Tag Archives: featured

Fish farm sewage: DFO expansions cost you money

March 16, 2014Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquaculturefeaturedDC Reid

Fish farm sewage-DFO expansions cost you money — Yardstick standing upright in waste layer below a Nova Scotia fish farm – up to 32 inch mark. (Photo:Kathy and Dave Brush – Friends of Port Mouton Bay)

The response to the Cohen Report in DFO’s Ottawa is zero, but in BC it is huge. The petition against allowing any new fish farms or expansions has been signed by more than 100,000 citizens. The people of BC have spoken – get the farms out of the water. The petition is going to Christy Clark who can prevent or eliminate fish farms by refusing or eliminating leases – in only sixty days. It’s that simple.

You will know that DFO is looking at 11, er, 12 – the number keeps growing – expansions or new farms. It’s response to Cohen’s key recommendation that DFO be stripped of its conflict of interest in fish farms, and deal solely with wild fish – the 2005 Wild Salmon Policy, the 1986 Habitat Policy and a new west coast director general for bringing back Fraser sockeye – is to ignore Cohen and keep on adding fish farms to our pristine ocean.

Fish farms rankle public, provide few jobs

sportfishing — Sport fishing yields far more jobs for BC than fish farms do

But 100,000 signatures is big time support for getting fish farms out of the water and sending them back to Norway – we the people of BC don’t want them. And DFO’s interest is hard to fathom. Perhaps it believes its own mantra that fish farms mean jobs and revenue. Well, its own report, put out by BC Stats, shows there is not much of either in BC, with only $61.9 million contribution to GPP from all parts of aquaculture, and only 1,700 jobs in all.

By comparison, the rest of the fishing sector – sport, processing and commercial – is ten times that size, with more than 90% of the sector’s $667.4 million toward GPP; and jobs are 87.8% of the 13,900 total. Fish farms are about 10%.

When you factor in that with wild salmon numbers down by 50% since fish farms set up shop in BC, those small number of jobs aren’t new, they simply replace jobs eliminated in other sectors. The commercial guys, for instance, are down 50% at 1400 jobs or nearly 83% of those fish farm jobs. They would like them back.

Environmental, economic cost of fish farms

It’s actually worse than it looks, and that’s pretty bad. I ferreted out there are only 795 actual jobs in fish farming. So it’s simply not true there are jobs and revenue in fish farms. It’s just not true. But don’t be mistaken, the cost to us is huge. The cost DFO doesn’t pay attention to – but we have to – is the sewage cost to our pristine ocean.

And just so you know, the industry already has in place a maximum of 280,000 metric tonnes of production. So why are they asking for more, when they have never produced more than 83,000 and could produce more than three times more than they actually do produce right now? Good question.

DFO’s fishy math

DFO’s numbers are: 83,000 annual metric tonnes of product; 19,140 metric tonnes of new fish farms; and, fish are 4.5 kg at harvest. And as we all know, the cost of treating sewage is huge. Why, in Victoria, the bill, as everyone knows is $783 million for 360,000 people. And that’s just building it.

The commonly accepted number of fish in the sewage department is: 3–10 fish equal the sewage of one human being. Hard to believe, but check it on Google. And our cost that we absorb and thus pay for, using the conservative 10 to 1 ratio, is:

1000/4.5 X 19,140 = 4.25 million/10 = .425 million human equivalents

$783/.36 = $X/.425 = $924 million.

So not only are multiplier jobs down, and the actual number of jobs is very very small, but the cost to British Columbians from expansion (when they don’t need it because they already have triple authorized more than what they produce now) is: $924 million in sewage cost alone. Do you want to pay for this?

Time to dump costly farms

My look around shows me the biggest problem encountered in treating sewage is that no one wants to pay a bean of anyone else’s sewage treatment cost. So why would we pay for fish, that aren’t even human? I don’t think so.

So, the sewage cost to our environment just for expansion, that we have to absorb, is basically a billion dollars. And we know from the 100,000 signatures on the petition to get fish farms out of the water that, obviously, no one wants to pay this sewage cost.

And then there are all the rest of the problems: exotic diseases like HSMI, ISA; killing of seals; reduction of oceans of fish that people should eat – even krill in Antarctica if you can believe it; killing wild salmon; and, chemicals in the fish. So many chemicals that the big news out of Norway the past year is that doctors and scientists are warning people not to eat farmed salmon.

Tell Christy Clark – premier@gov.bc.ca – to send farms back to Norway. We want DFO to work only on wild salmon. And let’s have the same $400 million DFO’s Gail Shea put into aquaculture on the east coast in NL and PEI spent on wild salmon here. But let’s get rid of the sewage first. No one wants to pay for anyone else’s shit. Tell Gail: Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.

dcreid@catchsalmonbc.com

Watch video: Dead sponges under Cermaq/Mainstream salmon farm in Discovery Islands, BC

Urban infrastructure investment is path to Canada’s economic future

March 15, 2014Urban & TransportfeaturedDr. David Suzuki

Canada’s federal government recently announced $14 billion in new funding to help municipalities repair and replace aging infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, sewer lines, energy production and distribution systems, and subways and other public transit. About $1 billion is dedicated to smaller communities, but most of the funding will target urban areas, which makes sense.

Despite being a vast land of mountains, forests and ice, Canada is an urban nation. Over 80 per cent of us live in large centres like Montreal, Toronto and Calgary, as well as rapidly growing communities like Regina, Surrey and Markham.

[quote]Though they retain only a paltry eight cents of every tax dollar paid in Canada, municipalities must cover 60 per cent of the cost of their infrastructure.[/quote]

Rapid urbanization is a global trend

This increasing concentration of people in cities is consistent with rapid urbanization over the whole planet. Now more than half the world’s population resides in urban mega-regions – and these are increasingly driving the global economy.

Over 60 per cent of world GDP is generated in just 600 cities. This includes international financial hubs like New York City and London, but also emerging powerhouse markets in the developing world, such São Paulo and Mexico City, as well as Guangzhou, Tianjin and other urban centres in China. According to a study by CIBC World Markets, the Greater Toronto Area accounts for about a fifth of Canada’s total economic activity, though prairie cities like Regina are emerging as the country’s new economic tigers.

Although many Canadian cities are booming, their ability to survive and thrive in today’s hyper-connected, globalized economy depends on being competitive enough to attract investment and acquire and retain skilled workers from around the globe.

Canadian cities face widening infrastructure deficit

And to really flourish, municipal centres need infrastructure. As noted in a Federation of Canadian Municipalities study, “Our small businesses need quality roads and bridges to deliver goods and services. Our workers need fast, efficient public transit to connect them to new jobs. And our companies need access to affordable housing and high-quality community services, from libraries to hockey rinks, to recruit skilled workers.”

With climate change impacts increasing, cities must also invest in storm-water management systems, including green infrastructure such as trees, shrubs, bioswales and engineered wetlands.

Unfortunately, Canadian municipalities lack the fiscal tools to generate the billions of dollars needed each year to maintain and expand essential infrastructure. Though they retain only a paltry eight cents of every tax dollar paid in Canada, municipalities must cover 60 per cent of the cost of their infrastructure. And though a portion of taxes paid at gas pumps is dedicated to municipal infrastructure through the federal Gas Tax Fund, maintenance costs are increasingly being downloaded onto citizens through user fees, road tolls and transit fare increases.

Starving Canadian cities of cash further increases the nation’s municipal infrastructure deficit – which already stood at $123 billion in 2007. And Canadians feel the pain every day, in the form of crumbling roads, mind-numbing and wasteful traffic jams and deteriorating bus, subway and streetcar services.

Poor public transit the Achilles’ heel of urban development

A survey of urban experts and other “city-builders” by engineering firm Siemens concluded that poor public transit is the Achilles’ heel of urban development and is keeping many Canadian cities from achieving greatness.

The problem is, unlike many European and American counterparts, Canadian cities don’t have dedicated and sustained federal funding for core infrastructure needs, most notably public transit. For example, Toronto currently ranks 15th out of 21 large global cities on per capita investment in public transit – well behind sixth-placed New York City, which spends twice as much. And Canada is the only country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development without a national transit strategy.

The failure to address transit funding – for capital and operational costs – has left residents in Toronto and its surrounding suburbs spending more time battling congestion to get to and from work than commuters in any other North American city. The Toronto Board of Trade estimates this costs the Greater Toronto Area economy $6 billion a year in lost productivity.

Time to make urban investment a priority

Canada’s growing cities have suffered from political indifference and inaction for too long. It’s all about priorities, and building world-class cities through federal investments in much-needed infrastructure should be at the top of the list.

Ottawa’s funding announcement offers an opportunity to rectify the historical imbalance in political priorities. Investing in municipal infrastructure will ensure that our cities succeed in a global economy.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director General Faisal Moola.

Democrats’ election-year debate over Keystone XL pipeline

March 15, 2014Canadian Press, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

U.S. Senators from the Senate Climate Action Task Force urge action on climate change in Washington (Photo: Yuri Gripas, Reuters).

by Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Democrats are grappling with an election-year dilemma posed by the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Wealthy party donors are funding candidates who oppose the project — a high-profile symbol of the political debate over climate change. But some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents are pipeline boosters, and whether Democrats retain control of the Senate after the 2014 midterm elections may hinge on them.

The dilemma was highlighted Thursday as President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser — and now a consultant to the oil industry — said Obama should approve the pipeline to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a message that “international bullies” can’t use energy security as a weapon.

$100 million towards making climate change an election issue

The comments by retired Gen. James Jones came as a top Democratic donor again urged that the pipeline be rejected.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist, has vowed to spend $100 million —$50 million of his own money and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the 2014 elections.

Steyer, who opposes Keystone, declined to say whether he would contribute to Democrats who support the pipeline, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana. All face strong challenges from Republicans in energy-producing states where Obama lost to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Still, a spokesman said Steyer believes Democratic control of the Senate is important from a climate perspective.

Approving pipeline would send message to Putin

Jones told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Canada-to-Texas pipeline is a litmus test of whether the U.S. is serious about national and global energy security. Approval of the pipeline would help ensure that North America becomes a global energy hub and a reliable energy source to the U.S and its allies, Jones said. Rejecting the pipeline would “make Mr. Putin’s day and strengthen his hand,” he said.

Jones, who left the Obama administration in 2010, now heads a consulting firm that has done work for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s chief trade group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups support the pipeline.

Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the pipeline issue Thursday at an appropriations hearing. Landrieu called approval of the pipeline “critical” to the national interest and said that in Louisiana, “it’s hard for us to even understand why there is a question” whether it should be approved. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.

Kerry told Landrieu he was “not at liberty to go into my thinking at this point,” but added: “I am approaching this, you know, tabula rasa. I’m going to look at all the arguments, both sides, all sides, whatever, evaluate them and make the best judgment I can about what is in the national interest.”

Steyer battles public opinion on pipeline

Polls show Americans support the pipeline, with 65 per cent saying they approved of it in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Twenty-two per cent of those polled opposed the pipeline.

Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, spent more than $10 million to help elect Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., last year. In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Steyer declined to comment on where his advocacy group, NextGen Climate Action, would spend money this fall. But he noted the views of Landrieu and other endangered Democratic incumbents were well known.

“I think those senators voted on this long before 2014,” he said, “so I don’t think there’s any real change here.”

Steyer hosted a fundraiser last month at his San Francisco home attended by at least six Democratic senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The event, which raised $400,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also was attended by former Vice-President Al Gore, who said the party needs to make global warming a central issue in the midterm elections.

Democrats’ control of the Senate

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who advises Steyer, has said the group would not go after Democrats, even those who support the pipeline.

“We’re certainly not subscribing to what I would call the tea party theory of politics,” Lehane said. “We do think it’s really, really important from a climate perspective that we maintain control of the Senate for Democrats.”

Steyer said Thursday he has not decided whether to spend money in Colorado, where Democratic Sen. Mark Udall is likely to be challenged by GOP Rep. Cory Gardner. Udall was among more than 30 Democratic senators who engaged in a talkathon urging action on climate change this week, but he has largely stayed out of the Keystone fight. Udall voted against budget amendments urging both support and rejection of the pipeline, arguing that they injected politics into a process that should remain at the State Department.

Udall wants to evaluate the project “on the merits and using objective, scientific analysis,” said spokesman Mike Saccone.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said he hoped Thursday’s hearing would offer “a balanced, thoughtful” approach that “puts aside some of the politics that have surrounded this debate” over the pipeline.

“We are here to find answers and shed more light than heat on the issue,” Menendez said, although the hearing soon devolved into a series of claims and counterclaims.

The $5.3 billion pipeline would carry oil derived from tar sands in western Canada through the U.S. heartland to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

EPA report helps pipeline

Pipeline supporters, including lawmakers from both parties and many business and labour groups, say the project would create thousands of jobs and reduce the need for oil imports from Venezuela and other politically turbulent countries.

Opponents say the pipeline would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about possible spills.

The State Department said in a Jan. 31 report that building the pipeline would not significantly boost carbon emissions because the oil was likely to find its way to market no matter what. Transporting the oil by rail or truck would cause greater environmental problems than the pipeline, the report said.

My life as the son of an Alberta oil man

March 14, 2014Economics, Energy and Resources, Western CanadafeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Alex (right) and father (left) riding dirt bikes. (Photo: Matt Sutton's Facebook) — Alex (right) and father (left) riding dirt bikes. (Photo: Matt Sutton’s Facebook)

by Matt Sutton

In November, 2013, I drove to Lacombe, Alberta, to visit my Dad and his family, accompanied by my best friend Alex – a chemical engineer technologist at Imperial Oil, responsible for conducting research on how to clean up tailing ponds.

My Dad has worked in Alberta’s oil and gas industry for twenty-two years.

Both Alex and myself have been shaped by this multi-billion dollar industry, Alex working in it and me having grown up in a household financially supported by it.

This reality was reflected in our trip to Lacombe.

[quote]I was aware of northern Alberta and Fort McMurray before I knew what the oil and gas industry was.[/quote]

David ‘Vivuki’ is an idiot

After a day of dirt biking on my father’s acreage, we sat down for dinner and within minutes discussion about the oil sands, Neil Young and David Suzuki joined us at the table.

“David ‘Vivuki’ is an idiot,” stated the eight-year-old at the table.

“It’s Suzuki, sweetie,” corrected her Mother, “but that’s right, he’s an idiot.”

At the time it was hilarious hearing her numerous attempts at saying the name ‘Suzuki’, but as I look back now the meaning of this dinner table discussion scares me.

Growing up in an oil and gas family, I have first-hand experience of the benefits the industry offers. My Dad always had a job, and subsequently, I always had new toys and my family always had a meal for dinner.

But for me – and I suspect many like me – it has also created a lot of confusion about how we should respond to the debate over an economy that has clothed us, but is also controversial in many other ways.

Alberta’s economic promise

My Dad left his home in England at 18 and joined the British Military. He spent the following decade fixing England’s tanks internationally. Then, at some point, he met my Mom, had me and my sister, left the army and settled in Calgary, Alberta.

Being a heavy-duty mechanic, he began work with a drilling company and moved up the ladder of the oil and gas industry. Today, he is a maintenance manager for a coil tubing company which conducts drilling internationally.

As a kid, I didn’t understand the ins and outs of what my Dad did, nor did I really care – similar to the way his fiancé’s eight-year-old daughter doesn’t understand who David Suzuki is – she only understands what she hears.

I knew my Dad worked on drilling rigs up north and that meant he was gone all the time. I remember him being in a place described to me as ‘up north’, or sometimes it was ‘Fort Mac’.

I was aware of northern Alberta and Fort McMurray before I knew what the oil and gas industry was.

Trading family time for toys

But my Dad missed a lot – hockey games, skateboard contests, birthdays and school concerts – and the reasoning for it was always, “Your Dad has to work.”

Alberta Tar Sands — A oil sands operation in Fort McMurray, Alberta (Photo: Chris Krüg)

Looking back now, I still wish he could have been there, but without that work I never could have played hockey, I never would have had skateboards and I would not have gotten Gameboys, CD players, or new skates for my birthday.

Now that I am older and attempting to find my place in the world, having become more aware of the public debate surrounding the oil and gas industry, I face a great deal of confusion.

On one side, I am being shown the horrific damage to the environment caused by these companies taking oil from the ground, the ecosystems they have destroyed and the way they are jeopardizing the future of our planet.

On the other side, I see an industry responsible for my Dad always having work and for my life’s privileges.

Does opposing the oil and gas industry’s actions make me ungrateful?

Does agreeing with the oil and gas industry’s actions make me ignorant?

I am constantly unsure. In Alberta, it feels like I’m not supposed to question what’s going on. I’m supposed to be appreciative of the ways it makes my life and my cities economy better.

Same old corporate oil answers

At some points, I have asked my Dad questions about the oil sands, what he thinks and what it all means to him, but it always seems to be the same corporate oil answers:

[quote]We need oil, there’s not much you can touch in a day that doesn’t come from oil.

How come there’s a big fuss about Alberta but nobody cares about drilling in Saudi Arabia? Is it different because it’s not in Canada?

Yeah there’s pollution but nowhere near as much as they’re emitting in China.[/quote]

These are just some of the answers I’ve received from my Dad in the past, and although these things are true and I appreciate the conversations we have, they do not provide answers. They are all responses that simply divert my attention away from the topic I originally brought up.

Matt Sutton (Photo: Jon Peters). — Matt Sutton (Photo: Jon Peters)

Most of the time I feel like I will never find truth. Most who provide an argument on the situation seem to be making money off of it one way or another, and that makes it difficult to discover the truth.

Both sides overreaching

Every time I look into the left side of the conversation I find the same frustrations as I have on the right. Everything seems blown out of proportion with both perspectives.

For example, Neil Young’s private jet and tour buses are enormous consumers of the same fuel his lyrics stand against. I don’t blame him though – if I had the money I’d probably have a private jet too, and I’m not saying that I think the message of his songs are wrong. My problem is I don’t know how I’m supposed to believe his conviction when his actions do not align with his words.

The same kind of things can be said about David Suzuki, another spokesman against the oil sands. Suzuki writes frequently against the oil sands, describing them as ‘scary’ and relating the suits behind the oil companies to the mythical ‘bogeyman’ his children used to ask him about. Suzuki then says, “or maybe there’s something more frightening to consider. Perhaps the bogeyman is us – the public that places short-term economic value of the tar sands above the priceless value of our environment and our earth.”

To be honest, I don’t very much appreciate Mr. Suzuki saying that I, or any other hard working citizen is any kind of bogeyman who values money over the environment. Especially when money is not something he has to worry about.

If being frustrated because another millionaire is making me feel bad for appreciating the money generated from the oil sands wasn’t enough, I found it even harder to listen to David Suzuki’s arguments after hearing the accusations that he made up some information in an opinion piece saying cyclones were an environmental threat to the great barrier reef. When asked about this claim, Suzuki’s response was “that one, I have to admit, was suggested to me by an Australian and it may be true that it might be a mistake, I don’t know.” Is it just me, or does saying that an idea was suggested to him by an Australian make it any less frightening that he wrote it in his article without double checking first?

The trial of David Suzuki (Photo: The Royal Ontario Museum)

If David Suzuki had such an easy time putting false information into an article about climate change in Australia, how do I know he’s not doing the same thing here? This is why I have a hard time believing either side of the oil sands argument.

It is examples such as these that frustrate me about the environmental side of the argument. They take things out of context or exaggerate them beyond reason to belittle the oil industry, the same way that the oil industry will downplay issues to make them seem better in the public eye. It is equally frustrating on both sides and makes me feel like neither are being honest.

That said, it is not just the battle between the oil and gas industry and environmentalists that exists this way – nearly every conversation has two different parts from each side that aren’t necessarily honest, and that’s why I got into journalism in the first place, to discover the truth.

I believe the truth is balanced somewhere between the environmentalists comparing the oil sands to Hiroshima and the oil companies calling their reclaimed lands ‘lush’.

My job now, and everybody’s job for that matter, is to listen. Listen to everything said and try understand that although those comments may be exaggerated and both sides may be wrong sometimes, if everybody listens to each other then there is hope for a truth. A truth that I will be willing to accept from both sides.

It is important now more than ever to pay attention to what is going on and listen to everything being said about the oil sands regardless of what you believe and regardless of which side the information is coming from because neither side holds the full truth.

It is going to take a lot of time, patience and cooperation but I do believe the truth is out there to be found.

Matt Sutton is studying journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary, AB.

Missing fish farms offer clue to anticipated 70 million sockeye return

March 11, 2014Fisheries, OceansfeaturedDC Reid

Expect big salmon numbers this summer. The Fraser sockeye run may be as high as 70 million. Yes, 70. And the most important sport angling species, chinook and coho, seem to be on the same meteoric route in 2014.

Fraser sockeye numbers peaked in the early 1970s and then declined, most particularly in the 20 year period from 1990 to 2009. This was the year the Cohen Commission was sent in to figure out why only 1.6 million sockeye returned to the Fraser, and just as it was getting rolling, 2010 returned more than 28.3 million Fraser sockeye (see video here).

[quote]The 2014 range is: 7.2 million to 72.0 million, with an average of 22.8 million, with expectations at the high end.[/quote]

Method in DFO’s madness

While DFO has significant issues (including almost completely ignoring the Cohen Report), it has to be admitted it does a stellar job of sockeye science, and I have the approved pre-season estimate of the more than 100 subcomponent sockeye run from early May into late September for anyone who wants to immerse themselves in this science heavy process (download .pdf DFO 2014 sockeye forecast).

They have patchy data back to 1913, with better stats from the ‘50s to the present day. DFO uses four different models and puts out estimates based on five different levels of possible return from 10% to 90%. The 2014 range is: 7.2 million to 72.0 million, with an average of 22.8 million, with expectations at the high end.

Then DFO follows fry down rivers, for example, the Chilko counting fence, passing Mission and a seine fishery in the Strait of Georgia, with acoustic arrays in Queen Charlotte Sound as well as Juan de Fuca.

On the way back, test gillnetting is typically done in Port Renfrew as well as Johnstone St. Fish are counted crossing the Mission fence, and samples from all fisheries are sent for real-time DNA testing twice per week, with announcements on run timing, composition and fishing opportunities for commercial, sport and first nations coming every few days as summer progresses. Impressive.

Removal of fish farms may have contributed to big return

Why are the fish in good numbers? Good question. The 2010 high year contributes mostly to the run this year as sockeye are typically four year old fish on returning. It looks like the taking of fish farms producing chinook out of the water in the Discovery Islands (near Campbell River) in 2008 that were getting salmon leukemia virus (SLV) is one main reason – do note DFO followed this disease for years until they terminated research.

Doctors Kristi Miller and Brian Riddell will be ramping up Miller’s science lab, that you will remember showed a ‘viral signature’ disease that contributed to as high as 90% pre-spawn mortality in returning Fraser sockeye. But the 2010 fish were not infected, and thus returned and successfully spawned, resulting in, we hope, prodigious numbers, in 2014.

In addition, fish farms reduced their own fish numbers, particularly Marine Harvest, in 2011 to 2013 by 30% or 6- to 9-million smolts in the narrow Quadra Island to Sayward salt waters. So there were trillions fewer viral particles when the fry migrated.

Virus tests to continue

You will be happy to know that Miller/Riddell will be testing a lot of fish this year, including those from fish farms. But you won’t be so happy to know that DFO, and the fish farms will be parsing news releases – if you followed the convoluted, non-transparent, fish farm refusal to allow BC disease-testing results to come out during the Cohen Commission, you will understand why.

Of note, is one subcomponent that has done well – the Harrison. Its long term average escapement, i.e. sockeye on the spawning beds is 13,500, but both 2010 and 2011 returns were 30 times higher than the long term average at 400,000. The Harrisons are the only subcomponent that migrates out Juan de Fuca Strait where there are no fish farms. They could not get sick, so they returned in healthy numbers. The rest of the Fraser sockeye migrate through Johnstone Strait.

Chinook and coho could see monster year too

But there is more to this story than fish farms. That is because – other than the Fraser 4-2s that DFO, in the Salmon Outlook, said further 2014 non-retention would be likely – around Vancouver Island, the fish return numbers of coho and chinook will be records, too.

First, the sockeye story. The largest run is the Alberni Inlet, Henderson, Nahmint, and Somass (Stamp and Sproat) rivers which typically returns 350,000 to 600,000 fish, with a high of 1.8 million. Sport and commercial fishing begins when it is established 200,000 fish are coming down the Inlet. I have seen years the run has not struggled up to this level.

As with all runs, there are always some younger, sexually precocious male fish, called Jacks. In the past, as three-year fish, the Alberni run had an average of 40,000; however, last year, there were, get this, 400,000 mixed in with the run. That implies a 2014 run ten times larger than the average, perhaps 4 million this year.

From volcanoes to Pineapple Expresses

While the fry do pass a couple of fish farms on the way out, the huge number of Jacks implies that ocean survival has been terrific. Perhaps the Alaska volcano that blew in 2008 showering the Bering Sea with iron oxide heavy dust was the reason, but the more likely event is the winter storms we now call Pineapple Expresses contribute to the Aleutian low-pressure cycle. The wind pushes surface waters aside, bringing nutrients to the sun-penetrating level, starting huge plankton blooms that feed the food chain. Sockeye eat plankton and krill.

Higher marine survival typically means more three year old Jacks. As chinook, these return as roughly 15 pound fish. The West Coast Van Isle hatcheries at Conuma in Nootka Sound and the Nitinat in Juan de Fuca returned Jacks up to 50% of their runs – this was common among other counted rivers. I can tell you from fishing the Nitinat in late November – nursing five fractured ribs, which kept me from fishing earlier – I landed four Jacks one day, some six weeks after the run had spawned and gone. Some years I catch zero in the entire season, even though these fish will beat all other fish to whack a lure.

There are no fish farms on either of these routes. And then there are the Cowichan chinook. As 1- to 2-year fish, they circle Georgia Strait before migrating out to the open ocean. Last year 7,000 returned – this run was down to the unheard of level of 1,068 spawners circa 2010, with, previously, a run average of 12,000 to 15,000 chinook with a high of 25,000. Last year 4,000 of the returnees were 3-year old springs! This points to a return in 2014 of higher numbers than the highest ever recorded. Van Isle chinook typically return 90% at four year old fish, which implies 40,000 chinook for the Cowichan alone in 2014.

Mysterious coho raise more questions

And then there are coho. Last year WCVI wild coho returned in the Salmon Outlook’s highest measured category – 4. And those Georgia Strait coho, that crashed in the mid-80s, with 1- to 2-% return measured against parental spawners, are forecast at 15% – that means 15 fish for every fish that spawned in 2011, rather than 1. Many of these fish migrate past fish farms in the choked waters of Johnstone Strait. As farm numbers were down 30%, and ocean survival high, these two factors may explain the inside high coho numbers in 2014.

But it doesn’t explain high coho numbers on the WCVI. And they are expected to continue in high numbers in 2014. They don’t pass fish farms, hence, the return is based on higher marine survival.

There is great potential for inside coho fishing, now and in years to come. Brian Riddell, CEO, Pacific Salmon Foundation, is emphasizing rehabilitation projects to increase Georgia coho. He has estimated such a fishery could be worth $400- to $500-million additional sport fishing revenue, added to the $1 billion sport fishing creates in BC annually.

Time to fish.

CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation

March 10, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

CNRL faces charges over potentially deadly gas leak near First Nation — Canadian Natural Resources Limited’s Horizon oilsands upgrader

By John Cotter in Edmonton

FORT MCMURRAY, Alta. – Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. is facing 11 environmental charges over the release of a potentially deadly gas near an aboriginal community in northern Alberta.

The Alberta government said the charges stem from the release of hydrogen sulphide gas on August 2012 from the CNRL Horizon oilsands upgrader facility north of Fort McMurray.

The province said it learned of the leaks after getting complaints from the Fort McKay First Nation and reports from air monitoring stations.

“These are definitely serious charges,” Nikki Booth, a spokeswoman for Alberta Environment said Friday.

“It is something that we felt we needed to do to ensure that there is environmental responsibility on the part of the company.”

The province alleges that CNRL (TSX:CNQ) released the gas, failed to use its equipment properly, failed to report what happened properly and provided misleading information to the government and the Fort McKay First Nation.

There was no information on how much gas was released.

Each charge carries a possible maximum fine of $500,000.

Environment Minister Robin Campbell was not immediately available for an interview. He instead issued a written statement that doesn’t mention CNRL or the charges, but says the government takes environmental protection seriously.

“Our ability to open new markets for our oil — or to maintain the markets we have today — depends on our credibility when it comes to responsible oilsands development,” the statement says.

“Alberta is a leader when it comes to having stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation. We are proud of this and remain committed to ensuring that we develop our resources in a responsible and sustainable way.”

Officials with Calgary-based CNRL and the Fort McKay First Nation were not immediately available for comment.

Alberta Environment says hydrogen sulphide can be highly toxic and smells like rotten eggs. Exposure at low concentrations can irritate the eyes, nose and throat or cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

Exposure at higher concentrations can result in sleepiness, blurred vision or death from respiratory failure.

Mike Hudema with Greenpeace Canada said the allegations show that the oilsands industry needs much heavier oversight, and the policy of simply trusting oil companies to do the right thing has to end once and for all.

He said what happened could have been very serious.

“The fact CNRL not only released a deadly gas but allegedly misled Fort McKay First Nation about it is deeply troubling and begs the question of whether monetary fines go far enough,” he said.

CNRL already faces three environmental charges over a similar release of hydrogen sulphide gas that occurred in May 2010.

Those charges allege the energy company released hydrogen sulphide gas into the atmosphere and failed to report it. These charges are still before the courts.

The company is to appear in Fort McMurray provincial court on the latest charges on April 14.

CNRL’s website says its Horizon operation includes surface oilsands mining, bitumen extraction and upgrading plants.

Rex Tillerson, you are a big, fat NIMBY

March 6, 2014Energy and Resources, FrackingfeaturedCommon Sense Canadian

Rex Tillerson, you are a big, fat NIMBY — ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson loves fracking other people’s back yards – just not his own

Dear Rex Tillerson,

I am writing to express my disappointment in learning that you recently opposed the construction of a water tower essential to shale gas development near your home in Texas.

As you and I both know, hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking”, as rabid environmentalist-types refer to it – is a game-changing technology that presents many wonderful opportunities to the American people and economy. Your company, ExxonMobil, has been a global leader in its development, for which I applaud you, as CEO.

I recognize that you are concerned the value of your $5 million home will be negatively affected by the construction of this 160-foot water tower – and you are likely right.

But sometimes in life, we are called upon to take one for the team – and this is just such a moment. By acting like every other pinko, tree-hugging NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) who stands in the way of progress by protesting the alleged impacts of fracking and related activities on their property values and family’s health and well being, I feel you are setting a very bad example for the rest of the country.

Just think – now every time a fracking company wants to suck a lake dry or inject poisonous chemicals into fresh water, or raise the risk of earthquakes from fracking, they will be able to point to you and say, “Yeah, but…the CEO of Exxon protested it too!”

Can you imagine the potential consequences for America’s economy? As you’re well aware, shale gas offers billions of dollars in economic opportunities, gazillions of jobs, and the ability for America to become energy independent – and you want to put all that at risk because your home might go down in value by a measly few million bucks?!

You had me worried when you acknowledged that human-caused climate change is real (beg to differ), but when you told those environmentalists that it’s no big deal and people who are affected by it should just move, you regained my confidence. You have always worked hard to promote the virtues of fracking and dismiss those pesky greenies, farmers and such – and for that, I admire your leadership.

But as for this water tower, I suggest it’s time you suck it up and deal with it, like so many millions of other Americans have had to.

Otherwise, not only will the environmentalists hate you, but so will all us reasonable folks who believe in the vision you’ve sold us about our energy future.

For the love of shale, please don’t be just another NIMBY, Rex!

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen for energy progress

Energy Board approves Enbridge Line 9 reversal

March 6, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedCanadian Press

The National Energy Board has approved energy giant Enbridge’s plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of a pipeline that has been running between southern Ontario and Montreal for years.

The green light for the Calgary-based company is subject to certain conditions and requirements.

A statement from the National Energy Board says “the board’s conditions require Enbridge to undertake activities regarding pipeline integrity, emergency response, and continued consultation.”

Enbridge will also have to submit a plan to manage cracking features in the pipeline, and manage water crossings.

The board says that with these conditions in place, the project will be “safe and environmentally sensitive.”

Pipeline hearings saw heated protest

The decision on the controversial Line 9 comes some four months after the federal regulator held public hearings on Enbridge’s proposal.

During those sessions, a three-member panel heard from a wide range of parties including First Nations, environmental groups, private citizens and representatives from municipal and provincial governments.

Enbridge’s own final submissions were delivered in writing after the board cancelled its final day of Toronto hearings over security concerns stemming from a planned protest.

300,000 barrels flowing East

Line 9 originally shuttled oil from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal, but was reversed in the late 1990s in response to market conditions to pump imported crude westward. Enbridge now wants to flow oil back eastwards to service refineries in Ontario and Quebec.

It plans to move 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day through the line, up from the current 240,000 barrels, with no increase in pressure.

Opponents — some of whom have staged protests and held sit-ins at pumping stations — argue the Line 9 plan puts communities at risk, threatens water supplies and could endanger vulnerable species in ecologically sensitive areas.

Critics disappointed, not surprised

Officials at Greenpeace Canada said they were disappointed, but not surprised, by today’s decision. Said Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s energy campaign co-ordinator:

[quote]This decision is no surprise, given how the federal government and the oil industry have rewritten our environmental laws to fast track the approvals of tarsands pipelines. These drastic changes barred thousands of Canadians from participating in decisions that will affect their air, water and health for decades to come and banned any consideration of the climate change impacts of this project.[/quote]

Critics also worry that Enbridge will run what they claim is a more corrosive product through the 831-kilometre-long line — a move which they claim will stress the aging infrastructure and increase the chance of a leak.

Enbridge has insisted that safety is its top priority and has characterized the scope of the reversal as “actually very, very small.”

Previous bitumen spills erode confidence in Enbridge

It has said a reversed Line 9 will not be transporting a raw oilsands product, although there will be a mix of light crude and processed bitumen.

It has stressed, though, that the products that will flow through the line will not erode it.

The company has also said the refineries it supplies can currently only take a small portion of heavy crude and would have to invest significantly in infrastructure to take more.

Despite the company’s assurances, Line 9’s opponents have often pointed to an Enbridge spill in Michigan, which leaked 20,000 barrels of crude into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. There are concerns the same thing could happen in Ontario or Quebec in the future.

Some opponents have also suggested the Line 9 reversal is ultimately so Enbridge can transport oil to the Atlantic coast for export — something the company denies.

A portion of the line has already received approval for reversal and has been sending oil from Sarnia to North Westover, Ont. — about 30 kilometres northwest of Hamilton — since August.

US judge blocks $9 Billion judgement against Chevron over lawyers’ illegal conduct

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

US judge sides with Chevron over $9 Billion Ecuadorian contamination case — Photo: Teun Voeten/Reporters/Redux

by Larry Neumeister, The Associated Press

NEW YORK – A federal judge on Tuesday blocked U.S. courts from being used to collect a $9 billion Ecuadorean judgment against Chevron for rainforest damage, saying lawyers poisoned an honourable quest with their illegal and wrongful conduct.

“Justice is not served by inflicting injustice. The ends do not justify the means,” U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote. The judge said it was a sad outcome to have to rule that the Ecuadorean court judgment “was obtained by corrupt means,” because it will likely never be known whether there was a case to be made against the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil company.

Wrote Kaplan in a nearly 500-page ruling that followed a trial last year:

[quote]It is distressing that the course of justice was perverted.

[/quote]

New York lawyer for plaintiff corrupted case

He said a New York City lawyer, Steven Donziger, and Ecuadorean lawyers corrupted the case in Ecuador by submitting fraudulent evidence, coercing a judge and arranging to write the multibillion-dollar judgment themselves by promising $500,000 to the Ecuadorean judge to rule in their favour.

Donziger, criticized heavily in the ruling, said he will seek an expedited appeal of “an appalling decision resulting from a deeply flawed proceeding.”

He said Kaplan was “wrong on the law and wrong on the facts.” He accused Kaplan of letting “his implacable hostility toward me, my Ecuadorean clients and their country infect his view of the case.”

In a statement, Chevron Corp. called the decision “a resounding victory for Chevron and our stockholders” and said any court that respects the rule of law will find the Ecuadorean judgment “illegitimate and unenforceable.”

The case resulted from a long-running court battle between Amazon rainforest residents and oil companies.

Ecuadorian court cut initial judgement from $18 billion to $9.5 billion

In February 2011, a judge in Ecuador issued an $18 billion judgment against Chevron in a lawsuit brought on behalf of 30,000 residents. The judgment was for environmental damage caused by Texaco during its operation of an oil consortium in the rainforest from 1972 to 1990. Chevron later bought Texaco.

Ecuador’s highest court last year upheld the verdict but reduced the judgment to about $9.5 billion.

Chevron has long argued that a 1998 agreement Texaco signed with Ecuador after a $40 million cleanup absolves it of liability. It claims Ecuador’s state-run oil company is responsible for much of the pollution in the oil patch that Texaco quit more than two decades ago.

The Ecuadorean plaintiffs said the cleanup was a sham and didn’t exempt third-party claims.

The decision came in a lawsuit Chevron brought in Manhattan against Donziger and two of his Ecuadorian clients to prevent any of them from profiting from what the oil company characterized as a fraud.

Kaplan on Tuesday barred Donziger and the other defendants from trying to collect the judgment through U.S. courts and said they may not take any actions to profit from the judgment.

A lawyer for Donziger — Richard Friedman — said the ruling was disappointing but not unexpected. He predicted it will be reversed on appeal.

Donziger’s appeals lawyer, Deepak Gupta, said Kaplan’s ruling amounted to “what is in effect a global anti-collection injunction that would preclude enforcement of a judgment from another country in every jurisdiction.” He said it was indistinguishable from a ruling by Kaplan in early 2011 banning collection of the judgment anywhere in the world. That was decision was struck down on appeal.

No ‘Robin Hood’ defence

During the trial, Donziger acknowledged that he stood to make about $600 million if the $9 billion judgment was approved.

Donziger said in his statement Tuesday that his clients will try to collect the judgment in other countries.

“The villagers deserve justice, and I am confident they will get it despite Chevron’s effort to flout the rule of law,” he said.

Kaplan said in his decision that it did not matter if the efforts by the villagers came in a just pursuit, writing:

[quote]There is no ‘Robin Hood’ defence to illegal and wrongful conduct. And the defendants’ ‘this-is-the-way-it-is-done-in-Ecuador’ excuses — actually a remarkable insult to the people of Ecuador — do not help them.[/quote]

“The wrongful actions of Donziger and his Ecuadorian legal team would be offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law, including Ecuador — and they knew it.”

Nova Scotia and UK team up to study tidal power

March 4, 2014Energy and Resources, RenewablesfeaturedCanadian Press

Nova Scotia and UK team up to study tidal power — The world’s first commercial-scale tidal power generator, in Northern Ireland (Photo courtesy of Siemens)

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia and the United Kingdom have agreed to work together on research aimed at generating electricity from high tides like those in the Bay of Fundy.

Energy Minister Andrew Younger and Corin Robertson, the acting British deputy high commissioner to Canada, announced a memorandum of understanding today in Halifax.

Under the agreement, the Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia and the United Kingdom’s Technology and Strategy Board will each contribute $250,000 towards research.

Younger says the agreement will increase the province’s research capacity and create business opportunities in Nova Scotia and the U.K.

The agreement will also result in joint proposals being issued for research projects in both Canada and the U.K.