Tag Archives: BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers

Kinder Morgan’s Grand Plan to Pipe Oil Sands Crude

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

From TheTyee.ca – June 2, 2011

by Mitchell Anderson

A quiet application to the National Energy Board (NEB) may soon vastly expand oil tanker traffic through the waters of Burrard Inlet, making Vancouver the major conduit of oils sands crude and bitumen to China.

Trans Mountain Pipeline, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan that operates the 300,000 barrel per day (bpd) pipeline from Alberta to B.C. and Washington State has applied to the NEB to enter into long-term buying contracts called “firm service.”

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

Documents filed by Kinder Morgan also state that revenues from this new funding model would be used to further expand the pipeline capacity to the Burnaby tanker terminal to 450,000 bpd — a six-fold increase.

Power point reveals aims

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

• Kinder Morgan plans to dredge Second Narrows channel to allow larger Suezmax tankers that can carry 1 million barrels of crude — four times as much as spilled from the Exxon Valdez.

• These larger vessels will save shippers $1.50 per barrel.

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

• Port Metro Vancouver is “supportive of expansion.”

• “Trans Mountain can be expanded in stages to access growing demand offshore in China.”

All of this is happening with remarkably little scrutiny or even awareness in the Lower Mainland. Of the 18 legal interveners in Kinder Morgan’s application, 17 are oil companies and one is from the Alberta government.

The B.C. government specifically declined to be involved in the decision that would greatly scale up tanker traffic off our coast, through our largest city. No environmental or public interest groups applied to be involved in the NEB application.

‘Rearguard’ pipeline to Kitimat

While there has been enormous interest and opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, this project is likely years away and must overcome pending legal challenges from several First Nations along the route.

In fact, these obstacles are being trumpeted by Kinder Morgan to their investors. They point out that expanding their existing pipeline to Vancouver is cheaper by $1.5 billion than the proposed Enbridge pipeline, and avoids mounting opposition to constructing a new right of way.

Read full article

Share

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

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers,
Share

Enbridge opposition is a lucrative business, says oil company president

From the Prince George Citizen – May 19, 2011

by Gordon Hoekstra

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Read original article

Share

Gas Pipeline Blazing Trail for Enbridge Gateway Project?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Standing up to Enbridge in an Undemocratic Canada

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, ,
Share

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

Share

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

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share

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

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

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

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

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

Read original article

Share

Uhhh, About Those Pipeline Safety Claims: Bad week for Canadian Oilies

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

From the Natural Resources Defence Council Blog – May 9, 2011

by Josh Mogerman

It has been a very bad couple of weeks for the Canadian oil and pipeline industries.

This weekend, the Keystone pipeline popped, spilling more than 20,000
gallons of tar sands oil and sending a 60’ spout into the air from a
pumping station in the Dakotas. The line remains closed. It is the 10th
spill on the line, which has not been in operation for a full year yet
despite being advertised as a safe, modern pipeline that would “only”
have 1.4 spills per decade. Ooops. This spill comes on the heels of a
much bigger pipeline failure in Alberta where 1.2 million gallons of oil
were spewed in the Peace River region last week. It is the worst spill
in Canada since 1975 and it illustrates a lot of the oil infrastructure
issues that we have been hammering on for some time.

Regarding last week’s spill, the Globe and Mail noted, “The spill raises new questions about the health of Alberta’s aging pipeline system.” Us too. Though Alberta’s regulators panned our report Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks
when it came out earlier this year (only to later admit they hadn’t
read it before responding), the event eerily echoed many of the concerns
we raised. While we do not know what was spilled near Peace River
(initial indications are that it was not tar sands oil), we do know a
bit about the pipeline that failed. Again, from the Globe and Mail:

“It’s the second major spill from the Rainbow line, whose owner is a subsidiary of publicly traded Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA-N61.98-1.00-1.59%)
In late 2006, 7,500 barrels leaked from the pipe, which travels 770 km
from Zama, Alta. to Edmonton. At the time, an investigation determined
that “stress corrosion cracking, fatigue cracking and external coating
failure caused the release.” These issues are often related to age; the
Rainbow line was built in 1966. It is designed to carry 220,000 barrels
per day; last year, it averaged 187,000 barrels per day.”

We also know that the line carried an array of oil products: from the
light sweet crude that most of us picture when we think of oil, to the
heavy DilBit that is the subject of the report.

And that is interesting.

The “stress corrosion cracking” noted in the previous Rainbow spill
is a hallmark of lines moving high sulphur fuels like DilBit, according
to NRDC pipeline expert Anthony Swift. We will be watching to see if
that comes into play when the CSI work is done to figure out the source
of this failure, but our report makes clear that the unique chemical
composition of DilBit makes corrosion-related breakdowns in pipelines
carrying the nasty stuff much more likely.

What is clear from this event and last summer’s Kalamazoo River spill
is that the Canadian oil industry doesn’t do itself a lot of favors.
The Keystone and Rainbow pipeline incidents are likely to give a lot of
people pause—many of whom have been assured repeatedly of the safe
status of North America’s oil pipelines to quell concerns over some
projects that the industry desperately wants: Keystone XL (a
pipeline from Alberta to Houston) and the Enbridge Gateway pipeline
(from Alberta to the British Columbia coast). Both are designed to open
up foreign markets for the tar sands oil that currently can only go to
Canadian and US markets. In both cases, there is fierce pushback along
the pipeline routes from folks reasonably concerned about spills and
especially impact on water resources.

The Keystone spill is particularly damning in that it makes clear
rosy safety predictions made by TransCanada (who would also build the
Keystone XL line) simply cannot be substantiated. The spill really was
the perfect opportunity for the pipeline company to prove its claim that
a spill on their system could be stopped in 12 minutes. Instead,
despite the fact that this occurred at one of their pumping stations
instead of a far-flung field where detection or access would be harder,
it reportedly
took 30 minutes to turn off the flow, 2.5 times the company’s claims.
It would not surprise me if landowners along the proposed pipeline path
were wondering if other safety claims were off by a factor of 250%.

And anyone watching the Alberta or Michigan spill has also been given
real reasons for pause.  The lack of transparency and slow response
have been surprising (heck, even Alberta’s Premiere Ed Stelmach, oil
industry apologist in-chief, has been criticizing the Rainbow pipeline response)
where no public announcement about what kind of oil had been spilled
was made for over a week. The initial size of the spill and proximity to
wetlands were discounted. This followed the spill in Michigan, where
the mere fact that tar sands oil was even involved was vehemently denied
until OnEarth magazine and Michigan Messenger
exposed the truth. Come on guys—fess up. Instead of investigation,
there is denial and defensiveness pretty consistently which doesn’t do
anyone any good. It hinders a quality cleanup, endangers public and
first responder health, as well as undercutting the public trust.

Blaming the victims doesn’t help much either. The brusque, uncivil
response to legitimate concern from folks near the Peace River spill is
also counterproductive. Check this out from Greenwire (subscription required):

“Just because there is an odor doesn’t necessarily imply there are
health-related issues,” said Environment Minister Rob Renner, who sent a
mobile air monitoring unit to the area.

…

“Whoever is saying that really doesn’t care what is going on,”
[Brian] Alexander [principal of Little Buffalo School on Lubicon Cree
First Nation, which is at the spill site] said. “They don’t care about
people’s well-being.”

Tsk, tsk.

Pipeline industry spokespeople like to say, “Oil is oil.” They repeat
it constantly. But that is simply not true. These spills make clear
that the industry needs to do more work to figure out how to move DilBit
safely. We cannot afford to add nearly 2,000 more miles of liability
for oil that a study commissioned by DOE shows
we don’t need. With a decision looming from the Obama administration on
Keystone XL, it seems pretty clear with the events of the last couple
weeks that the new pipeline should wait.

Read original article

Share

Civil Disobedience in the Offing to Protect BC’s Environment

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, WATER, , ,
Share

One is not supposed to anticipate lawbreaking, much less say that one will participate. Interesting that as I write this, it is the 71st anniversary of Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister of Britain. I claim no resemblance to the great man – I only say that I learned from him that candour is the only sensible, and indeed honest, way to deal with problems.
 
I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.
 
Let me set forth the problems about which I intend to be candid:

  1. Our wild salmon are in extreme danger and much of that danger comes from salmon farms with the profits going overseas. Closed containment is rejected by the farmers as being too expensive. Think on that. What they’re clearly saying is “in order to run our business we need British Columbians to absorb the cost of going to closed containment!” They say, plainly, that the cost to BC must be your environment and your wild salmon.
  2. Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are ruining our rivers with their dams, roads and transmission lines.
  3. BC Hydro, on direct orders from the Liberal government must make sweetheart deals with these IPPs by which they must pay them more than double what Hydro (through their export arm Powerex) can sell it for – or use it themselves instead at 9-12 times what BC Hydro can make the power for themselves.
  4. IPP power is produced during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need the power and thus must accept this private power at a huge loss.
  5.  Because of the foregoing BC Hydro must pay IPPs, over the next 20-40 years over $50 Billion – rising with each contract – for power they don’t need. (When the Clark government says we need IPP power to make BC self sufficient they are lying through their teeth).
  6. Virtually none of the IPP profits stay in  BC and the jobs, after construction – mostly from outside the communities where the projects are built – are custodial only.
  7. Both the federal and BC governments support Enbridge building two 1000+ km pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, one for bringing the bitumen (i.e. Tar Sands gunk) to Kitimat, the second to take the natural gas derivative that is mixed with the bitumen so it is sufficiently liquefied to pass through the pipeline, back to Alberta. Because there is no timeline involved, a burst pipe is not a risk but a certainty.
  8. Kinder-Morgan, who owns the existing bitumen pipeline from the Tar Sands to the the Burrard Inlet near Vancouver, wants to more than double its capacity – meaning a dramatic increase in supertankers carrying bitumen right by Vancouver, the Gulf Islands, and Victoria.
  9. When (not if) a pipeline bursts there is nothing Enbridge or Kinder-Morgan can do except shut off the supply with all the gunk already in the pipeline going onto the lands and creeks it passes. One can readily see that every second after a rupture, the spill will be aggravated. Enbridge’s record in these matters is appalling – their dumping of bitumen last summer into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan being but one example.
  10. These pipelines pass through some of the last wilderness left in the world and there is no way tEnbridge can patrol over 1000 km of pipe in this wilderness and even if they did, nothing can be done about the bitumen in the pipes for days or longer if there’s a rupture.
  11. The Federal and Provincial governments have already agreed to approve huge tankers taking the bitumen down the BC coast – probably the most dangerous coast in the world and, again, it’s not a risk of loss and catastrophic consequences but a certainty we’re dealing with. Prime Minister Harper compares this coastline with the Atlantic coast or the Great Lakes!
  12. Finally, I feel compelled to mention that I learned recently the BC Liberal government is quietly designing a wolf “management” (read “slaughter”) plan that will likely sanction, among other horrors, the killing of wolves from helicopters under the pretense of protecting caribou populations. I dealt with this crap when I was Environment Minister in 1979, instituting a ban on the slaughter of wolves; clearly the forces in favour of this arcane practice never let up.

Here is the kicker: The public has virtually no say as to whether or not these projects will proceed.
 
The only public input permitted is the right to go to the environmental assessment process which comes after the decision to go ahead has been made, and then only to make suggestions about environmental rules to be followed.
 
Here’s what I said earlier: “I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.”
 
Now let me pose this question: Is there any way these projects can be stopped without people picketing and going to jail?
 
And whose fault will that be – The Cassandra who predicts what will happen or the governments which not only permit but actively support the environmental crimes, and bankruptcy of BC Hydro, brought on knowingly and heedlessly by these governments?

Share

B.C. aboriginal groups prepare pipeline protest march – groups meet in Calgary over proposed Enbridge pipeline

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

From the Calgary Herald – May 10, 2011

by Dina O’Meara

CALGARY — Representatives of B.C. First Nations
and union groups gathered in Calgary to protest a proposed bitumen
pipeline from Alberta to the coast of B.C., setting the stage for a
colourful Enbridge annual meeting.

The
Calgary-based pipeline and energy company is promoting the $5.5-billion
pipeline, with associated marine terminal, as a nation-building project
which will open needed new routs to Asia.

Opponents
say the massive 1,172 kilometre line threatens pristine lands and key
waterways along its proposed route across the Rocky Mountains, as well
as the challenging waters of the northern B.C. coast.

A
group will be marching through downtown Calgary Wednesday morning to
Enbridge headquarters to voice their concerns ahead of Wednesday’s
annual meeting.

“I’m very concerned about the
risks that the Enbridge pipeline and the tankers off the north coast
post to the industry and our communities as a whole,” said Arnie Nagy,
president of Prince Rupert’s Local 31 United Fishermen and Allied
Workers Union.

Nagy’s family has been fishing
the region for generations. The coastal waters are known to be
treacherous, and any tankage break would decimate marine populations as
well as put thousands of people out of work, he said.

Nagy,
also a member of the Haida First Nation, was in Calgary along with the
Yinka Dene Alliance, a group of five First Nations with territories
spanning the proposed route, to raise awareness about their concerns
over possible oil spills on the proposed pipeline.

In
December the Alliance publicly rejected Enbridge’s offer of an equity
stake in the project, and banned the pipeline from its traditional
territories.

Members of the alliance met with Enbridge executives and board members Tuesday to discuss their views.

Concerns
were heightened last year after an Enbridge oil pipeline ruptured in
Michigan, spilling 19,000 barrels of sour oil into waterways leading to
the Kalamazoo River. Weeks later, another Enbridge line ruptured in the
Midwest, further bruising the company’s reputation.

And
on Tuesday Enbridge confirmed a segment of its Norman Wells pipeline
system in the Northwest Territories, sprang a small leak, releasing
about 407 litres of oil in the remote area.

While
the Yinka Dene group declined commenting on Tuesday’s meeting with
Enbridge until the following day, an company spokesman characterized it
as a dialogue.

“This is part of an ongoing
process,” Paul Stanway said. “We’ve been talking to Aboriginal
communities and Aboriginal representatives now for a number of years
about Northern Gateway and this is a continuation of that process.”

Chief
executive Pat Daniel, John Carruthers, president of Northern Gateway,
and the 13-member Enbridge board met with alliance members, he said.

The
meeting was an opportunity for executives and board members to hear
concerns from communities along the proposed pipeline route, and tell
Enbridge’s side of the story, Stanway said.

Read original article

Share

Financial Post: Conservative Majority Win Energizes Sector

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

From the Financial Post – May 3, 2011

by Claudia Cattaneo

Stephen Harper’s big election sweep bodes well for Canada’s energy sector — but that doesn’t mean it will get a free pass.

While the Conservatives are now in a position to make decisions, they
are facing a strong NDP opposition with a big Quebec voice, as well as
continuing input from the large constituency of players with a say in
the energy agenda, from provincial governments to the environmental
movement.

“The worst thing the energy sector can do right now is to assume: ‘We
submit a laundry list and we get it.’ It’s not real,” said a senior
energy industry lobbyist.

“There will still be a lot of opposition influence, so things like
oil sands, climate change, are still issues. People shouldn’t think they
go away.”

Still, some immediate threats to industry expansion are off the table.

Plans to develop new markets for Canada’s oil in Asia are not likely
to be hindered by a ban on oil tanker traffic off northern B.C. coast
any time soon. During the campaign, Mr. Harper said he did not favour
formalizing the ban, which is supported by many British Columbians
worried about possible oil spills and was embraced by opposition
parties.

However, uncertainty over the Asian push remains in areas outside
federal control, such as B.C. First Nations and environmental
organizations opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by
Enbridge Inc.

Access to Asian market is key to industry growth.

“The current markets for oil and gas produced in B.C. and Alberta are
almost entirely continental, and those markets are in trouble,” Roger
Gibbins, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, said in a
statement Tuesday, calling for a full public discussion over whether
local communities should be able to block West Coast access of major
resource projects.

A cap-and-trade system proposed by the NDP and the Liberals is
probably on the back burner now, although other climate change
initiatives will continue to be a priority, with the lead coming from
outside Ottawa — the United States, interest groups, provincial
governments and even industry itself.

Rick George, president and CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s
largest oil sands developer, suggested as much Tuesday when said he
expects progress on greenhouse gases to be made on many fronts,
including industry initiatives to reduce impact on air, land and ground.

“We are not the only oil company that feels like that and that are
making big investments in R&D and making a difference,” he said in a
conference call in response to an analyst question about his
expectations on greenhouse gas legislation now that the Conservatives
have a majority.

Ottawa’s support of the oil sands will also continue, but Ontario’s
contribution to the Tory majority will likely bring a more balanced view
of oil and gas development at the cabinet table.

Some Tory moves could even upset the oil patch. The Tories are now in
a position to move forward with the elimination of the Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance for oil sands investment by 2015, which was
proposed in the budget and is worth $490-million. The Tories also
promised increased monitoring of environmental impacts.

Also, don’t rule out greater scrutiny of foreign takeovers, as more
energy companies court partners to accelerate development of projects,
whether in the oil sands in Alberta or in shale gas in British Columbia.

Now that he can, Mr. Harper may even be persuaded to take on the
development of a Canadian energy strategy, an initiative supported by
many groups, from think tanks to environmental organizations.

The problem is whether Mr. Harper wants to go down a road where
finding common ground and real solutions may be bigger than his newfound
majority.

Read original article

Share
Fish Lake - which Premier Christy Clark would see destroyed for a mine

Batten Down the Hatches! Time to Focus on Saving BC

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

BC is a special place – so much so, its specialness requires no justification to those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, nor to those who’ve had the good sense to flee other parts of Canada and the world to make this their home. But BC’s uniqueness extends beyond its breathtaking geographical features, its iconic fish and wildlife, and its rich cultural diversity. We’re not Quebec – but we’re every bit as distinct  on this side of the Rockies from the rest of the country. I’m a proud Canadian – but I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool fourth generation British Columbian and I care very deeply about this particular province, as I know do many of my fellow British Columbians.

And so, in the aftermath of a federal election which granted Stephen Harper his fabled majority, it is crucial that we British Columbians now turn our attention to British Columbia. Our last defence of the environment and public interest here lies with our next provincial election.

In a country as large as ours, with a federalist system in which provinces hold a significant share of constitutional, budgetary, and governing responsibilities, the relative impact of a government on the lives of its people increases the closer to home it gets. The lion’s share of our daily services is provided by municipalities and regional districts; while most of our health care, education, and major resource decisions are made by the Province. I don’t point this out to downplay the importance of federal politics in shaping our society, but to remind BC voters that an even more momentous decision awaits us in the coming months or years (depending on Ms. Clark’s fancy), when we return to the polls to decide the future of BC.

It’s difficult for any concerned environmentalist here not to cringe when contemplating what Stephen Harper will now attempt to do to this province of ours – with regards to oil pipelines and tankers, natural gas fracking, fish farms, federal support for private power, etc. – but that’s nothing compared with the prospect of a renewed mandate for a BC Liberal government, which is even further right wing than Harper & co.

If you don’t believe that, look to Taseko Mines’ proposal to destroy Fish Lake in the Chilcotin region for a gold and copper mine. The application sailed right through BC’s paltry environmental assessment process, only to be halted in Ottawa by the Harper government.

Not even they could overlook the mountain of evidence from DFO and myriad scientific, conservationist, and indigenous interveners that suggested the ecological trade-offs were simply too great. The company had told the BC Liberal government it just had to destroy the lake, or the mine wouldn’t be economically viable – which the Liberals accepted without question. The company maintained this position until the very day after the feds rejected its plan, at which point – lo and behold! – it suddenly realized it could build the mine, make a healthy profit, and keep the lake! I believe that’s what Charlie Sheen calls WINNING!

But who was there, just one day before this extraordinary admission from Taseko Mines, to suggest that as premier she would impose on the prime minister to reverse his environment ministry’s decision and allow the company’s original lake-destroying plan? Christy Clark, who it now appears – and I never thought I’d find myself saying this – may be even further right than Gordon Campbell (making her a full two shuffles to the right of Harper)!!

Not only does this incident illustrate how stark, raving anti-environment, anti-public, and anti-First Nations the Clark administration is (it was the Tsilhqot’in people who led the fight to save their lake and territory from the mine), but it pokes a hole in the Liberals’ perceived economic competence – which the NDP needs to be able to undermine if they are to form government this time around. The BC Liberals allowed themselves to be fooled by a mining company, claiming it needed to destroy the lake, when it didn’t. The only difference was an extra $300 million in pure-profit dividends to shareholders, for cutting corners at the environment’s expense.

It’s the same story with private power in BC – another prime example of the financial folly of this government, made all the more comical by their sudden head scratching as to how on earth rates for Hydro consumers can be going through the roof after 10 years of prudent economic stewardship by their government. How could it be? We must strike a task force to get to the bottom of this! Of course, it has nothing to do with the $50 Billion of unnecessary, environmentally damaging private river power contracts we’ve signed at 2-3 times the market rate! (Note to Task Force: let’s be sure to leave that stone unturned).

So to those fiscally conservative folks in BC who went with Stephen Harper, I suggest we need to hedge our bets and install a progressive provincial government. With the combination of the 75-80% of citizens opposed to oil tanker traffic on our coast, backing up the the strong, unified First Nations opposition to Enbridge, plus the international attention building on the issue and a government on side in Victoria, I like our chances for protecting our coast from a catastrophic oil spill. But that provincial representation is essential in this equation. With both the feds and province walking in lockstep – or trying to outdo each other on who cares least for the environment – for the next four years, we’ll be in trouble.

So let’s not be suckers for the old myth of BC Liberal economic superiority. Let’s look critically at their staggering deficits and debt increases. Let’s acknowledge the NDP delivered better job growth throughout their decade in power (believe it – it’s a fact). Let’s admit that the Liberals have a ridiculous BC Place Stadium roof, a billion-dollar convention centre boondoggle, and wildly over-budget highway spending to the NDP’s fast ferries. Let’s agree that, regardless, jobs and economic growth can’t come at the expense of our environment and the public interest. Let’s survey the the political landscape, take stock of Harper’s victory and what that bodes for BC – and be smart about our future.

We may have several months or several years – or anything in between – but a provincial election is coming in BC and there’s a hell of a lot more riding on it for us British Columbians and our treasured environment than the federal one we (or half of us anyway) just voted in.

It’s time to batten down the hatches and save BC!

Share