Tag Archives: featured

Exxon disses paltry clean tech subsidies while oil industry takes Trillions from taxpayers

June 24, 2015Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, RenewablesfeaturedWill Dubitsky

Digital composite by AZRainman (Flickr CC licence)

A recent article quoting executives from Exxon is an incredible example of the misinformation, half-truths and contempt for solutions to climate change that we continue to see from the oil and gas industry.

In response to a question about subsidies for renewables, Theodore Pirog and Robert Gardner, two top dogs at Exxon’s Corporate Strategic Planning department, had this to say:

[quote]…the government, through tax incentives, is pushing wind and solar, which cannot compete with other energy sources on a level playing field. Over the long term, government subsidies for energy production and policies that pick winners and losers in the competitive energy space are counterproductive to broadly meeting society’s needs.[/quote]

Five reasons while Exxon is full of crap

Exxon complains about the subsidies for renewables, making for an unlevel playing field where government intervenes to pick winners and losers. Furthermore, according to EXXON market prices should drive solutions. Fascinating!

1) No sector of the economy receives more subsidies than the fossil fuel sector. The IMF projected the 2015 global subsidies for fossil fuels at $5.3 Trillion/year

2) The IMF has calculated global subsidies for renewables at $120 Billion/year

3) Thanks to the Republicans and their Big Oil lobbyists, the US wind power subsidy the Production Tax Credit of 2.3 cents/kWh has expired and the Investment Tax Credit of 30% that applies to solar energy installations will expire at the end of 2016.

4) In sharp contrast with the unstable US subsidies for renewables, which undermine long term investments, US direct subsidies for the oil and gas industry amount to about $7 Billion/year. These generous allowances for the oil and gas sectors: a) go as far back as the 1890s; b) include a 1926 enacted Percentage Depletion Tax Credit that increases when the price of fuel goes up; and c) allow the industry to write off most drilling costs. Not to be outdone on archaic subsidies, based on US incentives dating back to the late 1700s, the US coal industry gets tax benefits now worth $5 Billion/year.

5) The European Wind Energy Association says that wind power can compete without subsidies if fossil fuel subsidies were to be abolished.

Big Oil business model collapsing

Exxon claims that the oil industry will have to increase production significantly, in particular from unconventional sources (eg tar sands, shale oil, offshore oil), to meet increases in global demands.

This model is based on: 1) demand for fossil fuels continuing to climb; 2) oil prices remaining high enough to justify continued investments in expensive-to-extract unconventional sources such as the tar sands, offshore and shale sources; 3) high oil prices justifying the pumping out of greater volumes of conventional oil to further increase profits; and 4) the growing concern about climate change failing to affect the bottom line.

Until recently, this business model worked like a charm, with Exxon earning $32.6B in 2013, more than any company other than Apple. Well, as it turns out, all of the above elements of the business model have hit a wall.

LNG & Fracking: Risky Business for BC — Lights out for fracking operations? (Two Island Films)

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 2015 global oil demand had originally been projected to be 103.2 million barrels/day, but this number has been adjusted to 93.1 million barrels/day, thereby undermining the viability of unconventional investments. Low prices cannot sustain the development of tar sands, shale and offshore oil.

This is translating into dangerously high debt loads, with assets being written off in the billions, thus generating a cascade of announcements of abandoned projects around the globe, putting tar sands projects on hold and pushing shale gas companies into bankruptcy. The US shale gas and oil sector now has accumulated a debt of $200 Billion!

Exxon blind to clean tech boom

Exxon sees the growth of renewables as limited because they are intermittent source of power. Here’s what’s wrong with that thinking:

1) There is massive investment all over the world in energy storage technologies and the linking of clean electricity sources to electric transportation that includes, among other things, bi-directional charging stations that can network the batteries of parked electric vehicles for additional energy storage, as required.

2) In 2011, the Chinese Development Bank committed $45B to smart grid technologies, including energy storage technologies.

The Economist: China's going green...but is it fast enough? — China is investing big in renewable energy

3) China doesn’t seem to know about the supposed limits of renewables. As I noted in an earlier article this year, “…in just 2014 China’s new installations of wind and solar capacity amounted to 34 gigawatts (GW = a billion watts) of new electrical generating capacity, bringing the total installed capacity of wind and solar energy in that country to 114.8 GW and 28 GW respectively. In other words, China’s new clean energy installations added in 2014 represent nearly 3 times BC Hydro’s entire installed capacity of 12 GW and more than 70% of the total electricity capacity of Hydro-Quebec, 46.3 GW – but China installed all of this new capacity in one year!”

4) China’s mind-boggling increasing commitments to clean energy along with its goals for clean transportation – electric vehicles in particular – is galvanizing the development of its energy storage sector, expected to quadruple by 2025 to an $8.7 Billion/year market. Transportation/electric vehicle applications are projected to represent 85% of the revenues of this market, or $7.4 Billion in 2025. Clearly China is a global leader in linking clean energy to clean transportation, with integration technologies such as energy storage being a critical component of their green economy game plan. China’s clean transportation commitments are hard to beat regarding: a) $16B for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations; b) 30% of national government vehicle purchases to be electric beginning 2016; and c) a target to manufacture 2 million eco-vehicles per year by 2020.

5) Non-hydro renewables represented 47% of new electrical generation power installed in the US in 2014 and 75% of new US installations in the first quarter of 2015.

Despite all that, here’s what Exxon’s leaders have to say on the subject:

[quote]While we believe governments will take action to address the risk of climate change, we believe a policy scenario that completely transforms the global energy system at the unprecedented rate, pace and cost needed to stabilize greenhouse gas levels as contemplated in the 2°C scenario is highly unlikely.[/quote]

Turning the corner on GHGs

Global emissions reached a plateau in 2014, largely thanks to China’s massive investments in clean energy and reduction of GHG and coal use.

We don’t have any choice but to stay within the 2 degree limit, as not doing so will lead to catastrophic climate change. The prevailing wisdom is that 80% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to prevent the catastrophic scenario. Even Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England acknowledges that this reality will lead to exceptional growth of stranded assets:

[quote]A growing number of senior figures in the financial community—some of them controlling many millions of dollars worth of investment funds—have been pressing fossil fuel companies to disclose how investments would be affected if energy reserves became frozen or stranded by regulatory moves associated with tackling climate change.[/quote]

Unconventional energy is debt and risk-heavy

Exxon says that technology has found a way to increase the resource base.

This is true except the costs of unconventional sources are prohibitive. The shale oil sector’s debt is staggering and all over the globe, fossil fuel companies are abandoning their reserves, also known as stranded assets.

Using poverty to promote fossil fuels

Micro Grids - Another alternative to investment in old energy — Community micro-grids are an effective way to bring energy to poor, rural communities

Exxon feigns concern for “the approximate 1.3 billion without electricity and the approximate 2.6 billion globally who use wood or dung stoves for cooking, which can lead to fatal indoor air pollution. What if we could supply all these too with affordable energy?”

The truth is that local clean energy micro-grids are the fastest and cheapest way to bring electrical power to those who don’t have any access or insufficient access. Just as many developing countries skipped the centralized landline telephone stage to go directly to mobile phones, the developing world can skip the centralized, expensive distribution infrastructure for delivering energy to isolated communities by setting up easy-to-install community clean energy micro-grids with minimal infrastructure.

Exxon: Oil fundamentalists

The views expressed by Exxon show a total contempt for climate solutions and a fundamentalist blind faith in a need to increase oil production, even to a point of implying that this is the solution to poverty. They disregard the reasons for the decline of the Big Oil business model and the staggering debt levels associated with unconventional fossil fuels. They’re allowing greed to confuse dictate their professional outlook. Apparently that’s the Exxon way.

Pope Francis changes game with environmental message

June 23, 2015Climate ChangefeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Pope Francis (Catholic Church of England / Flickr)

Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, humans for somewhere around 150,000. But in my brief lifetime — less than 80 years — human populations have exploded exponentially, from two billion to more than seven billion. In that short time, we’ve created consumer societies and decimated the planet’s natural systems, used up resources, filled oceans with plastic and pollution, altered water cycles, and upset the Earth’s carbon cycle, disrupting global climate systems.

Welcome to the Anthropocene

Our impacts on this small blue planet have been so rapid, widespread and profound that many scientists call this the Anthropocene Epoch. Much of it has coincided with the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels, which showed great promise when I was a child. They were abundant and we didn’t understand the consequences of recklessly burning them. Cars were designed to use lots of gas and propel oil industry profits, not to conserve energy. Factories were built to create products and increase distribution efficiencies.

No longer confined to growing food and providing agricultural services, people moved to cities and, freed from the constraints of limited access to resources, grew rapidly in number, dramatically increasing consumption.

Because our technological prowess has grown faster than our knowledge, wisdom and foresight, much of what we’ve created is now crashing down around us — battered by pollution, ecosystem collapse, species extinction, resource scarcity, inequality, climate change and overpopulation.

Pope steps up to the plate

Pope Francis recently put humanity’s situation in context — and offered hope for the future. Regardless of how you feel about religion or the Catholic Church, or even some ideas in the Pope’s encyclical, there’s no denying it contains a powerful, scientifically and morally valid call for radical change that will reach an audience far beyond the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics.

In his June 18 address, the Pope called on the world — not just Catholics — to recognize the need for change in the face of ecological crises such as human-caused global warming and the failure of growth-fuelled market economics to facilitate human survival, happiness and prosperity. He declared:

[quote]Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last two hundred years.[/quote]

Calling out the ‘obstructionists’

In his wide-ranging address, Pope Francis spoke about pollution, climate change, water, biodiversity, inequality, poverty, economics, consumerism and spirituality. “The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world,” he said. “The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now.”

He also called out those stalling or preventing action to confront environmental problems, especially global warming: “Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.”

Cry of the earth, cry of the poor

Connecting the dots between environmental degradation and inequality, he urged people to “integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”

Although parts of the address are bleak, the Pope argued that open conversation and changes in thinking, acting and governing could bring about positive change, even for the economy: “Productive diversification offers the fullest possibilities to human ingenuity to create and innovate, while at the same time protecting the environment and creating more sources of employment.”

And, he noted:

[quote]Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning.[/quote]

Change is in the air

The Pope joins a diverse global chorus of people calling for changes in our destructive lifestyle to confront crises such as climate change and the ever-growing gap between poor and rich.

These expanding and increasingly urgent calls to confront our hubris for the sake of humanity’s future represent a necessary shift in a way of thinking that has propelled us along what is, after all, just a recent and brief destructive course in our history. As Pope Francis said, “We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.”

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Richmond Council, Delta MLA question Fraser River LNG tankers

June 23, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedDamien Gillis

Richmond Councillor Harold Steves was part of a unanimous vote on proposed LNG tankers (Damien Gillis) — Harold Steves and fellow Richmond councillors are calling for a public review of LNG tankers (Damien Gillis)

Richmond Council yesterday unanimously passed a motion calling for a full environmental review on plans to run over 200 LNG vessels a year up the Fraser River. The move comes in reaction to attempts by proponent WesPac to skip a proper, public review of the its proposal for an LNG terminal on the Fraser River.

Fraser River tankers — How LNG Tankers would turn from from WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty (Project Description – CEAA Summary)

Richmond Council’s vote follows a strongly-worded op-ed by local Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington in the Delta Optimist last week, detailing how she changed he mind about the project. Initially, it was presented to her as a small upgrade to a longstanding Fortis BC-operated LNG storage tank. “Since Fortis has been producing LNG at Tilbury for a long, long time – and would be using the existing footprint – it all sounded good to me,” she began.

But flash forward to a whole shipping terminal proposed for construction on the Fraser by another company, WesPac, plus a tanker or barge every other day, and a new transmission line to power the project and Huntington was singing a different tune. She notes the huge public outcry she has heard since details of the quiet plan became public in recent weeks – amid a brief, flawed public comment window on the question of whether these plans even merit an environmental assessment:

[quote]My office has received over 1,000 emails objecting to the export of LNG from Tilbury. Fifty or so correspondents live in Delta – many of whom I know. Until now, I didn’t share all their concerns: the initial business plan made so much sense.

But I don’t think I trust that plan anymore.[/quote]

After taking a closer look at the project – which has already been awarded an export licence by the National Energy Board – Richmond Council decided to go on the record, with the following motion, passed unanimously yesterday:

[quote]An LNG plant is proposed across the Fraser River in Delta to serve fracking operations in north-eastern BC. Up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges are expected on the Fraser annually. To date Richmond City staff have been unable to determine the full scope of this project.

It has been suggested that a federal environmental review may not be necessary. The Federal Government has given to June 24th for public input whether a federal environmental review is necessary.

Resolved that Richmond council request a full Federal Environmental Assessment and Review of the Delta LNG project; to consider effects on dredging a deeper and wider shipping channel; effects on dyking; effects on the habitat of the estuary and the Fraser River fishery; safety concerns; climate change and the industrialization of the Fraser River due to the cumulative effect of coal, jet fuel, LNG, and possibly oil shipments on the Fraser River.[/quote]

What began as a sneaky attempt run hundreds of LNG tankers and barges up the Fraser River has blown up into a loud public backlash. The process itself didn’t help. An export licence issued with zero public knowledge. A short public comment window on the need for an environmental review that almost slid by, were it not for citizen group Voters Taking Action on Climate Change stumbling across a notice on the BC Environmental Assessment Office.

Then, the federal government email to which the public was supposed to send their comments turned out to be broken and not accepting comments for what appears to be all or most of the duration of the comment window. Into this void stepped a website built for this purpose, Real LNG Hearings, which, according to founder Kevin Washbrook had already taken in over 1,000 letters from concerned citizens before the initial public comment window closed. Given the email cock-up, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Office extended the window for public comment until June 24.

Explosion risk zone from proposed Fraser River LNG tankers (RealLNGHearings.org)

As The Common Sense Canadian has reported on in these pages, these well-founded concerns are built on very real safety risks – not to mention the above ecological issues highlighted by Richmond Council. The width of the Fraser River does not come close to the minimum safety requirements for LNG tankers laid out by the leading authorities on the subject. Neither do those proposed to transit Howe Sound from the planned Woodfibre LNG plant near Squamish. The close proximity of these routes to densely populated communities is also a big no-no in the eyes of global experts on LNG tanker safety. Even Stephen Harper blocked LNG tanker plans on the East Coast over safety concerns.

Not that environmental assessments themselves can be taken seriously in this era of rubber stamps and kangaroo courts, but skipping even the show of one is a deep affront to the public. If, after well over a thousand calls from citizens, a local MLA and city council – on the basis of these very real safety and environmental concerns – the federal government does not change its stance and agree to hold a full environmental hearing, then it will provoke a public backlash bigger than it can imagine.

Think Burnaby Mountain on the Fraser River.

Harper says LNG tankers too dangerous for East Coast, but OK for BC?

June 19, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRafe Mair

I live on Howe Sound in lovely Lions Bay. I have lived my entire life in British Columbia, growing up in Vancouver and spending much of my boyhood on this lovely fjord.

Howe Sound belongs to all of us. It had been all but destroyed by industry until 20 years ago when rehabilitation was started with the closing of mills and Britannia Mines. Thanks to the work of citizen/volunteers it was enormously successful. We now have the salmon runs dramatically increased, herring runs back to where they used to be, and killer whales, which were so prevalent when I was a boy but had all but disappeared, now going past my house regularly.

The Fraser River estuary scarcely needs any introduction. Suffice it to say that this glorious river is the number one salmon habitat in the world and nowhere are these marvellous fish more vulnerable than in the estuary. The governments have all but approved 200 more or less tankers and barges carrying LNG into and out of this estuary. They intend to skip an environmental assessment altogether, yet, thanks to citizen efforts, have been inundated with demands for a proper public hearing.

They don’t really care about us

It is indeed bad enough that the National Energy Board has issued export licences for tankers travelling these routes, as ever-ignorant of British Columbia is fully in favour, but as you’ll see from the Wilderness Committee’s media release which follows, the feds took exactly the opposite position on the east coast!

Suspicions confirmed! Ottawa does discriminate against BC.

Because of this unbelievable turn of events, I wrote a letter to John Weston, our Tory MP.

First, here is the Wilderness Committee’s statement:

The Wilderness Committee is calling attention to the federal government’s double standards regarding the safety of LNG shipments along Canada’s coastline.

The federal government has actively fought against the construction of an American LNG terminal known as the “Downeast LNG Project.” If constructed, this project would see LNG carrier ships pass through New Brunswick’s Head Harbour Passage.

Canadian Ambassador to the United States Gary Doer has outlined Canada’s “strong concerns” around Downeast LNG in two letters to US regulators, pointing to the serious environmental, navigational and safety risks of the project.

Contrarily in BC, American company WesPac Midstream was granted an export licence by Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) on May 7th for its proposed LNG terminal on the Fraser River – a river that is home to one of the largest salmon runs in the world. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is currently considering the need for an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the project.

To date, no federal government representative has expressed concerns with sending up to 120 LNG tanker vessels annually into highly populated areas of Richmond and Delta, BC.

“Our federal government is treating us west coasters like second-class citizens,” said Eoin Madden, the Wilderness Committee’s Climate Campaigner. “This kind of LNG project was considered unacceptable for New Brunswick, but it doesn’t seem to pose a problem for the government when it will sit on the banks of the world’s greatest salmon river.”

The Wilderness Committee has produced a map detailing the public safety risk associated the WesPac project, identifying industry-defined LNG tanker “hazard zones” that would impact communities if a tanker on the route were to be ignited. There are three hazard zones – zone one posing the biggest threat to human life.

“The federal government opposed Downeast LNG to protect what they called a ‘unique and highly productive marine ecosystem’ off the New Brunswick coast,” said Madden. “If they want to see a unique and productive ecosystem, they should come on over and check out the Fraser River.” The Wilderness Committee will continue to work to protect the Fraser River from all fossil fuel shipments. The organization will be calling on the federal government to conduct a cumulative impact assessment of the combined effects of coal, LNG, tar sands and aviation fuel projects proposed for this vital salmon river.

Rafe calls out Howe Sound MP

Now, here is the letter I sent to John Weston both at his parliamentary address and personal address 10 days ago. I have not received a reply.

Dear Mr. Weston,

Below you will find a release from the Wilderness Committee stating unequivocally that your government has banned LNG tankers on the East Coast while permitting them, indeed encouraging them, on the West Coast. They are banned on the Atlantic coast because they pose a serious danger. Evidently Mr. Harper doesn’t believe they pose the same danger on our coast.

This is of particular interest to residents of your constituency. It is not a new story, having been broken originally by Eoin Finn and I have dealt with it in columns myself. It is now, however, of immediate importance, since your government and the provincial government are bent on approving the Woodfibre LNG plant with consequent LNG tanker traffic down Howe Sound and have approved similar traffic on the Fraser River, one of the world’s most bountiful salmon rivers.

It is my intention to write an article, for publication, a week tomorrow, stating categorically that the Conservative government, your government, actively and dangerously discriminates against the West Coast generally and the Howe Sound and Fraser River areas specifically. I don’t wish to do this without giving you the opportunity of refuting the obvious inference that this is accurate.

I would be pleased to hear from you as soon as possible.

Yours very truly,

Rafe Mair

Try standing up for your constituents

Let’s look at what we are asking Mr. Weston to do.

He’s been our Member of Parliament for eight years. His record in standing up for his constituents has been appalling. On the particular issue of Woodfibre LNG, Weston did not seek the opinions of his constituents – quite the opposite. He made it clear from the beginning that he couldn’t care less what we thought but that he was in favour of development, so was the prime minister, and that was that. Moreover he tried to throw his weight around and get the West Vancouver Council to change their minds from opposing this proposition to supporting it. He got a unanimous second prize from that doughty Council on that argument.

Weston’s constituency includes the western part of West Vancouver, the Sea-to-Sky area, and the Sunshine Coast. The opposition to Woodfibre LNG is a very strong indeed. In fact, it’s difficult to find anyone who favours it other than the deceitful shills for Woodfibre LNG called Resource Works and so far as I can determine from reading their bumph and speeches, they’ve not told the truth on any material fact yet. (See previous columns).

Woodfibre’s PR flacks hit the spin cycle

In yet another propaganda email recently issued to his followers, Resource Works’ spokesman Stewart Muir, amongst other things, called our group “well-funded”; whereas we’re a group of volunteers, spending our own time and money, with only the occasional help from fundraisers. I tell you this because this billion dollar enterprise, with its high-priced lackeys in Resource Works, not only “money whips” us but has the nerve to denigrate honest, decent, concerned citizens spending their own time and money standing against a huge company and two governments hand-in-glove with the corporate world. Incidentally, Muir was once a Vancouver Sun editor which to me, at any rate, explains a lot.

Why do British Columbians deserve less?

Let’s return to Mr. Weston.

All we have asked our Member of Parliament to do is threefold: First, take all our concerns about Woodfibre LNG to the prime minister and the Government of Canada and let them know that there are thousands of decent British Columbians who want this project stopped. Ask the PM why he is dealing with a crook, a tax evader and despoiler of tropical forests nonpareil. Ask the PM to google Woodfibre owner Sukanto Tanoto and follow the links to the Guardian Newspaper and thereon and tell us why he is to be our partner.

Secondly, ask Mr. Harper why he is uncaring about residents in allowing LNG tanker traffic through Howe Sound and the Fraser River where irrefutable scientific evidence makes it clear that both are far too dangerous. Both the Wilderness Committee and ourselves can provide charts.

In the case of Howe Sound, in transit to the ocean, LNG tankers from Squamish would pass within unsafe distances from the populations of West Vancouver Lions Bay and Bowen Island. All 6 Municipal Councils around the Sound have passed motions objecting to the Woodfibre LNG proposal.

Thirdly, now that the government has essentially made its decision, we have asked Mr. Weston to explain to us, on behalf of the government of Canada, why there is one rule for Atlantic Canada and another one for British Columbia.

Surely, being an MP is more than chasing down missing pension checks or seeing that constituents have a tour of Parliament when visiting Ottawa.

In essence, Weston is receiving some $175,000 per year not to consult his constituents, not take their concerns to the prime minister and cabinet to demand answers on our behalf, not to support the municipal councils in his riding, and not to give a damn about anything except his own reelection.

To put it bluntly, Woodfibre LNG affects every person living in his constituency. We have, on clear scientific evidence, excellent reason to worry about the lives and safety of our families. Surely to God, what I have said above, which I believe would be endorsed by a large majority of Weston’s constituents, is not too much to ask of a man highly paid to be the liaison between the peasants their political masters.

John Weston will, in my opinion, be slaughtered in the next election, but of what consolation is that if the pall of impending disaster remains?

As I have written here recently, our path to safety for our families and communities is civil disobedience and that is what the uncaring bastards will have.

BC not ready for major oil spill, minister admits after Vancouver diesel spill

June 15, 2015Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRoy Hales

Minster Mary Pollock Announces BC will move ahead on world-leading spill response team (BC govt) — Minster Mary Polak Announces BC will move ahead on world-leading spill response team (BC govt)

Republished with permission from the ECOreport.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As of late morning on June 15, the Coast Guard had revised the estimate to 500-5,000 litres of diesel spilled

Within hours of Vancouver’s second oil spill of the year, BC Environment Minister Mary Polak was reassuring the public that the province will move ahead on a “world-leading” spill response team.

1,000 litres of diesel

Fishermen’s Wharf in Vancouver - approximate location of diesel spill (Ruth Hartnup/Flickr) — Fishermen’s Wharf in Vancouver – approximate location of diesel spill (Ruth Hartnup/Flickr)

An estimated 1,000 litres of diesel spilled into the area around Fishermen’s Wharf late Sunday night. The spill volume The accident was reported at 10:30 p.m. and, because the federal government closed Kitsilano Coast Guard station, clean-up did not start for another five hours. Polak said she “could not speculate” about the difference still having a base in Vancouver would have made. Luckily it was diesel, which stays on the surface and is easy to clean-up.

“The spill appears to have received an efficient and effective response,” said Pollack.

Yet she acknowledged that the present spill response is “outdated” and economic development “cannot be at the expense of our environment.”

Not ready for a major spill

The Minister added:

[quote]Our experience with smaller spills and near misses shows the province is not prepared for a major spill. Our goal is to have a world-leading spill regime in place and we recognize we are not there yet.[/quote]

She denied that this was in response to the proposed Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan pipeline projects, saying it was devised after years of conversations with local government, First Nations and industry.

“The vast majority of incidents to which we respond, as a ministry, have nothing to do with the oil and gas industry and everything to do with smaller types of industry, with the support of hazardous materials that support other industries,”said Polak.

Both of this year’s Vancouver spills originated with shipping.

New land-based spill response

The ingredients of BC’s new land-based spill response include:

A provincially certified, industry-funded Preparedness and Response Organization (PRO) to make sure trained people are ready to immediately respond to any spill, with appropriate equipment and in a co-ordinated way
New legislative and regulatory requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery
Geographically based planning and response that will see active participation by First Nations, first responders and local communities

Steps To Come

The funding and leadership of this project is to come from industry.

If the Kinder Morgan pipeline project goes forward, this program will work in conjunction with their spill response program.

Legislation empowering the government to proceed will probably be forthcoming during the Spring of 2016.

“This won’t happen overnight, but we are targeting 2017 to begin implementing these new requirement,” said Polak.

Rafe Mair: Civil disobedience against LNG plans is a must

June 11, 2015Energy and Resources, LNGfeaturedRafe Mair

Citizens line the Sea to Sky Highway to protest Woodfibre LNG (My Sea to Sky)

It’s time to fish or cut bait, folks.

We’ve learned that some 200 LNG tankers and barges are slated to use the lower Fraser River and the company, WesPac, doesn’t even feel the public deserves a say through a proper environmental assessment.

We’re told by the company that LNG tankers have a 50 year safety record so there is naught to worry about. You should know, however, that the company lies through its teeth by leaving out four rather important words “on the high seas“.

The Fraser River is not the “high seas”?

Bear in mind, as reported here in The Common Sense Canadian, the recommended distances between the tanker and shore, set out by Sandia Laboratories as well as the industry’s own organization, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), makes it clear that both the Fraser River and Howe Sound are totally inappropriate for LNG tankers.

Neither government gives a fiddler’s fart.

Batten down the hatches

My main point today is that we must be prepared to fight and I don’t think we are. Most of us are brought up to believe that being a reasonable is the way to go through life and that this approach will be beget reasonableness from others. I fear that many opposed to LNG tanker traffic think that by being reasonable with the companies and the governments that they will see the light and cancel their projects.

They are dead wrong.

You can call me a cynic if you wish but I assure you that my “hawkishness” comes from real and extended experience in these matters.

Neither the federal nor provincial governments have the slightest concern what the public feels about LNG tanker traffic. They know best. They don’t care who owns the companies, nor about Scandia Laboratories, SIGTTO or any scientific evidence that doesn’t suit their purposes.

Speaking from experience…

Permit me to go back a few years to the 1986 Kemano Completion Project (KCP), agreed upon by Alcan, the federal government and the provincial government.

In order for this agreement to be made, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ condemnation of the project had to be ignored and, indeed, the major report was buried until 10 years later, when it was leaked to me by one of the DFO scientists who badly wanted the truth to be known.

The Minister of Environment of the day made it abundantly clear that the decision was a political one. The agreement, involving billions, was made in spite of this buried DFO report saying it would be an environmental catastrophe. You should know that if the government tells you they’re relying on science, you can be damn sure they’re studiously ignoring anything that might contradict their political ambitions.

If that were all, it would be bad enough but several scientists in the DFO were punished for not going along, through transfers, early retirement, loss of seniority and so on. All of us involved in that fight against the KCP felt ill when the story how these very fine scientists were treated came to our attention.

From this cautionary tale those who oppose LNG in general and tanker traffic in particular should know that the government and the companies won’t pay the slightest bit of attention unless we are prepared to employ non-violent civil disobedience at the appropriate time.

What would Churchill do?

At the start of World War II, the RAF flew many sorties over the Ruhr district of Germany, wherein most of the industrial might of that country lay.

Did they drop bombs and try to disrupt the Nazi war effort?

Not a chance. That might provoke retaliation!

Instead, they dropped pamphlets imploring the Germans to surrender!

Needless to say this was before Churchill became Prime Minister.

Rafe: Critics of Burnaby Mountain citizens are out of touch with public will for change — 84 year-old retried librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)

Figuratively speaking, we who want to stop this LNG madness are dropping pamphlets over the Ruhr, unwilling to do anything that might anger the enemy. Little wonder the “enemy” doesn’t believe we’ll fight and that as long as they toss us a scrap or two along the way, we’ll remain docile and obedient.

Protest marches and the waving of signs have their place in fights like this. But, having said that, if we aren’t prepared in the final analysis to do what the good citizens of Burnaby did with Kinder Morgan, we might as well pack it in right now.

Being prepared for “civil disobedience” carries with it the responsibility of marshalling our forces and making it clear to companies and governments that we’ll employ this weapon without hesitation.

We’re brought up to respect and obey the law but what if the law is consistently stacked in favour of the “establishment”, as protest laws are?

The most cursory look at the history of liberty tells us that nothing was ever gained from the establishment of the day without it being forced from them against their will. Whether it be the Magna Carta, The Peasants’ Revolt, the Glorious Revolution, The Tolpuddle Martyrs, The American Revolution – you name it – it’s obvious that establishments never yield an inch of civil liberties and justice without it being taken from them.

Sham environmental assessments

Today, even the environmental assessment processes ostensibly to protect the public, are as phoney as wooden nickels and kowtow to industry while denying the most basic rights to the public.

The Christy Clark bunch are politically trapped into promises of great riches to the province from LNG, which won’t happen, leaving them flapping their lips and hoping that something turns up.

Worst of all, we have no one to speak for us – our politicians are worse than useless.

Not so sturdy for the public

A recent example comes from my MLA, Liberal Jordan Sturdy. His pockets full of campaign money raised by Woodfibre LNG, he was asked about having a crook like Sukanto Tanoto, owner of WFLNG, as our business partner. He replied that Mr. Tanoto’s international reputation should not matter in whether his B.C. project goes forward. It’s the business itself that needs proper regulation, he said.

[quote]The government tends not to get into the business of vetting ownership.[/quote]

That sums up the “due diligence” done by the Clark government on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia!

We who desperately want to protect our environment and keep our population safe have no one on our side and everyone against us. To me, those odds are perfect, provided we have the courage to defend ourselves and let the government know this.

It gets down to this: we either play their game and, as we were taught in Sunday School, be polite and turn the other cheek, or we let it be known that in the absence of protection from our governments, we will disobey the unfair laws that allow these outrages to be perpetrated against us.

There is, sadly but truthfully, no middle ground.

Fraser River LNG tankers carry explosive risk – Last chance for public comment

June 10, 2015Energy and Resources, LNG, Oil&GasfeaturedRoy Hales

This article is republished with permission from The ECOreport.

UPDATE: Following complaints that the CEAA email system for public comments on the project has been out of commission throughout the 20-day comment period, the window for feedback has been extended until June 24

Building a major LNG terminal in Delta would have a big impact on the mouth of the Fraser River. The diagram at the top of this page shows how LNG tankers would come into, and leave, the proposed WesPack Tilbury Marine Jetty. Even with the help of tugboats, they need most of the Fraser River’s width to turn around.

The National Energy Board has already granted an export license for a facility that could bring up to 120 LNG tankers and 90 LNG barges to this terminal every year. In the US, LNG proponents need to assess potential hazards all along LNG tanker routes, but the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is considering waiving an environmental assessment. The public comment period on this project is almost over – citizens have two days left to ask for an environmental review.

Fraser River Tanker explosion risk — Explosion risk zone from proposed Fraser River LNG tankers (RealLNGHearings.org)

The above map, from Real LNG Hearings.com, shows the extent of the hazard area if there was an explosion. Note the red line, which goes out the Fraser and along the tanker route. This is a band 500 meters wide depicting: “extreme hazard of combustion and thermal damage from pool fire if evaporating LNG is ignited. Cryogenic burns and structural damage from exposure to supercooled LNG. Asphyxiation hazard for those exposed to expanding LNG vapor plume.” Though the degree of danger is less, there could be additional explosions anywhere within the blue zone if the LNG vapour cloud makes contact with a source of ignition.

Said Kevin Washbrook for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change:

[quote]Whether we’re LNG supporters or not, we probably all agree that major projects like this need careful review. However in this case public notification has been negligible, the comment period is absurdly short, and fundamentally important questions — like whether it makes any sense to build a LNG terminal on a narrow, heavily trafficked river — haven’t even been asked.[/quote]

Citizens can write to federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq via the Real LNG Hearings website, to require a proper level of LNG risk assessment is done in BC.

More detailed information available here:

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website
http://reallnghearings.org/
CSC’s “Retired Navy Captain torpedoes LNG lobby’s tanker safety story” – by Rafe Mair

Fracking industry stonewalled EPA on data for safety assessment

June 9, 2015Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedRoy Hales

Fracking-industry-stonewalled-EPA-on-data-for-safety-assessment — Chemical and water mixing for hydraulic fracturing (Joshua Doubek/Creative Commons)

Republished with permission from The ECOreport.

After five years of research, the EPA’s painfully inadequate fracking assessment has been released. “It’s a bit underwhelming,” said Amanda Frank, from the Center for Effective Government. Dr Allan Hoffman, a retired senior analyst with the Department of Energy, referred to the draft report as “disappointing.” They were referring to the extent that industry was allowed to thwart the EPA investigation.

Said Hoffman:

[quote]My general reaction is ‘why bother?’ I have a lot of compassion for EPA, they must have really struggled with this one, but I don’t feel like they produced a very useful report. There is nothing new. It is accurate as far as I could tell. They did review some records, but then they put in all these caveats about how limited the data really was. It is very clear they probably didn’t get co-operation from the industry. That’s a very bad sign in my opinion.[/quote]

The EPA tried to get companies to monitor their wells. For effective test results, they need to test the water before before, during and after drilling.

Industry won’t play ball

Marcellus shale gas drilling site in Pennsylvania (Nicholas A. Tonelli/Wikimedia Commons) — Shale gas drilling site in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus play (Nicholas A. Tonelli / Wikimedia Commons)

“Most companies flat-out refused to comply. So this report is more of a literature review. It is very thorough, in terms of looking at the available data, but limited because they still can’t say how widespread these impacts are when there so few companies that are willing to let the EPA study them,” said Amanda Frank.

She added, “They admit in the conclusion that, based on the number of wells that we know of and based on the number of incidents that we know of, water contamination is not a widespread issue. But the next sentence basically says there is so much data missing that it is hard to make that claim.”

Hoffman recently co-authored a report on the impact hydraulic fracturing has on water. He shares the impression that the number of incidents is small, but added, “We really don’t know.”

“If industry is not going to co-operate on this, then they are not to be trusted. They have plenty of incentive to hide accidents, spills and all that kind of stuff. That’s what people do, they protect their self interest.”

$Halliburton refuses to disclose fracking chemicals$ He believes the number of incidents can be brought under control, but suspects that it may take a major accident for the United States to adopt strong enough regulations and enforcement.

In the meantime, there are reports of water contamination but it is difficult to prove the cause was fracking without proper testing. If company’s are allowed to withhold the identity of the chemicals they use, you don’t even know what to test for.

Some areas hit harder by water withdrawals

There have been large water withdrawals in areas with low water availability. Though the EPA reported the national average was only 1%, in some counties the number was actually 50%.

(Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice, recently informed the ECOreport that much of California’s fracking takes place in Kern county, one of the area’s most affected by the drought.)

Industry takes over

In some states, the industry appears to have virtually taken over. In response to communities that have passed fracking bans, both Texas and Oklahoma have passed legislation overruling local control.

“Is fracking going to be safe? Nothing is. There are risks with everything. Getting into my car and driving to work is not ‘safe.’ Industry needs to recognize this and stop trying to say how safe and wonderful it is. They need to acknowledge there are risks. Then we need to ask ourselves, are these risks worth it?” said Frank.

Many hoped the EPA report would help clarify matters.

“The big disappointment is not so much in terms of the report’s scope, as that the conclusions are not widespread. To really fix the problems with fracking, you need to require baseline testing. If we were to require that in every well across the country, we would have a much better sense of how widespread this problem is,” said Frank.

Federal court ruling threatens bottom line for salmon farms

June 9, 2015Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquaculturefeaturedRay Grigg

On May 6th, Justice Donald J. Rennie of the Federal Court ruled against Marine Harvest Canada and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, confirming that the transfer of young salmon infected with piscine reovirus into ocean net-pens was illegal. This victory by Alexandra Morton and her Ecojustice lawyers was dismissed by aquaculture giant Marine Harvest as having merely administrative effects that will not impair “the company’s day to day business” or impede “the ongoing transfer of farm-raised salmon between facilities in B.C.” But Justice Rennie’s ruling could have major implications for both salmon farming and wild salmon.

First, the ruling confirms that the Minister cannot contravene the legislation in the “Fisheries (General) Regulations” (FGR), which occurred when the salmon farming industry was allowed to transfer diseased salmon into its net-pens. And, second, the Minister cannot legally delegate to the industry the responsibility to decide whether or not putting diseased fish into the ocean is “low risk”.

Industry’s slippery language

In a carefully worded defence, Marine Harvest claimed, “There was no evidence that [it] transferred unhealthy fish” from its Dalrymple hatchery to its Shelter Bay net-pens. But the smolts transferred in March 2013 were known to have piscine reovirus (PRV), a highly infectious virus that scientific research describes as the causative agent of Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation (HSMI). This heart infection can so weaken fish that they are barely able to swim.

Since PRV only manifests as HSMI about 5 to 9 months after transfer to sea water, Marine Harvest’s smolts were technically asymptomatic and therefore not obviously “unhealthy”. But many were infected with piscine reovirus. If farmed salmon with HSMI are barely able to swim in the protection of net-pens, then infected migrating salmon are likely to sink to the bottom of the ocean or be eaten by predators, essentially eliminating any evidence of HSMI in wild salmon.

New, fast-growing virus

Alexandra-Morton-explains-her-court-victory-over-salmon-farm-industry — Alexandra Morton (center-right) celebrates a big court victory with her ecojustice lawyers

Piscine reovirus is a relatively new virus first recognized in Atlantic salmon farms in Norway in 1999, then identified by research in 2010 as the causative agent for HSMI, a conclusion confirmed in Justice Rennie’s ruling. PRV is now ubiquitous in Norwegian salmon farms with HSMI a major cause of death — unfortunately, about 14% of Norway’s wild salmon are now infected with HSMI. A scientific paper published in 2013 reports that the genetic sequence of PRV found in BC matches the strain found in northern Norway in 2007, suggesting that PRV came to BC in Atlantic salmon eggs. Since the virus was only identified in 2010, no one knew to look for it when the millions of farmed salmon eggs were being imported into BC. Genetic sequences of the virus have now been found in BC’s farmed Atlantic salmon, as well as in some native steelhead, cutthroat trout, chum and other wild species, suggesting the possible spread of PRV from salmon farms to BC’s marine ecology.

This is the eventuality that has haunted Morton since she became concerned that salmon farming could import alien diseases to BC’s wild salmon populations. The virulence of PRV in wild fish and the extent of its HSMI damage have yet to be determined. But the potential for an ecological catastrophe is heightened by the virus’s ability to mutate readily, particularly in the crowded conditions of salmon farms. The lack of a barrier between the farmed stock and migrating wild fish seriously questions the wisdom of growing salmon in ocean net-pens.

Industry given 4 months

In recognition of the far reaching implications of his judgment, Justice Rennie has suspended his ruling for 4 months. Given that most salmon farms are likely infected with piscine reovirus, and the disease may now be endemic in their smolts and eggs, Morton’s court victory presents a formidable challenge for the industry and for those charged with ensuring the safety of wild salmon.

EDITOR’S NOTE: DFO and Marine Harvest have launched an appeal of of the above case. Alexandra Morton and Ecojustice are vowing to battle the appeal in court.

“Captured” environmental regulator thinks of Kitimat smelter owner Rio Tinto as “client”

June 5, 2015Health and Environment, Metals and Minerals, MiningfeaturedCarol Linnitt

Rio Tinto Alcan's Kitimat smelter (Rio Tinto Alcan/Canada Newswire) — Rio Tinto Alcan’s Kitimat smelter (Rio Tinto Alcan/Canada Newswire)

Rweprinted with permission from DeSmog Canada.

Move over Duffy diaries. There’s a new black book in town.

That’s the detailed work journal of B.C. Ministry of Environment senior official Frazer McKenzie, which recounts conversations between ministry officials and Rio Tinto Alcan while the company was applying for a permit to increase aluminum production at its Kitimat smelter.

“Frazer McKenzie was a diligent and thorough employee. He documented ongoings with Rio Tinto Alcan within government that we’d otherwise never know about,” lawyer Chris Tollefson told DeSmog Canada.

The hen guarding the fox house

During the application process, Rio Tinto Alcan financed McKenzie’s position at the Ministry of Environment through a secondment agreement and government officials repeatedly refer to the company as a “client.”

DeSmog Canada has learned this parlance has become commonplace between ministry officials and industry. Indeed, much of what occurred in the Rio Tinto Alcan case appears to be standard operating procedure.

McKenzie’s journal — made public due to an appeal — offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of B.C.’s Ministry of Environment.

The ministry has argued that it agreed to allow the company to fund McKenzie’s position because of concerns there would be “inadequate staffing to deal with the application” otherwise. Such arrangements with industry are not entirely unusual due to chronic underfunding.

Rio Tinto Alcan’s application, which was approved by B.C. in 2013, granted the company the right to increase sulphur dioxide emissions in the Kitimat airshed by 56 per cent.

Sulphur dioxide is released from the combustion of sulphur-laden fossil fuels — such as the petroleum coke used to smelt aluminum — and irritates eyes, noses, throats and lungs. People with asthma, children and the elderly are at increased risk from sulphur dioxide exposure.

Two Kitimat elementary school teachers — Emily Toews, who suffers from asthma, and Lis Stannus — are now challenging that permit approval through the B.C. Environmental Appeals Board, arguing the project threatens human and environmental health. The appeal, being heard by a tribunal in Kitimat, is in its third week.

“This case really does represent a situation where you have a regulator that has gotten too close to a powerful and well-resourced private interest that it is supposed to be independently regulating,” Tollefson told the tribunal.

Central to the tribunal are the extensive notes McKenzie took while the Ministry of Environment, including manager of environmental protection Ian Sharpe, and Rio Tinto Alcan discussed the company’s permit application.

On Monday, Sharpe told the appeals panel Rio Tinto Alcan was “after comfort in the authorization process” and that he discussed the possibility of creating “some kind of comfort letter or document…that would give Rio Tinto Alcan’s board the comfort they needed to get on with funding.”

“This is B.C.’s version of the Duffy senate scandal: it shows how deeply comfortable government and industry are with one other,” said Richard Overstall, counsel for Emily Toews.

BC left sulphur dioxide limits unanswered

McKenzie’s notes show the provincial government was aware of scrubbing technology — used to eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions from smelters around the world — but chose not to require Rio Tinto Alcan to put that technology in place.

Under cross-examination, McKenzie read aloud his notes, which referenced Rio Tinto Alcan’s request to eliminate the mention of scrubbers from an internal memo. He also noted a phone call from a deputy minister who “did not want to let a little SO2 get in the way” of Rio Tinto Alcan’s project.

McKenzie’s journals also show the company was anxious about the projected increase of sulphur dioxide emissions from the modernization project and wanted regulatory certainty to calm investors.

Construction on Kitimat smelter modernization (Bechtel) — Construction on Rio Tinto Alcan’s Kitimat smelter modernization (Bechtel)

Rio Tinto Alcan requested specific sulphur dioxide discharge limits during the creation of a joint memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the province. Under the MOU, the province committed to regulate Rio Tinto Alcan under sulphur dioxide standards from the 1970s — and guaranteed those weak rules would stay in effect for the project until at least the end of 2018, even though the province introduced much stronger interim standards in 2014.

Those weak standards were eventually dropped altogether by Sharpe, who said he began to consider them “obsolete,” but told the panel he could not recall when. No new standards for Rio Tinto Alcan’s smelter have been put into place and, according to Sharpe, won’t be in place until B.C. or the federal government mandate them after conducting a full public consultation.

McKenzie’s notes make numerous mentions to Rio Tinto Alcan’s desire for “certainty” regarding potential SO2 standards.

“SO2 is troubling to Alcan,” McKenzie wrote in one entry entered into evidence. “Insisting they have limit ahead of time — something in writing.”

McKenzie noted in one internal correspondence:

[quote]Alcan is anxious to get green light…to provide good news on project to stakeholders.[/quote]

The province approved the company’s permit in 2013 but did not release an environmental monitoring plan until 18 months later. Although the modernization project is very close to complete, it remains without sulphur dioxide emission limits.

Appellants point to regulatory capture

Between the period of 2007 and 2013, McKenzie was seconded to Rio Tinto Alcan, which funded his position. He worked closely with the company during the permit application process.

Tollefson argues Sharpe’s close ties with Rio Tinto Alcan influenced and ultimately fettered his decision-making.

The evidence shows that government of B.C. and Rio Tinto Alcan “deliberated carefully over the language” contained in their agreement “knowing that it might be challenged in court on the ground that it fettered the discretion of the decision-maker charged with granting the permit,” he told the panel.

[quote]We need to reinvigorate the idea of a regulator as a fearless public defender[/quote]

That was not the case with Ministry of Environment officials, who, according to Tollefson, throughout years of documents refer to Rio Tinto Alcan as a “client” and tend to view the world through “industry-coloured glasses.”

Overstall said there was a “slow creep” of industry’s interests into government activities.

“That’s what we see with the Duffy scandal: these guys get so involved they lose their compass,” he said.

“No one wakes up one morning and decides, ‘I’m going to get cozy with industry.’ It’s more of a slow creep,” Overstall said. “They make small decisions one after another behind closed doors thinking what they’re doing is okay until suddenly the public spotlight is shone on them.”