have already moved – away from the time when we were all opposed to fossil fuels in any form. The provincial government, for example, supported the so-called “run of river” (better described as “ruin of river”) projects by dumping all over using natural gas for power, even for the Burrard Thermal Plant, which is occasionally used by BC Hydro to shore up power in low water and extreme demand conditions.

In a breathtaking turnaround, Premier Clark has decided that when natural gas power is used to concentrate natural gas into a liquefied form it is no longer a nasty old fossil fuel.

Now, as if a magic wand had been waved, gas from fracking – extracting it from shale rock by using highly powered water pumps, laced with highly toxic chemicals –  is a wonderful idea.

To the utter disbelief of many, NDP energy critic John Horgan agrees!

This seems to me to be the classic way we do things – accept big business policy, let them get it firmly in place, organizing delivery to export sites to deliver to offshore customers, then hesitantly ask questions.

The Liberals I can understand. They run all policy by the Fraser Institute then its huckelty buck and away they go!

The environment only matters if it costs votes and it’s here the Clark government are acting on the correct assumption that the NDP doesn’t ask questions for they fear the taunt, “are you against everything?” This causes an immediate retreat into the coward’s corner such that they abandon their duty to hold government’s feet to the fire.

Let me pose two questions to the NDP.

Given the abundance of shale gas all around the world, is there not a real risk that the price of gas won’t permit us to export at a profit? Largely due to this recent glut of shale gas, natural gas prices are down and predicted to go lower. Under this regime, how can any government support such idiocy?

I’ll give you a hint, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, of what you’ll see in the 2013 BC budget – hundreds of millions of dollars counted as tax receipts from thus enhanced gas industry. That will get Premier Photo–Op just what she needs for the election – the promise of huge revenues permitting them to balance their budget. Money on the come that will never come, just like the 2009 Liberal Budget which came in a little short…like $2 BILLION short.

To put it bluntly, they will project income that won’t materialize and like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football – you never learn – you’re about to play the same game again! Moreover, you’re scared to ask the important questions for fear of being cast as “anti-business” or “anti-progress”.

Now don’t tell us that industry isn’t dumb enough to make huge investments when faced by huge losses. They can be and often are damned fools, pushed on by the momentum of old decisions they dare not abandon but, like Mr. Micawber, hope that “something will turn up”…Just like it did for the auto industry in 2011 when the government bailed them out.

Unfashionable though it seems to be in NDP circles these days, shouldn’t the Opposition be worried about environmental and safety concerns?

LNG has a good safety record except that when they have a problem it’s a huge one! Shouldn’t the good burghers of Prince Rupert and Kitimat have the NDP (forget the governments) and the Green Party be able to assure them that LNG plants in their midst is a safe plan? Can the NDP and Greens give that support? If they can, how come they were so against the proposed LNG plant in Texada Island a few years ago? Have things changed? Is it possible that the only thing that has changed is that the NDP might become government as long as they play their cards very carefully?

On the question of natural gas pipelines, is the NDP saying that no concerns should be raised, even though some local First Nations are starting to raise hell?

Rather than look at fracking not just as an environmental matter, what about safety?

Is there an increased chance of earthquakes? Obviously, if you dig a tunnel, you can be pretty sure it will eventually collapse – the casing for these bore holes can’t last forever. What impacts can this have?

And what about the water, contaminated with chemicals? Where does it go? Into the water table? Into our drinking water? Tell us, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, again (I won’t trouble governments since they couldn’t care less), are you satisfied with corporate assurances on this matter? Why would they be any more caring on this issue than they are on others?

Now the environment.

How much fossil fuel will be burned as the energy to capture the fossil fuel from the fracking process? Yes, we will use energy to extract energy which we will then use more energy for to send it to customers! If we are afraid of the impact on the environment of the Burrard Thermal Plant, surely we must be very worried indeed about burning gas to mine gas and process.

Is Site C not now going to be used to create power so that industry can use that at a very cheap price to get at the fracked gas? Doesn’t this mean that we will flood more land to sell power cheaply to those who will use this cheap energy to turn into profits from the fossil fuels extracted by fracking?

Come to think of it, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, let me pose the following propositions, not saying they are accurate but putting the onus on you and your corporate friends to show me I’m wrong. Let’s use the precautionary principle here:

1. Liquified natural gas (LNG) is very dangerous in the liquification process, the moving process and simply in storage. Your comments?

2. There is relatively little revenue to the province under the very best of circumstances – If you agree, why are you supporting LNG and if you disagree, let’s have your figures.

3. The likelihood is that the worldwide price for natural gas is dropping and will continue to drop, which will bring pressure on governments to subsidize and indeed bail out gas companies as happened with the automobile industry. If you disagree, why? If you agree, are you prepared to spend BC taxes one more time to bail out industry?

4. There is evidence of fracking leads to gas and other chemicals getting into groundwater thence into domestic water. What evidence do you have to deny this?

5. There is clear evidence of fracking causing earthquakes – what do you say to this?

6. Cheap power from Site C will subsidize gas companies in the fracking process – what say you to that?

7 Because of Site C, millions of hectares of farmland and grazing land will be lost – why should the people of BC make this sacrifice so that you can mine gas?

Then, gentlemen, this question: If BC has this huge capacity to make money, why are we liquefying it and sending it abroad when we could have all this cheap power for here at home? To keep our domestic energy costs low and make our industries more competitive?

I and the readers of The Common Sense Canadian – indeed all British Columbians await in the hopes that as an opposition party hoping to win government, you will favour us with an early reply.

Or is it, God forbid, that winning the next election is more important than an informed citizenry?

Share

Maude Barlow, Bill McKibben to Talk Oil and Gas Pipelines in Burnaby

Share

Council of Canadians Chair Maude Barlow and 350.org founder Bill McKibben will lead a discussion about oil and gas pipelines and tankers in Burnaby this Thursday evening. The event is the second stop in a seven-city tour discussing a range of oil and gas pipeline proposals and associated tanker traffic, the Alberta Tar Sands, natural gas fracking in northeast BC and proposed Liquified Natural Gas terminals on BC’s coast.

Barlow raised these same, interconnected issues in her speech at the Defend Our Coast rally in Victoria earlier this week, arguing the public and First Nations need to think beyond the proposed Enbridge pipeline and focus on the bigger picture of emerging “Carbon Corridor” through northern BC and Alberta, which encompasses plans for multiple oil, gas and condensate pipelines, refineries and tankers.

Bill McKibben is the founder of the global climate change activist organization, 350.org and a leading voice against Trans Canada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to refineries on the US Gulf Coast.

According to organizers, the event aims, “to raise awareness and build community solidarity and support in the fights to stop pipeline expansions in BC…The tour will help educate about the devastating environmental impacts of these massive pipeline projects, which will move tar sands crude to BC’s coastline where it will be loaded into supertankers and shipped through precarious waters to new markets.”

The tour continues on to Nanaimo for the Council of Canadians’ AGM and speeches by McKibben, financial author Linda McQuaig and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

The final two events will take place in Smithers on Oct. 29 and Prince George on Oct. 30. Caleb Behn, an aboriginal law student from northeast BC and the subject of the film in production Fractured Land, will join Barlow on the stage for the these two northern BC events to discuss fracking in his territories.

Thursday night’s event in Burnaby takes place Alpha Secondary School, 4600 Parker Street. Doors open at 6 PM, program starts at 6:30. More info on the tour available here.

Share

Anti-Fracking Candidate George Heyman Wins NDP Riding Nomination

Share

Read this column from Vaughn Palmer in The Vancouver Sun on former BCGEU president and current Sierra Club BC leader George Heyman’s victory in Sunday’s Vancouver-Fairview NDP riding nomination. (Oct. 22, 2012)

VICTORIA — B.C. New Democrats have nominated a leading critic of expanded natural gas production as a candidate for the next election, setting the stage for a showdown over the practice known as fracking.

George Heyman, who won the party nomination in Vancouver-Fairview Sunday, has been one of the leaders in the fight against hydraulic fracturing, the growing practice of extracting natural gas from shale deposits by injecting the rock with water at high pressure.

Fracking accounts for about half of the natural gas production in B.C. and is the key to future expansion and hopes of exporting the product in liquefied form to markets in Asia.

But as executive director of Sierra Club BC, Heyman has challenged the “rapid expansion of fracking, without sufficient oversight and scientific review to address the long list of threats and risks.”

During his tenure, the club toured the province with Gasland, a U.S.-made anti-fracking documentary that illustrates concerns about gas contamination of groundwater with sensational footage of tap water being set on fire as it flows from a faucet in somebody’s home.

“Fracking is referred to by some as ‘the Tar Sands of Natural Gas’ in terms of the water and energy resources needed to extract the hard-to-reach shale deposits,” declared the club in calling for a moratorium on the practice.

“The B.C. government needs to take a huge step back from their aggressive pursuit of unconventional gas and fracking to allow time to better understand the impacts, keep B.C.’s northeast from becoming a fragmented wasteland of gas wells, respect indigenous rights and protect the health of northern residents.”

Heyman reiterated the call on the eve of the NDP nomination meeting in Fairview.

“I’m not proposing that we don’t sell any gas,” he told reporter Carlito Pablo from the Georgia Straight. “I am proposing that we stop the expansion of new frack wells until we have an appropriate public study on the health impacts, the community impacts, the water impacts, and the climate, greenhouse-gas-emissions impact.”

Share
BC's Klinaklini River

Navigable Waters Protection Act under attack…again

Share

The Harper Government plans to further roll back the historic Navigable Waters Protection Act in this year’s omnibus budget bill. The new proposed changes to the Act follow serious cuts made in the 2009 budget, which included eliminating most environmental assessments based on navigable waters triggers and setting up a two-tier system separating waterways deemed worthy of protection from the vast majority which are not.

These new changes go even further. Based on the amendments included in this year’s 443-page budget bill, just 62 rivers and 97 lakes would enjoy the protection of the newly named Navigation Protection Act.

The Government isn’t hiding its intention with these changes, as Minister of Transportation Denis Lebel noted yesterday they could eliminate red tape for companies seeking to build mining and energy projects.

On CBC’s Power and Politics yesterday, Conservative pundit Tom Flanagan argued the new changes revert to the original spirit of the Act at its inception in 1882, namely to protect commercial navigation in major waterways, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway. But the principles upon which the Canadian Navigable Waters Protection Act were founded date back much further, to the Maga Carta and even Roman laws.

The Act historically balanced the right of navigation with rights to obstruct navigation through projects like bridges, pipelines, mines and other industrial impacts – but the process involved an environmental assessment which applied to any navigable watercourse. The 2009 amendments to the Act set up the principle of different classes of navigable waters and cut out the environmental assessment process, leaving the decision squarely in the hands of the transport minister. This latest gutting of the Act reduces the list of protected watercourses even further.

Environmental critics have been quick to attack the proposed changes. Keith Stewart of Greenpeace noted, “There are a lot of rivers not on the list that are used by Canadians and need to be protected.”

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May connected the changes to the Act to the long list of cuts to environmental protections and regulatory processes included Harper’s last omnibus budget bill. “The destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and renaming it the Navigation Act is part of a consistent pattern of Stephen Harper trying to remove federal constitutional authorities for the environment.”

First Nations leaders also voiced their concerns. Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, in the midst of the Alberta Tar Sands, had this to say: “I am seriously concerned this is an indication of corruption in our current government. We hope there will be a public outcry that echoes our sentiment. After all, we all share the responsibility to protect mother earth.”

Share
The spillway of North Vancouver's Cleveland Dam, which Metro Vancouver is considering tapping for hydro power (photo: www.ebejer.com)

Concerns Raised About Metro Vancouver’s Plan to Turn Drinking Water into Hydro Power

Share

Metro Vancouver is quite far along in a proposal to harness hydro power from our drinking water spillways at the Capilano reservoir’s Cleveland Dam and also at the Seymour reservoir. Although at first glance it might seem like a good idea, this plan introduces a new and potentially competing factor affecting the allocation of our local water supply.

The wisdom of this proposed endeavour is questionable given the growing risks of unpredictable climate change, environmentally intrusive construction, the involvement of private interests in a precious public asset, plus concerns about actual rather than theoretical economic viability.

Residents of Metro Van would care if they knew

The allocation and treatment of drinking water is a topic about which the public is increasingly concerned and passionate. However, residents of Metro Vancouver are virtually unaware of this proposal which was recently unanimously endorsed (September 2012) by the Board overseeing the project.

Earlier hydro power proposal shot down

This is not the first time hydro power generation from our water spills has been proposed. After serious consideration, a similar proposal was rejected some years ago.

Opportunity for public input poorly advertised


Metro Vancouver is required to consult with the public about this proposal. Appallingly, a ‘public consultation’ held on October 10, 2012 was attended by less than 50 members of the public. This was surely not an indication of lack of public interest. Rather, it indicates that ineffective and antiquated methods were used for announcing this opportunity for public input.

What you can do

This project is called the Joint Water Use Plan for the Capilano and Seymour watersheds (JWUP).
It has serious implications regarding the future use of our local water supplies and public funds.
Effective consultation with the public is needed.

You can find out more about it here.

You can submit official feedback by October 19, 2012 here.

You can tell Metro Vancouver what you think about this JWUP proposal by emailing: icentre@metrovancouver.org

Mary Johnston represents watermatters, a Vancouver-based business specializing in water treatment equipment

 

Share