Tag Archives: featured

$Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word$

Rafe: With fracking, tankers “world-class safety” is a weasel word

July 19, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

Rafe-with fracking, tankers world-class safety is just a weasel word — BC Premier Christy Clark touts “world-class” safety for fossil fuel projects (Canadian Press)

Many times I have referred to Premier Clark’s demand that Enbridge and others have “world-class” cleanup processes in place. To repeat myself, these are “weasel words” and mean absolutely nothing. “World-class” firefighting procedures doesn’t mean the building didn’t burn down.

I was delighted to read Stephen Hume’s column in the Vancouver Sun of July 17, where he talks about “weasel words”, especially the term “world-class”, and other matters. This particular article is about fracking and in his surgical way, Hume carves up the government for it’s utter lack of process and covering each and every one of their tracks by use of the words “world class”.

Government naively accepts industry’s word on safety

We have seen a similar absence of investigation by the Clark government into the risks of LNG, be it in pipelines, plants, or tankers. This government is now known for two things: an utter lack of preparation and lying through their teeth.

British Columbia under Christy Clark is brought to the position where we are to have pipelines and oil tankers; LNG plants, pipelines, and tankers; and fracking for natural gas, without any idea as to the safety of these projects. Premier Clark and her cabinet lickspittles simply take the company’s word that what they plan is environmentally benign.

Companies lie by their very nature. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on public relations every year. One only has to look at the ads from Enbridge over the last year or so to see the kind of money they spend and the sort of message that they put out.

Many British Columbians accept the need for oil pipelines, LNG, and fracking and the tanker traffic associated with them and I must ask my fellow citizens upon what do you base your support? Do you have some information about the safety of these projects that we don’t? If so, would you be so kind as to vouchsafe it to the rest of us so that we can, perhaps, change our minds?

British Columbians face onslaught of projects

A couple of years ago, in a speech, I observed that the attacks on the environment of British Columbia were so many, so varied, and so widespread that it would be difficult for us to deal with them just because of their sheer volume. Unfortunately this has manifestly been proved true.

[signoff3]

Citizens of a democracy, faced with this sort of an onslaught, have a right to expect that their government will stand at the gate and not let anybody by who is going to do harm. We are entitled to believe that our government will investigate each and every potential environmental assault and advise us of what dangers we face.

We expect governments to give a full accounting on the danger of oil spills from pipelines and tanker accidents; we expect a full investigation by the government of safety factors as well as the environmental concerns around LNG plants, pipelines and tankers; we expect our government to make a thorough investigation of fracking before the first undertaking starts. On that latter point, fracking is going ahead full blast and the government hasn’t lifted a finger to deal with its safety or environmental concerns – like massive climate impacts and water contamination, as recent, reputable studies reveal.

Public can’t rely on government

We, who pride ourselves on being environmentalists, must do extensive investigations on our own to learn the facts. There is absolutely no point in going to government departments to find out what they know because they know nothing. It is idle to go to the companies involved because they are incapable of telling the truth.

This is the extent of democracy under the Christy Clark government.

NDP ‘opposition’ not much better

One would like to think that the NDP, her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, would be different.

Unfortunately, the leader of the NDP seems to favour LNG. He is thinking about fracking. He is also, apparently, confused about the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and on this critical issue, the Party Policy falls all over its own feet.

British Columbians left on their own

It is the totality of tanker traffic carrying diluted bitumen (dilbit) and LNG which has not been assessed by the government and doesn’t seem to be bothering the opposition – yet this is a massive issue.

We are left in British Columbia on our own. Those people to whom we pay a great deal of money to manage our affairs are in thrall to big industry, which finances the Liberal Party and supports it politically. It, like the government, is hugely economical with the truth. We citizens must then inform ourselves.

As I see it, we have only one political option. I am, God knows, no socialist. I ran against the NDP twice and beat them twice. I stood against them in the legislature. My last two votes in provincial elections have been for the Greens.

Having said that, the Greens are not going to win the next election and the NDP do have a chance.

What the NDP must do to regain public’s support

If the NDP are to win they have to increase their support substantially.

If the NDP do increase their support by candidly, fully and fairly looking at environmental matters and reporting to us faithfully as to their findings and encourage the fullest debates, I not only think they have a chance to win, but would be an acceptable government to have.

One thing that I must say in conclusion – I cannot believe that my fellow citizens would be insane enough to support Christy Clark and her bunch once again.

If that happens, we deserve what we get, even though our kids sure as hell don’t.

Under BC Liberals, big projects often double in cost…Why would Site C Dam be any different?

July 17, 2014Economics, Hydropower, Politics, WATER, Western CanadafeaturedDamien Gillis

Under BC Liberals, big projects routinely double in budget...Why would Site C be any different — Seeing red: The roof on BC Place Stadium is just one of many cost overruns on the BC Liberals’ watch

Oh, for the days of the fast ferries…compared to what we have now.

Most British Columbians will recall Premier Glen Clark’s late 1990’s boondoggle, which saw the construction of three new coastal vessels balloon from a projected $210 million to nearly $460 million.

How could we forget? After the relentless salvos from pundits like Vaughan Palmer and Mike Smyth led to the NDP government’s collapse, in every election cycle since, the incumbent BC Liberals have dragged out these ghost ships to bolster their own economic credentials. To Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark, the fast ferries are the gift that keeps on giving.

Liberal fiscal record sets new lows

The only problem is the Liberals’ own fiscal fiascos absolutely dwarf those of their NDP predecessors – though they’re consistently able to get away with it.

Sure, Mr. Palmer has poked holes in the government’s laughable election promise of a debt-free BC and raised red flags over the government’s routine cost overruns, but the pundits’ knives have been decidedly less sharp over the past 13 years. Unlike the NDP, Liberal governments face no real consequences for their misdeeds.

With the Liberals on track to double the $34 Billion provincial debt they inherited from what history would now suggest was a surprisingly restrained NDP, it’s high time for an update to their fiscal report card. (That debt doesn’t even include an additional $100 Billion in contractual taxpayer obligations, like private power contracts, which they’ve swept under rug).

This is especially important with projects like the $8 Billion proposed Site C Dam currently under review (and if you believe that sticker price, I’ve got some pond-front property in northern Alberta you may be interested in).

In the real world, budgets don’t double

On that last point, Fort St. John businessman Bob Fedderly put the Liberals’ woeful record of project management in perspective when I interviewed him recently about Site C, which he and a growing number of businesspeople are opposed to.

“If you look back over the last 10 or 12 years to every project of any magnitude, it’s ballooned right out of proportion – two times, three times is not uncommon,” Fedderly noted. “This is a pattern that’s appearing on project cost management.”

Contrasting the government’s track record with his own companies’ construction projects, he acknowledged a 10% margin for error was acceptable – but no more than that.

[quote]In the real world of people building houses, they don’t double in price.[/quote]

How bad is the government’s legacy with major capital projects? Pretty darned awful. Here are a few lowlights:

1. Port Mann Bridge/Hwy 1 widening: 550% of initial estimate

Artist's drawing of new Port Mann Bridge — Artist’s drawing of new Port Mann Bridge

According to The Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, “Originally, the government said the cost of improvements to the Port Mann would be $600 million. That ballooned to $1.5 billion in 2006 when the government announced it would twin the bridge. Now, the total cost of the project is expected to be $3.3 billion” (that’s $2.46 Billion, rising to $3.3 Billion including operation and maintenance costs).

Extra demerits for a serious design flaw that led to falling ice bombs, putting passengers at risk and ringing up $400,000 in insurance claims for ICBC.

2. BC Place Stadium roof upgrade: 514% of initial estimate

While the official line is that the upgrade to BC Place Stadium skyrocketed from $365 to $514 million, a January 2008 letter from operator PAVCO’s Chairman David Podmore to Vancouver City Manager Judy Rogers pegged the total cost at just $100 million. I’m no architect, but that seems like a reasonable price, whereas $514 million does not. After all, Seattle built a perfectly good stadium for its Seahawks in 2002 for just $360 million. All we got is a roof.

Extra demerits for design flaws which restricted the retractable roof’s ability to…well, retract.

3. Northwest Transmission Line: 182% of initial estimate

Crown corporation BC Hydro’s construction of the Northwest Transmission Line – designed to power an assortment of proposed mines in the Sacred Headwaters region of the province – has nearly doubled from initial estimates of $404 million to the most recent tally of $736 million (expect the final number to be considerably higher).

Extra demerits for management error that could cost BC $130 million in federal “green infrastructure” support for the project. The Liberal government received the grant to electrify the village of Iskut, getting it off diesel power. All the province had to do was file a plan for the spur with the feds by June 30, 2012 – but it missed its deadline by nearly a year, meaning that, technically, the BC public is on the hook to repay the entire $130 million.

4. Vancouver Convention Centre: 178% of initial estimate

The Vancouver Convention Centre (Wikipedia)

For all its LEED certifications and architectural attributes, the Vancouver Convention Centre also exploded from estimates of under $500 million to nearly $900 million by its 2009 completion.

What’s worse, all this could have been avoided if the Liberal government simply followed its own critique of the NDP’s fast ferries experience – namely, not having people without construction experience overseeing the project (i.e. Liberal powerbroker Ken Dobell) and being sure to have finalized plans for the contractor to execute. Lacking the latter, a fixed-price contract proved impossible to nail down.

5. South Fraser Perimeter Road: 169% of initial estimate

Perhaps the only way for the Liberal government to assert it’s on time and on budget with a major project is to lie about it, as this unnecessary, convoluted truck highway through Delta and Surrey demonstrates. Laila Yuile, a blogger and one of the province’s shrewdest transportation project watchdogs, recalled last year that initial estimates for the project ranged from $700-800 million.

[signoff3]

By the time it was completed in 2013, it was a year late and the cost had risen to $1.264 Billion – significantly more than a revised estimate of around a billion dollars. But that didn’t stop the government from boasting that its project was “on time and on budget”. As Vaughan Palmer quipped at the time, “Regular readers of this space will be familiar with the more flexible approach that the B.C. Liberals have taken toward the concept of being on time and on budget.”

Why won’t the NDP stand up for itself?

Perhaps the biggest mystery in all of this is the NDP opposition’s failure to call the government out for its dismal fiscal record. How “Mr. Nice Guy” Adrian Dix saw fit to let the Liberals off the hook for this series of blunders that make the fast ferry overruns look like pocket change is baffling. It cost them the last election, as I noted in the aftermath of that sorry affair.

Liberal record a harbinger of Site C boondoggle

Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal — Proposed Site C Dam on Peace River

These numbers and examples of the Liberals’ fiscal ineptitude should be of real concern to BC taxpayers today as we ponder projects like Site C Dam – whose $8 Billion estimate (making it one of the highest-priced government infrastructure undertakings in Canadian history) is surely only the tip of the iceberg. Dams, as a rule, are highly prone to cost overruns – the World Bank estimates an average of 27% around the globe.

This is a project that will not serve the homes and businesses of BC, which are already self-sufficient in electricity far into the foreseeable future – rather, we’re told it’s to power liquefied natural gas production or to export to California (likely at a considerable loss for some time).

When you factor in the usual Liberal premium of doubling the cost, it’s not hard to see how this dam could sink us in more ways than one.

Site C Dam threatens BC’s credit rating: Hudson’s Hope Mayor, Council

July 15, 2014Economics, Hydropower, WATERfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

The following is a July 15 open letter to Premier Christy Clark from the District of Hudson’s Hope – near the location of the proposed Site C reservoir.

Dear Premier Clark,

Re: British Columbia Utilities Commission Review of Proposed Site C Dam Project

I am writing to urgently request that you refer the proposed Site C Dam Project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for further review of project costs, alternatives to Site C, and related issues prior to making a decision on this project.

Prudent fiscal management requires further review of Site C

The District of Hudson’s Hope, a community of 1,100 people in the heart of the Peace River Valley, will be more adversely impacted than any other municipality by the proposed Site C dam.

Understandably, we wish to ensure that these adverse community and environmental impacts and the $7.9 billion cost of the proposed Site C project are justified and necessary for meeting British Columbia’s future electricity needs.

The proposed $7.9 billion Site C project may also be the largest provincial public expenditure of the next 20 years, adding over 10% to our growing $62 billion provincial debt. BC taxpayers, whether they live in Hudson’s Hope, Penticton, Surrey, Comox, Coquitlam, Prince George, Vancouver, Delta, Victoria or any other BC community, reasonably expect the government to subject Site C project costs and alternatives to open, rigorous and independent review with full procedural safeguards before committing to such a large capital expenditure.

[signoff3]

Rating agencies such as Moody’s call this prudent fiscal management. When Moody’s reaffirmed B.C.’s triple-A credit rating in May of this year, it was accompanied by a negative outlook due to accumulation of provincial debt. Moody’s said:

[quote]The negative outlook reflects the risks to the province’s ability to reverse the recent accumulation in debt given a softened economic outlook, weaker commodity prices and continued expense pressures.[/quote]

What better way to demonstrate prudent fiscal management than to subject Site C project costs and alternatives to open, rigorous and independent scrutiny by the BCUC?

Yet this is not what has happened – at least to date. The Site C Joint Review Panel (JRP) was prevented by a combination of BC law, public policy, terms of reference, and a lack of information from fully scrutinizing key project elements including project costs and alternatives to Site C (1).

However, this did not prevent the JRP from flagging its concerns about project costs: “The Panel cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of Project cost estimates [by BC Hydro] because it does not have the information, time or resources. This affects all further calculations of unit costs, revenue requirements and rates.”

Or asking questions about alternatives such as natural gas:

[quote]Finally, if it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool, and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?[/quote]

To ensure proper scrutiny, the JRP recommended on May 1st, 2014 in its 457 page final report that a number of matters be referred to the BCUC for further review (2).

The JRP noted,”… available resources could provide adequate energy and capacity until at least 2028″ and accordingly there is time available for the BCUC to do this work. However, Minister of Energy and Mines, Bill Bennett was quick to dismiss further scrutiny. On May 8th, 2014, the same day as the report’s public release, Minister Bennett said:

[quote] …I think that the work has been done and I think subjecting it to another review after all the years the project has been studied is not a good use of public money …[/quote]

Madame Premier, this defies prudent fiscal management. BC needs to complete its homework on Site C.

Hudson’s Hope, BC taxpayers and rating agencies such as Moody’s need to be fully satisfied that this $7.9 billion project will not be characterized as a white elephant that transformed the beautiful Peace River Valley into a dam reservoir, increased the provincial debt by over 10%, and put BC’s strong fiscal management record at risk.

Urban Systems report supports need for BCUC review

Recognizing these major uncertainties, the District of Hudson’s Hope retained Urban Systems Ltd. to review the findings of the JRP Report, and compile information from the proposed project’s Environmental Impact Statement, BC Hydro’s Integrated Resource Plan, and other relevant resources and data to examine the following key question:

[quote]Are the anticipated community and environmental impacts, and high-costs of the proposed Site C project justified and necessary for meeting British Columbia’s future electricity needs?[/quote]

We are attaching a copy of the Urban Systems report entitled, “A Review of the Proposed Site C Clean Energy Project: Exploring the Alternatives” for your consideration.

The JRP concluded that BC Hydro has not fully demonstrated the need for this project on the timetable set forth and Urban Systems has also concluded that a commitment to the proposed Site C is project is likely premature: “The material cited within this document suggests that a commitment to the proposed Site C project is likely premature before the British Columbia Utilities Commission undertakes a review of the proposed project costs and long-term energy needs, including the comparative costs and benefits of potential alternatives. And as the JRP notes there is time to do this work.”

Urban Systems reviewed 5 alternative scenarios to Site C including retrofits and upgrades, geothermal, other renewables and enhanced demand side management, natural gas/cogeneration, and emerging technologies. Urban Systems concludes: ” … there are likely alternatives which could be cost-competitive and viable to meet future electricity needs.”

A preliminary comparison of selected alternatives to Site C suggests that BC could pursue these alternatives and potentially save over $ 5 billion in project costs. The “accumulation of debt” by the province would be significantly reduced. Please refer to Table A.

Finally, Urban Systems cautions that emerging trends could result in a risk to ratepayers: ‘

[quote]Three trends are occurring simultaneously that could substantially reduce the need for the proposed Site C project and affect BC Hydro’s forecasted revenues, thus limiting its ability to pay for such an asset over its 70 year amortization period. These three trends include: increases in BC Hydro electrical rates, the decreasing cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, and the commercialization of micro grid enabling technologies.[/quote]

Conclusion

With the benefit of the information contained in this letter, I urge you to do what is fiscally prudent and makes common sense – refer the proposed Site e project to the BeUC for open, rigorous and independent review of project costs, forecasted revenues and less costly alternatives to Site e prior to making a decision on this project.

To do anything less for the largest and most expensive public project in Be in the next 20 years is imprudent, especially for a government that prides itself on its triple-A credit rating. I would appreciate a written response from you by July 31st, 2014.

_______________________________

1 JRP findings:

• The Panel concludes that, basing a $7.9 billion Project on a 20-year demand forecast without an explicit 20-year scenario of prices [by BC Hydro] is not good practice. Electricity prices will strongly affect demand, including Liquefied Natural Gas facility demand.

• The Panel concludes that demand management does not appear to command the same degree of analytic effort [by BC Hydro] as does new supply.

• The Panel concludes that a failure [of BC Hydro] to pursue research of the last 30 years into B.C.’s geothermal resources has left BC Hydro without information about a resource that BC Hydro thinks may offer up to 700 megawatts of firm, economic power with low environmental costs.

2 Please refer to JRP recommendations 46,47,48 and 49.

Two legal challenges filed against Northern Gateway

July 12, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

By The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Two legal challenges were filed Friday against the federal cabinet’s approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Gitxaala (git-HAT’-lah) First Nations, who hail from the North Coast of British Columbia, filed an application for judicial review with the Federal Court of Appeal.

Ecojustice filed a separate application on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

The environmental groups are asking for a court order quashing the approval of the pipeline proposed by Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB).

Ecojustice lawyer Barry Robinson says the federal approval was a flawed decision based on a flawed report by the federal environmental assessment panel.

The groups also want the Conservative cabinet to provide reasons for approving the project that would link the Alberta oilsands with a marine terminal on the B.C. coast.

READ: Native law expert: First Nations hold power to stop Enbridge

[signoff3]

Rafe: First Nations, Constitution are Canadians’ best defence

July 10, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedRafe Mair

First Nations, Constitution are Canadians' best defence — Chiefs of the Tsimshian First Nation speak out against Enrbidge at a 2012 Prince Rupert rally

Big money now rules the world. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed. No government in the world is doing anything about this – least of all the Conservative government in Canada.

The only people fighting this, and for their own reasons, are First Nations. We all do things for our own selfish reasons so that was not meant to be a criticism, but simply a statement of fact.

It is time we looked at the reality of the Roger Williams case in light of the fight against big business and see how it plays out. The best places to look are at the Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan pipelines.

‘Compelling and Substantive’

In light of the Williams case, they both face the same problem. Each of them must now consult with the appropriate First Nations. They may well consider that since they have been turned down they have already consulted with them to but my advice under the Williams case is to do it again and get turned down again.

They will then have to convince the crown, in this case the federal government, that their project is “compelling and a substantive” and consistent with the crown’s fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples.

I, frankly, think that it would be enormously difficult for a government to make that decision under any circumstances I can imagine. If nothing else, the political ramifications across Canada, with every First Nation, would be enormous. For a First Nation anywhere in the country to learn that one of their brethren, in trying to protect the environment of its land, was forcibly frustrated by the government would be a huge blow and would spread throughout the aboriginal community, and in my opinion, rightfully so.

Pipeline approvals will trigger lawsuits

Let us suppose for sake of argument that the crown, whether provincial or federal, does make such a decision. There would be, immediately, a lawsuit. Going on the past, a lawsuit would take five years , minimum, to resolve. Without any doubt it would go to the Supreme Court of Canada and from the company’s point of view, they would realize that the aboriginals have the longest winning streak in history in that court.

The main point is that no matter what, Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan have got a very long time to wait before they get the final decision in their favour, if they ever do.

Let us suppose they did get that final and for them favourable decision. This would not end the matter because in my view the public of British Columbia would still raise hell and there would be civil disobedience.

In short, I think that the Williams case spells paid to the two pipelines in question.

Exclusive use

There is another interesting feature arising out of the Williams case. A reader of my column in The Tyee points out that the Chief Justice talked about “exclusive use” of the land in question. What if two nations shared land by way of an understanding, tacit or otherwise? Would they not be able to claim that they should to share ownership of that land now because the two of them had had exclusive use?

I suppose the real point I’m making is that there are plenty of legal questions left and I can only wish that I had just graduated from Law School aged 24 instead of having done so in 1956!

First Nations stand best chance of protecting BC

As I have said elsewhere, I by no means think that the Williams case adversely affects development in British Columbia. It changes the rules and it changes who gets the money but First Nations want development too. They are, I might happily add, much more concerned about environmental matters than large international developers or governments. They are concerned about values like caribou, fish, and trees. They, in short, care about the sort of things that many other British Columbians are also concerned about but can’t get their governments to give a damn about.

First Nations know, as we all should know, that “dilbit”, which is the oil that would be transported by these pipelines, is lethal stuff. One need only look at the Kalamazoo River to see what happens when Bitumen, or dilbit, spills. As long as human beings are involved, we will have spills. Many, if not most, of these spills will be in virtually inaccessible places. We know from Kalamazoo that even if they spill is accessed, there is very little the company can do about it.

Living so close to the land and the oceans as First Nations do, they are keenly aware of these facts. Large international companies, and their client governments, don’t give a damn about these things – never have and never will.

The bottom line is that in the great war against marauding capital there is only one “Peter at the dike” and that’s our aboriginal community, as supported by the Canadian Constitution.

[signoff3]

BC govt, City of Vancouver: Kinder Morgan dodging pipeline questions

July 5, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western CanadafeaturedCanadian Press

City of Vancouver-Kinder Morgan ducking pipeline questions — Mayor Gregor Robertson and Vancouver Council have some tough questions for Kinder Morgan (facebook)

By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – Kinder Morgan has failed to answer many of the questions put to the company about its proposed Trans Mountain pipeline through the regulatory review process, charge a chorus of critics that includes the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver.

Kinder Morgan ignore 40% of city’s questions

The city submitted 394 written questions as part of the National Energy Board’s regulatory review process but said the Texas-based company did not respond to 40 per cent of them, covering everything from emergency management plans to compensation in the event of an oil spill.

“We submitted almost 400 questions and only about 248 of them were answered,” said Sadhu Johnston, deputy city manager. The rest “were quite inadequate in the way they were answered, with either no answer or only partial answers.”

[quote]As interveners we are trying to assess the proposed project and are finding it quite difficult to get information on the project. That does make it hard for us to fully evaluate the proposal and to prepare our experts and our expert testimony to ask the right questions and formulate an opinion.[/quote]

Both the city and the province submitted requests to the energy board Friday asking the regulator to compel Kinder Morgan to respond to the outstanding requests.

Province stonewalled too

Kinder Morgan bills customers for pipeline application — Proposed Kinder Morgan tanker terminal expansion

The B.C. Environment Ministry issued a statement saying they had submitted more than 70 information requests to the company through the board, dealing with maritime and land-based spill response, prevention and recovery systems.

“In a number of cases, Kinder Morgan’s responses to the information requests do not provide sufficient information,” the statement said. “That makes it difficult for the province to evaluate whether the Trans Mountain expansion project will include world-leading marine and land oil spill systems.”

As part of the board review of the pipeline that would link the Alberta oil sands to Port Metro Vancouver, the company had to respond to more than 10,000 questions submitted by hundreds of groups and individuals granted intervener status by the board.

No direct, oral questioning of Kinder Morgan

Under new rules for the regulatory review, there is a strict timeline and the board decided not to allow direct oral questioning of company officials. All questions must be submitted in writing ahead of hearings set to begin in early 2015.

It’s a very restrictive process, Johnston said.

“It’s really become quite undemocratic, the way the NEB is running the process,” he said.

[signoff3]

The city said the responses it did receive made it clear that the company will not cover the first responder costs incurred by Vancouver in the event of disaster and it said the responses from Kinder Morgan raise questions on the economic feasibility of the project.

Weaver: Answers ‘simply unacceptable’

B.C. Green MLA Andrew Weaver has also complained about the responses provided by the company to his 500 questions.

He filed a motion with the energy board Thursday asking for full and adequate responses and a revised review timetable to incorporate “new and reasonable” deadlines for information requests and evidence.

“Many of the answers I received are simply unacceptable,” Weaver, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist, said in a statement.

Kinder Morgan declined a request for an interview.

Scott Stoness, vice-president of regulatory and finance for the company, said in an emailed statement that Trans Mountain believes it provided robust responses to questions “that were within the scope of the regulatory review.”

Some of the information is market sensitive or would be a security risk to release, he wrote.

“It is normal in regulatory processes that there are debates about whether questions are appropriate and/or in scope,” Stoness wrote.

[quote]We understand some interveners may not be satisfied with the answers we provided. That is why the NEB process allows for interveners to make motions on the responses we submitted.[/quote]

They will have another opportunity to question the company and to submit their own evidence later this year, he said.

READ ABOUT Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan’s battle with Kinder Morgan

Rail expert: One year after Lac-Megantic, not much has changed

July 4, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

Rail expert-One year after Lac-Mégantic, not much has changed — Emergency responders were unequipped to deal with Lac-Mégantic disaster, says a Quebec rail expert

By Peter Rakobowchuk, The Canadian Press

MONTREAL – An expert who examined the devastating train derailment in Lac-Megantic says no plans and equipment are in place to deal with a similar situation as the one-year anniversary of the tragedy approaches.

Rosa Galvez-Cloutier, a civil engineering professor at Universite Laval, says she doesn’t think much has changed since the massive explosion and fire that killed 47 people on July 6, although the federal government has tightened regulations.

“There was an evident lack of preparation at all levels,” she said on Wednesday.

[quote]Prevention measures, preparedness and emergency plans need to urgently be updated.[/quote]

She says firefighters and security officials were overwhelmed by the inferno when the derailment happened.

“I think there was a panic and there was a lack of co-ordination,” the Quebec expert said.

Firefighters unequipped to deal with blaze

Galvez-Cloutier, who was at the scene, says she was surprised to see firefighters were still cooling the oil tanker cars after eight hours and they were even not fighting the fire.

She says what made it even more complicated was there was no information about the exact composition of the oil that was being burned.

Galvez-Cloutier says if firefighters knew that, they would have known what type of actions to take, such as using foam to combat the blaze.

“I know that Ultramar brought in, as a last resort, some foam to assist, but this was based on their goodwill, not a pre-planned emergency measure,” she said.

Galvez-Cloutier made her comments online during a webinar hosted by the Science Media Center of Canada.

Quebec pledges support for increased training

In its recent budget, the Quebec government announced annual funding of $4 million to provide financial assistance for the training of part-time volunteer firefighters in municipalities.

It noted that the Lac-Megantic disaster showed part-time volunteer firefighters are often first responders in many municipalities in Quebec and the funding will “help ensure that Quebec’s municipalities can respond effectively to such disasters.”

Environmental impacts unknown

Cleanup efforts on Lac-Megantic (Ryan Remiroz/CP)

During her presentation, Galvez-Cloutier also noted that important information about the environmental effects of the oil spill is still unknown.

“There was a destruction of the waste water treatment plant at Lac-Megantic city that released pathogens into the water and not much has been said about this,” she said. “These pathogens can include E. coli viruses and other pathogens.”

Bakken shale oil highly volatile

Jean-Paul Lacoursiere, a chemical engineering expert, says the highly-volatile crude was being shipped from North Dakota and the Bakken shale formation, from which the oil is extracted, extends into Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

“We are going to face (light) oil either from Alberta where it’s occurring and from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and potentially from the Anticosti Island here in Quebec,” the University de Sherbrooke professor said.

“That’s the future of what’s going to be transported — that’s what I see personally.”

Dangerous tanker cars prohibited for dangerous goods

Dangerous Dot-111 cars are being phased out — Dot-111 cars can no longer carry dangerous goods

The federal government has prohibited use of DOT-111 tanker cars — the kind that ruptured in Lac-Megantic — for transporting dangerous goods.

“The roll-out of improved tank cars is going to be a significant improvement,” Bill Hjelholt, a freight rail industry expert, told the webinar.

Ottawa has also strengthened emergency response requirements and ordered railways hauling dangerous goods to assess the risk of routes and reduce train speeds.

In addition, communities alongside tracks are advised of hazardous goods carried by rail, but — apparently for security reasons — only after they have passed through.

The Railway Association of Canada, a group that represents rail companies, says the industry is committed to do what is required in the areas of safety, training and emergency preparedness to prevent another disaster like the one that occurred in Lac Megantic.

It says the rail industry in North America is spending $2.5 billion this year to ensure the safety of its infrastructure.

[signoff3]

Orcas face triple threat: Vessel noise, pollution, lack of food

July 3, 2014Ocean Health, Oceans, Species At RiskfeaturedCanadian Press

Orcas face triple threat - Vessel noise, pollution, lack of food — Photo: NOAA

By Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press

VICTORIA – Triple threats of pollution, vessel noise and the availability of food are making it hard for a group of orcas that live along the continent’s West Coast to increase beyond an estimated population of 80, says a decade-long U.S. study.

Southern resident Orcas can be found in the Salish Sea off Vancouver Island and Washington State, and have been seen as far south as Monterey Bay, Calif., and as far north as Chatham Strait, Alaska.

Lynne Barre, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Monday from Seattle, Wash., that experts don’t consider the southern residents in recovery, so the animals will remain an endangered species. Barre noted:

[quote]Right now, they’re not growing as fast as our recovery criteria would require for them to be taken off the Endangered Species List. They’ve been hovering around the 80s for quite some time.[/quote]

Theme parks contributed to population’s decline

There are estimates the southern resident population once numbered at least 140 animals, and was perhaps as high as 200, but that was before nearly 50 were removed from the population in the 1960s and ’70s and placed into theme parks, Barre said.

She said since 2003 NOAA scientists have collected data, ranging from fecal and biopsy samples to satellite-location data and behavioural observations, in order to provide a comprehensive look into the health of the population, and to inform recovery efforts.

Food, noise, pollution are top threats

The study found after 10 years of research that pollution, vessel noise and the availability of food are the three major barriers to recovery for the southern residents, said Barre.

“It’s most likely a combination of the threats that’s resulting in the lack of recovery for the whales,” Barre said.

[quote]If they don’t have enough food to eat, that’s when they’ll use their blubber where those (pollution) contaminants are stored. Also, vessels and sound make it difficult to find prey that is in the environment. All three of those threats work together to cause problems for the whales.[/quote]

The study found southern residents are among the most contaminated marine mammals in the world. They favour endangered Chinook salmon as prey, and when vessels are present they hunt less and travel more.

Disappearing Chinook, contaminants affect food supply

Barre said pollution causes disease and reproduction problems in the southern residents. She said endangered Chinook runs limit their primary food source, and when vessels are nearby, the orcas call louder, hunt less and spend more time and energy trying to get away from the traffic.

Chinook salmon are a key part of orcas' diet — Chinook salmon are a key part of orcas’ diet

Chinook salmon make up a majority of the whales’ diet, particularly in the summer, but many runs of Chinook are endangered or threatened, potentially limiting the food source, she said.

Pollutants like PCBs, DDT and now flame retardants were found in high concentrations in the southern residents, she said.

Vessel noise affects feeding patterns

The study also found southern residents spent less time hunting for food when vessels were in their area. Instead, they swam in less predictable patterns, including breaching and slapping their tail fins.

Barre said they were also observed to communicate in louder tones when vessels were nearby.

Whale watchers must maintain a safe distance and turn off motors — All boats must now maintain a safe distance from whales

She said changes in 2011 to increase the distance from which whale-watching vessels can view whales appear to have been adopted by the industry, but the message to stay away from the Orcas still hasn’t resonated with recreational boaters and anglers.

“They either don’t know about the rules or aren’t paying attention to what’s going on around them, or they just want to drive right up to the whales to get a close look,” said Barre.

Kristin Hobbis of Victoria’s Eagle Wing Tours said the southern residents are curious animals and often come up to the boats to take a look, but the tour operators are vigilant about keeping their distance.

“We just have to shut off our engines,” she said. “It’s super, super important to them for sure that we are not crossing any lines.”

[signoff3]

Fortis, US mull massive Similkameen dam; Where is BC govt?

July 2, 2014Hydropower, WATERfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

US, Canadian dams threaten Similkameen Valley-BC govt doesn't care — A popular recreation site, the Similkameen Valley is threatened by dams (Photo: SimilkameenValley.com)

By Ken Farquharson

The Similkameen River valley provides one of the most popular and scenic travel routes in BC. The campsites strung along the river, swimming at Bromley Rock, the old mining town of Hedley, the fruit stands of Keremeos, the wineries of Cawston, and the transition to the sage brush of the Okanagan, make for a varied and memorable BC travel experience. The river provides kayak and canoe runs for both the expert and the novice, and is one of only two free flowing transboundary rivers in southern BC that is not either managed for hydropower or in protected status of some sort.

However all is not serene in the Similkameen Valley, and the cause of this is the curious lack of interest of the BC government to protect the public interest in proposals to change the Similkameen River, the heart of the Valley.

BC govt sitting on sidelines of proposed US dam

The story starts in 2007 when the Okanogan Public Utility District, the small utility serving Okanogan County in Washington, applied to the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to study a dam proposed at Shankers Bend in Washington, which would flood the BC section of the Similkameen valley as far upstream as Cawston.

Given the lesson learned from the argument over the Skagit Valley from 1969 to 1983 that it is essential to participate early in the regulatory process, the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society ( CPAWS) immediately filed with FERC as intervenors. The BC government sat back, and, although Minister Barry Penner was made well aware of the potential impacts in BC, declined to file as an intervenor leaving it to the ONA, CPAWS and the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen to register their objections. The PUD eventually withdrew its application.

Fortis applies for 165m-high dam on Similkameen

In 2013, Fortis BC, the local utility, applied for permits to conduct studies on the Crown land required for the reservoir ( 20km long) and the dam site for a 165m-high concrete dam in the Similkameen Canyon, 15km upstream from Princeton, with a generation capacity of 45-55MW. If the final proposed capacity is below 50MW, the project may not be required to go through the environmental assessment process. As the plant is proposed as a market generator, it would not have to be reviewed by the BC Utilities Commission, as the cost would not be rolled into the utility’s rate base. It is possible the project could escape review entirely.

Map of proposed dam site on the Similkameen River

Fortis conceded in a meeting with the Regional District on 22 May this year that the project may not be economical based on generation alone and that it had already approached downstream parties in the US with interests in generation and irrigation as to whether they would be prepared to pay for the downstream benefits created by the project.

This action was confirmed by information that the Washington State Department of Ecology had allocated $1.6M in its budget for 2015-17 for a payment to Fortis for “Evaluation of a proposed hydropower and water supply….shared cost and water supply for Washington and Oregon” – no mention of BC needs.

This allotment was confirmed by the Director, Office of the Columbia River, Washington Department of Ecology, to Steve Arstad, editor of the Keremeos Review, on 9 June, when he advised that

[quote]Fortis was interested in developing a contract with us for scheduled releases of some of the water stored behind the dam. The timing of the releases would coincide with when water would be needed in Washington for instream and out-of-stream uses. The term of the contract would be for 50 years.[/quote]

It is clear, therefore, that if the project proceeds, control of the river would pass to Fortis and downstream US interests.

Fortis would be sole beneficiary of agreements

The Columbia River Treaty gave BC half the value of the downstream benefits in the US from provision of water storage in BC. The province took that money for itself. Queries to the BC Comptroller of Water Resources resulted in advice that, for this project, the province was leaving Fortis to negotiate any downstream agreements, and that Fortis would be the sole beneficiary of these agreements. It should be noted that any agreement made between Fortis and US interests will be between private parties and thus not subject to Freedom of Information requests.

The BC Water Regulations allow the province to collect a fee from any licensee benefiting from payments from downstream generators in the US for benefits received for power generation, but have no such provision for benefits generated from flood control or water storage.

Province derelict of duty

In respect to this project, the province appears derelict in its management of the river in a number of ways, permitting Fortis to negotiate contracts that would mean control passing to US interests, not ensuring that the province would benefit from all downstream benefits, and lastly not having done the work to determine the future water needs of the BC section of the Similkameen Valley before contracts may be signed for water storage for US interests. It is possible BC interests could be locked out of access to such storage if it had all been negotiated away by Fortis.

There is already enough evidence to state that Fortis should be advised now by the province that this project is not in the public interest. Should the province continue to dither, there is a real risk that BC could lose control of this valued river, a public resource, for a sub-marginal project, with the benefits going solely to the shareholders of Fortis and downstream interests in Washington. The people of BC surely deserve better from our politicians and bureaucrats in planning for the future of this beautiful river and valley.

[signoff3]

Fracked wells emit 6 times more methane leaks: New Cornell study

July 2, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&GasfeaturedCanadian Press

By Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – In Pennsylvania’s gas drilling boom, newer and unconventional wells leak far more often than older and traditional ones, according to a study of state inspection reports for 41,000 wells.

The results suggest that leaks of methane could be a problem for drilling across the nation, said study lead author Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea, who heads an environmental activist group that helped pay for the study.

Scientists say fracking can't fulfill America's energy needs — Drilling on a fracking well pad in Pennsylvania

The research was criticized by the energy industry. Marcellus Shale Coalition spokesman Travis Windle said it reflects Ingraffea’s “clear pattern of playing fast and loose with the facts.”

The Marcellus shale formation of plentiful but previously hard-to-extract trapped natural gas stretches over Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York.

The study was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team of four scientists analyzed more than 75,000 state inspections of gas wells done in Pennsylvania since 2000.

Methane leaks 6 times higher than older, conventional wells

Overall, older wells — those drilled before 2009 — had a leak rate of about 1 per cent. Most were traditional wells, drilling straight down. Unconventional wells — those drilled horizontally and commonly referred to as fracking — didn’t come on the scene until 2006 and quickly took over.

Newer traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 per cent; the rate for unconventional wells was about 6 per cent, the study found.

The leak rate reached as high as nearly 10 per cent horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of the state, where drilling is hot and heavy.

Graphic courtesy of UN Environment Program

The researchers don’t know where the leaky methane goes — into the water or the air, where it could be a problem worsening man-made global warming.

The scientists don’t know the size of the leaks or even their causes and industry officials deny that they are actual leaks. The study calls it “casing and cement impairment,” but the study’s lead author says that is when methane is flowing outside the pipe.

Said Ingraffea, who has been part of a team of Cornell researchers finding problems with fracking:

[quote]Something is coming out of it that shouldn’t, in a place that it shouldn’t. [/quote]

Ingraffea also heads a group of scientists and engineers that has criticized fracking and two of his co-authors are part of the group.

The study didn’t discuss why the leak rate spiked. Ingraffea said it could be because corners are being cut as drilling booms, better inspections or the way the gas is trapped in the rock formation.

Industry attacks researchers

Pennsylvania regulatory officials said their records show that gas leaks peaked in 2010 and are on the way down again, reflecting their efforts to stress proper cementing practices. Further in 2011, the state focused more on unconventional wells to make leak protection efforts “more stringent,” wrote Morgan Wagner, a spokesman for the state environmental agency.

[signoff3]

Energy industry officials attacked the study and Ingraffea.

Chris Tucker, spokesman for industry-supported group Energy In Depth, said what they measured may not be leaks but state inspectors detecting pressure buildup. Tucker wrote in an email:

[quote]The trick these researchers are pulling here is conflating pressure with leakage, trying to convince folks that the mere existence of the former is evidence of the latter[/quote]

Scientific community embraces study

But outside scientists, even pro-drilling ones, praised the study.

Terry Engelder of Pennsylvania State University, a pioneering supporter of the Marcellus fracking boom, said it shows there is plenty of room for improving drilling safety.

“It clearly indicates that there is a problem with the production” of the wells, said University of California Santa Barbara engineering professor and methane expert Ira Leifer, who wasn’t part of the study.