Tag Archives: featured

“I stand with Neil”: Prominent Canadians backing Young on Tar Sands

January 21, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

"I stand with Neil"-Prominent Canadians backing Young — Author Michael Ondaatje, actress Neve Campbell and rocker Gord Downie are all standing with Neil Young

by The Canadian Press

More than 20 notable Canadians have penned a letter to support musician Neil Young following his concert tour to raise money for a First Nation fighting oilsands expansion in northern Alberta.

The group includes creative and performing artists, authors, scientists, a lawyer, and Order of Canada recipients.

Actor Neve Campbell, Booker-prize-winning author and Officer of the Order of Canada Michael Ondaatje and musician Gord Downie of the rock group The Tragically Hip are among those who have signed the letter.

It says that Young’s tour raised more than $500,000 to help the Athabasca Chipewyan band pay for legal fees to protect its traditional land north of Fort McMurray, Alta.

The letter also says that Canada must decide if it wants to support First Nations rights and protect the environment.

[quote]The time has come for Canada to decide if we want a future where First Nations rights and title are honoured, agreements with other countries to protect the climate are honoured, and our laws are not written by powerful oil companies. Or not.[/quote]

“Instead of focusing on Neil Young’s celebrity, Prime Minister Harper should inform Canadians how he plans to honour the treaties with First Nations,” the letter said.

Campbell said in a written statement that while she has always been proud to call Canada her home, “now as a Canadian I feel deeply ashamed to see that our government has allowed the selfish profiteering of powerful oil companies, and blatantly ignored the health, well-being, and lives of our country’s First Nations, as well as of the well-being of our world’s climate.”

Downie of The Tragically Hip said, “I stand in support of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations and all Canadians who find themselves with no voice in our present version of democracy, who are trying to come up with the entry fee that gets them a seat at the table where their pollution future is being discussed.”

Young played in Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, and drew fire from politicians and industry over his comments likening the oilsands to Hiroshima.

Full text of open letter:

On his Honour the Treaties tour, Neil Young is doing what poets do – forcing us to examine ourselves. This is hard enough on a personal level and it can be even more difficult when we are being asked to examine the direction in which our country is headed.

The time has come for Canada to decide if we want a future where First Nations rights and title are honoured, agreements with other countries to protect the climate are honoured, and our laws are not written by powerful oil companies. Or not.

Neil’s tour has triggered the Prime Minister’s Office and oil company executives. They have come out swinging because they know that this is a hard conversation and they might lose. But that should not stop the conversation from happening. Instead of focusing on Neil Young’s celebrity, Prime Minister Harper should inform Canadians how he plans to honour the treaties with First Nations. This means ensuring the water, land, air, and climate are protected so the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations and other First Nations communities be able to hunt, fish, gather plants and live off the land. Canada signed a treaty with them 114 years ago, and this must be honoured.

The world is watching as we decide who we will become. Will we disregard the treaties we have with First Nations? Will we continue to allow oil companies to persuade our government to gut laws, silence scientists, and disassemble civil society in order to allow reckless expansion of the oil sands?

We are proud to stand with Neil Young as he challenges us all to think about these larger, more profound and humane questions.

Now is the time for leadership and to honour promises that we have made, not personal attacks.

Michael Ondaatje, author, Officer of the Order of Canada
Margi Gillis, dancer, Member of the Order of Canada
Clayton Ruby, lawyer, Member of the Order of Canada
Dr. David Suzuki, scientist, Companion of the Order of Canada
Dr. David Schindler, scientist, Officer of the Order of Canada
Stephen Lewis, Companion of the Order of Canada
Joseph Boyden, author
Gord Downie, musician
Sarah Harmer, musician
Naomi Klein, author
Dr. John Stone, scientist
Tzeporah Berman, author
Amanda Boyden, author
Neve Campbell, actor
Wade Davis, author
Dr. Danny Harvey, climate scientist
J.B. MacKinnon, author
Dan Managan, musician
Sid Marty, author
Andrew Nikiforuk, author
Rick Smith, author
John Valliant, author
Ronald Wright, author

“As long as the Federal Government chooses to defang and denude, rather than uphold, our once-strong Environmental Laws – to whittle them down to mere speed bumps in the way of anyone who wants to make a buck at nature’s expense – then increasingly, we must look to the courts for recognition of our treaties, for recognition of our basic human rights, namely our right to a swimmable, drinkable and fishable water future for all.

I stand in support of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations and all Canadians – who find themselves with no voice in our present version of democracy; who are trying to come up with the entry fee that gets them a seat at the table where their pollution future is being discussed. Every community has the right to be heard, to be able to ask, ‘Is this safe, for us?’ We should all watch the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations and their struggle very closely and with great interest, for their struggle is coming to us all, if it hasn’t already. The day will come when your community will want to ask for truth from power; ‘Is this safe for us? For our children?’ That day you will want to be ready for the answer power gives you.”

Gord Downie, Singer – The Tragically Hip

“I fully support and stand behind ACFN and all First Nations in our country in what shouldn’t be a struggle to defend their treaty rights made in good faith with our federal government. The direction this current government has taken undermines the very values our democracy is built upon and as a Canadian and an artist I must stand up and make my voice heard. Honour the treaties, Mr. Prime Minister. Canadians are listening and are watching and soon will be voting in the name of justice.”

Joseph Boyden, Writer/Author of “The Orenda”

“I had the honor years ago to fly to Fort McMurray to sit with some of the Cree Miskisew First Nations and to hear their plight. I was appalled to hear how our country has dishonored treaties formed with the Nations 114 years ago. Appalled at the effects the toxins from the tar sands are having on their land, their water and now tragically their health. Appalled that our country has turned a blind eye on these issues and a Nation of people for the sake of greed. I have always been so very proud to call Canada my home, and now as a Canadian I feel deeply ashamed to see that our government has allowed the selfish profiteering of powerful oil companies, and blatantly ignored the health, wellbeing, and lives of our countries First Nations, as well as of the wellbeing of our world’s climate. Surely there must be other ways for us to achieve our countries energy independence without sacrificing the health and way of life of our countries’ people? I fully support Neil Young in his tour to bring attention to these issues.”

Neve Campbell, Actress “Party of Five” and “Scream”

Alberta doctors avoid linking health issues to Tar Sands: report

January 21, 2014Energy and Resources, Health and Environment, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

by Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

EDMONTON – Opposition politicians are raising concerns over a report done for Alberta’s energy regulator that suggests doctors are reluctant to draw links between health problems and the energy industry.

“We do have a culture in this province which actively diminishes healthy and important debate about the health and environmental effects of our dominant industry,” NDP critic Rachel Notley said Monday.

David Swann, a Liberal member of the legislature, said the government doesn’t even want to know the truth. Said Swann, who lost his job as a public health doctor for speaking out on climate change during the Tory government of Ralph Klein:

[quote]It’s clear the government doesn’t really want to know the best science in some of these areas. They haven’t funded it, and they haven’t disseminated the knowledge appropriately to the physician population.[/quote]

Hearing begins into health effects from oilpatch operations

On Tuesday, a hearing is set to begin in Peace River, Alta., about the source and effects of odours that landowners blame on the local oilpatch, particularly the operations of Baytex Energy.

Baytex uses an unusual method of heating bitumen in above-ground tanks to extract the oil. Residents say the fumes from those heated tanks are causing powerful gassy smells and leading to symptoms that include severe headaches, dizziness, sinus congestion, muscle spasms, popping ears, memory loss, numbness, constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, eye twitching and fatigue.

Labs refuse to study health effects of petrochemical exposures

Among the reports commissioned for the hearing by the Alberta Energy Regulator is one from Margaret Sears, a doctor in chemical engineering, who has testified on environmental contamination for many bodies including the Royal Society of Canada.

Sears wrote that even though most health professionals believe petrochemical emissions affect health, Peace River doctors seemed unwilling to consider if the conditions their patients complained of were caused by long-term exposure to petrochemicals.

“There were reports from various sources that physicians would not diagnose a relationship between bitumen exposures and chronic symptoms, that physician care was refused for individuals suggesting such a connection,” she wrote.

Even medical labs refused to conduct an analysis when told it was to be used to try to establish such a link, said Sears.

Doctor refers patient to lawyer instead of offering treatment

One doctor, in a medical report released as part of the hearing, advised his patient “to go through environmental lawyers” and did not prescribe treatment.

Sears confirmed to The Canadian Press that her conclusions were based on interviews with both patients and doctors.

She wrote that the physicians’ reluctance stemmed in part from a lack of research they could use to form a credible opinion and in part from “fear of consequences.”

Conor not surprised

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. John O’Connor, a doctor who was disciplined in 2007 for raising cancer concerns in the oilpatch community of Fort Chipewyan. The Alberta Cancer Board has since found elevated levels of four different cancers in the community.

“It has been said to me many a time over the last few years, or words to that effect,” he said.

[quote]It’s not easy. You set yourself up as a moving target.

[/quote]

Allan Garbutt, president of the Alberta Medical Association, said he couldn’t comment on the specific concerns in Sears’ report.

“I certainly agree that physicians must not feel intimidated in exercising their advocacy role,” he said.

“There would also be merit in exploring the report’s suggestion that better research on the impact of oil and gas emissions on patients and communities is needed for strong policy development. Better information, training and support for physicians to help diagnose their patients would always be welcome.”

Health Ministry downplays concerns

Matthew Grant, spokesman for Alberta Health Minister Fred Horne, downplayed Sears’s suggestions.

“No concerns of this nature have been forwarded to our office. We would always expect physicians to inform the government of any public health concerns they may have.”

Notley said the province has consistently avoided conducting research that could answer the kind of questions being raised in Peace River.

“The status quo is to believe that nothing’s wrong and all industry has to do is say, ‘Show us a mountain of evidence,'” she said. “It’s very imbalanced, and that imbalance works against people without the resources to build those mountains of evidence.”

Swann said Alberta public health doctors aren’t trained enough to be able to diagnose health complaints caused by environmental contamination.

“We haven’t been trained to do the physical assessment, order the right blood tests and put together the exposure with the health systems,” he said. “We’re working in ignorance, and there is the fear of challenging both government and industry in such a dominant industry activity here.”

Swann said his experience was widely noted among his colleagues.

“I paid a price, 10 years ago. I think the lesson most physicians took from that is that you speak up at your risk.”

$BC LNG plans could mean 50,000 new fracking wells-Expert report$

Shale gas expert drills 50,000 holes in BC LNG plans

January 19, 2014Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGfeaturedDamien Gillis

BC LNG plans could mean 50,000 new fracking wells-Expert report — Fracking operations in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)

A new report from geoscientist and shale gas expert David Hughes offers a big reality check for BC’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. As a former 32-year veteran of the Geological Survey of Canada, Hughes led a national review of the country’s unconventional gas potential. Now, after drilling down on the BC Liberal government’s LNG vision, he has some sobering things to say about its promise of a $100 Billion windfall “prosperity fund”, built on accessing new markets in Asia.

In a new report titled BC LNG: A Reality Check – released by the Watershed Sentinel on January 18, where you can read it in full – Hughes analyzes the implications of 7 large LNG export licences recently issued by the National Energy Board. Together, they constitute a staggering 14.6 billion cubic feet/day (bcf/d) of gas – more than the total amount of gas coming out of the entire country today, at 12.7 bcf/d.

Drawing on the best available production and geological data from Canada’s gas sector, Hughes assails both the NEB’s reckless approval of this much gas for export and the BC Liberal policy for economic development that is driving the LNG boom.

Regulator violates mandate

“The NEB appears to have violated its mandate to ensure Canadian energy security by approving seven LNG export applications, which add up to more than the current gas production of all of Canada, and far exceed even its most optimistic projections of BC gas production, says Hughes.”

[quote]To put this in perspective, the US, which produces five times as much gas as Canada, has approved only four export projects with a total capacity of less than half that of the NEB approvals.[/quote]

Hughes found that, on average, production from a given unconventional gas well in BC plummets by 69% in its first three years – a far sharper decline than the historical rate for conventional gas, meaning that a drilling treadmill is required just to keep production flat, let alone grow it.

To that latter point, Hughes paints a startling picture of what fulfilling these export demands would look like on the ground: i.e. a dramatic increase in controversial fracking and consequent water use.

LNG export licences = gas equivalent of Tar Sands x 2

The NEB has approved 7 LNG export licences so far

The most recent approval by the NEB of 4 export licences, just before Christmas, came in the same week the regulator received Kinder Morgan’s application for a major oil pipeline expansion to Vancouver and announced its conditional recommendation of the proposed Enbridge pipeline. The LNG story was thus lost in the shuffle – this despite the fact, as The Common Sense Canadian noted at the time, those four gas licenses alone were the equivalent of almost 2 million barrels of oil per day for 25 years. In other words, roughly four times bigger than the proposed Enbridge pipeline and the same size of the entire Alberta Tar Sands oil output today.

Add in the three licences it had already approved before that, plus the the 4 more it still has under review – totalling an additional 3.4 bcf/d – and you have double the energy equivalent of today’s Tar Sands.

Another 50,000 holes in the ground

Hughes’ report gives a shocking glimpse of the environmental and economic implications of powering BC’s LNG vision:

[quote]…meeting the NEB export approvals would require drilling nearly 50,000 new wells in the next 27 years (double the approximately 25,000 wells drilled in BC since the 1950s).[/quote]

Horn River fracking — A fracking drill in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)

After extensively researching wellhead data across the US shale gas boom – which is a few years ahead of Canada since it was the birthplace of modern high-volume slick water hydraulic fracturing – Hughes came to the conclusion that shale gas wells don’t produce for nearly as long as conventional gas wells did. In fact, the average 3-year decline rate (the speed at which production falls toward zero) of the 5 major US shale gas plays – accounting for 80% of the nation’s production – was a staggering 84%. That means that most wells are pretty much tapped out in a few years. It also means continual high rates of drilling are required to offset declines – just to maintain, let alone grow, production.

Hughes’ work in the US has done a great deal to shake up the debate in energy and financial sectors around the longterm financial and geological viability of shale gas.

Fracking would use more water than City of Calgary

Turning his attention to Canada over the past year, Hughes is seeing similar trends. “Given the steep production declines associated with shale and tight-gas, drilling rates of more than 3,000 new wells per year would be required to ramp up production to required export levels, followed by nearly 2000 wells per year to maintain production,” he warns. (emphasis added)

[quote]Notwithstanding the other well publicized environmental issues with hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which would be the principal completion technology used to produce this gas, water consumption alone during the ramp up phase would exceed that of the City of Calgary, which has more than a million people.[/quote]

Regulator, Government’s numbers don’t add up

To Hughes though, it’s much more than a matter of underestimating the environmental costs. The NEB and provincial government are misrepresenting the geology too. The regulator’s numbers simply don’t add up, says Hughes, when it comes to supplying the gas for the export licences they’ve issued. “The NEB’s forecasts of gas production in BC through 2035 do not come close to the levels needed for its LNG export approvals,” he notes. “Its reference case forecast for BC is the production of 57 trillion cubic feet (tcf) by 2035, yet 120 tcf are required to meet its approvals (more than three times BC gas reserves).”

Hughes has also tackled the erroneous boasts being made by BC’s Minister for Natural Gas Development, Rich “The Optimist” Coleman. Although more exploration will certainly find additional recoverable reserves, Coleman recently declared that there are over 950 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of recoverable resources in BC alone – this compares to the recent NEB estimate of 861 tcf in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC combined. The most recent estimates of marketable gas reserves in BC by Coleman’s own Oil and Gas Commision is only 33.4 tcf.

To put this in perspective, just 25 tcf of marketable gas has been recovered in BC since the 1950s from more than 25,000 wells. Nearly five times this amount would need to be recovered in just 27 years to meet the NEB’s export approvals.

Could Canadians run out of gas due to export commitments?

At issue is Canadians’ own future energy security. A central piece of the NEB’s mandate is to ensure that exports run surplus to domestic needs. And they’ve given their stamp of approval to these LNG export licences:

[quote]We have determined that the quantity of gas proposed to be exported by Prince Rupert LNG is surplus to Canadian need. The Board is satisfied that the gas resource base in Canada, as well as North America, is large and can accommodate reasonably foreseeable Canadian demand, the LNG exports proposed in this Application, and a plausible potential increase in demand.[/quote]

But is this true? Hughes thinks not. “Canadian production peaked in 2002 and is now down 30 per cent from its peak. The only province with substantial growth is BC, which constitutes 28 per cent of Canadian production (although it is now on a plateau),” he writes. “Coupled with current BC production, which is mostly committed to existing customers, meeting the NEB export approvals to date would require increasing BC’s gas production to nearly 50 per cent more than all of Canada currently produces – within less than a decade.” (emphasis added)

And that’s easier said than done, says Hughes.

BC’s steep production declines

The decline rates for BC’s shale gas wells may not be quite as severe as Hughes has observed south of the border, but they are steeper than the conventional gas wells that made up BC production in the past.

In the Horn River Basin, near Fort Nelson – the second biggest shale gas play in the province – the 3-year drop-off averages 80%. The province’s biggest play, the Montney Shale near Fort St. John and Hudson’s Hope, the decline rate is 61% for the same period, compared with 69% for the whole province.

As the rate of decline is steepest in the first year, the overall field decline is less, averaging about 26% per year – meaning that on average 26% of BC gas production must be replaced each year by more drilling to keep production flat.

That’s how you get to 50,000 new wells by 2040 to supply BC’s much-vaunted LNG industry.

A warning worth heeding

Though both the NEB and BC Government are likely to pretend this report never came into existence – preferring instead to forge ahead with an industry built on exuberant talk – they are foolish to do so. Mr. Hughes is a man who knows of what he speaks. He headed unconventional gas research during his 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), and, since leaving there, has continued his research, publishing a seminal report earlier this year on shale gas and tight oil production in the US.

Mr. Hughes’ opinion is being sought by people around the world deciding the future of shale gas. In recent months, he has spoken to the European Parliament, academics, energy financiers, and global financial media. The work he’s done in the US is changing the game there and abroad.

But if Christy Clark and our regulator decide to ignore this warning, they do so at the public’s peril – not their own. For none of them will be in their current positions long enough to answer for the catastrophic choices they’re making today.

Legal errors could send Enbridge review back to drawing board

January 18, 2014Canada, Energy and Resources, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Species At RiskfeaturedCarol Linnitt

Legal errors in could send Enbridge review back to drawing board — The 3-member Joint Review Panel for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline

Not even a month has pass since the federally-appointed Joint Review Panel (JRP) released its official report recommending approval of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, pending the fulfillment of 209 conditions. Yet already two separate suits have been filed against the integrity of the report, with groups requesting Cabinet delay a final decision on the pipeline project until the federal court of appeals can assess the complaints.

One of the suits, filed Friday by the Environmental Law Centre on behalf of B.C. Nature (the Federation of British Columbia Naturalists), requested the JRP’s report be declared invalid and that Cabinet halt its decision on the pipeline project until the court challenge is heard. The second suit, filed by Ecojustice on behalf of several environmental groups claims the JRP report is based on insufficient evidence and therefore fails to constitute a full environmental assessment under the law.

Chris Tollefson, B.C. Nature’s lawyer and executive director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, says “we have asked that the federal court make an order that no further steps be taken by any federal regulator or by Cabinet until this request is adjudicated.”

[quote]We’re confident that the federal court will make that order because we’ve raised some serious issues with the legality of the report and if the report is flawed then it can’t go to Cabinet, and it shouldn’t go to Cabinet.[/quote]

Legal errors in Enbridge review prompt challenge

B.C. Nature has identified almost a dozen legal errors that bring the legitimacy of the JRP’s recommendation into question.

“The two [errors] that we think are the most serious among those are the finding with respect to justification of serious harm to caribou and grizzly and the ruling with respect to a potential major oil spill and its consequences. We say that in both of those areas there is a glaring error that’s occurred that has to be addressed by the federal court of appeal,” Tollefson said.

A federal recovery strategy for humpack whales on the B.C. coast released in October cited potential increased oil tanker traffic as a danger to dwindling populations. The recovery strategy, released after a five-year delay, also noted the danger toxic spills posed to critical habitat.

A federal caribou recovery strategy is expected by the end of the month.

“Both those federal strategies have to be consider by the Cabinet when it ultimately rules on this [project]… For caribou this pipeline has some serious consequences and it will be interesting to see what happens when the federal strategy comes down.”

JRP hearing a “failure”

For Tollefson, the inadequacy of the official JRP report points to a failure of the Northern Gateway hearing process.

“It’s disappointing for everybody involved on the intervenor side, how this has unfolded,” he said.

[quote]The report is not only legally flawed in relation to the specific issues that we’ve raised but I think there’s a more general flaw, which is that it’s failed the test of transparency, it fails test of intelligibility. It basically doesn’t grapple with the evidence.[/quote]

The report reaches its conclusions “without setting out its analysis,” Tollefson says, “without discussing the evidence that forms the basis for those conclusions.”

“So we think there’s a basic rule of law issue here: does this report even conform with the basic requirements in terms of intelligibility and transparency that we expect from tribunals?”

“And we say that it doesn’t.”

Tollefson anticipates that the request will delay Cabinet’s 180 decision period, saying it would be “very difficult” for Cabinet to address and respond to B.C. Nature’s complaints within that timeframe.

For Tollefson a delay in Cabinet’s decision isn’t only foreseeable, it’s appropriate.

“Cabinet after all has to make its decision based upon the findings and the recommendations that arise out of this report.” Without a reliable report, what kind of decision can British Columbians expect?

The errors in the report could send the JRP back to the drawing board.

“If we’re upheld on any of our arguments, that report will have to be sent back to the JRP, redone, and we’ll basically be starting, potentially, back where we were in June. In those circumstances, it makes little sense for Cabinet to make a decision given that level of uncertainty around the future of the report.”

This article originally appeared on DeSmog Canada.

Fisheries Critic questions habitat protection handover for pipelines

January 17, 2014Energy and Resources, Fisheries, Oceans, Pipelines and SupertankersfeaturedDamien Gillis

Fisheries Critic questions habitat protection handover for pipelines — An oil pipeline crossing the Tanana River in Alaska

The federal NDP’s BC-based deputy fisheries critic is questioning a quiet deal signed just before Christmas that saw the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hand over the protection of fish habitat and species at risk along energy pipelines to the National Energy Board.

“The Conservatives have gone too far,” says New Westminster–Coquitlam & Port Moody MP Fin Donnelly.

[quote]They have gutted the Fisheries Act, slashed DFO’s budget, launched an all-out attack on science, and now they have handed over the power to make decisions on the environment to a body whose mandate is to deal with pipeline and energy development.[/quote]

The NEB lacks the knowledge to properly assess fisheries issues, says Donnelly. “The federal government is still the only body with the jurisdiction and sufficient expertise to assess potential damage to fisheries.”

Deal snuck by over holidays

The deal slid under the radar amid an onslaught of major energy-related announcements involving the NEB over the holidays – including its conditional recommendation of the proposed Enbridge pipeline, its approval of four major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licences, and receipt of Kinder Morgan’s formal application for a major oil pipeline expansion to Vancouver. All of these projects would experience a smoother ride with the watering down of DFO’s oversight of habitat alteration for pipeline construction.

Rather than making any legal changes to the Fisheries Act or Species at Risk Act, the deal came in the form of a “memorandum of understanding” between DFO and the NEB, making the Calgary-based energy regulator the point agency in determining whether aspects of a pipeline project could pose a risk to fish habitat or species at risk. Only then, in certain specific cases, would the NEB turn to DFO for what sounds very much like a rubber-stamped permit:

[quote]The NEB will assess a project application and determine if mitigation strategies are needed to reduce or prevent impacts to fish or fish habitat. If the project could result in serious harm for fish then the NEB will inform DFO that a Fisheries Act authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) is likely to be required. DFO will review and issue an authorization when appropriate, prior to project construction. Authorizations issued by DFO would relate to those watercourses impacted, not the entire project.[/quote]

“Streamlining” pipeline approvals

The memo clearly states the reason for its creation – part of the Harper Govenrment’s continued efforts to clear roadblocks to energy development: “This MOU better integrates the Government of Canada’s initiative to streamline application processes by eliminating the requirement for duplicate reviews.”

“This clearly demonstrates the Conservative government’s complete lack of understanding of and regard for science in decision-making, and the importance of proper environmental assessment,” counters the NDP’s Donnelly.

DFO: Nothing fishy about deal

DFO issued a statement yesterday in response to concerns about the MOU, suggesting that the deal with the NEB is similar to previous collaborative agreements with provincial regulators. “Over the years, DFO has established similar arrangements with some Provinces and with Conservation Authorities,” the statement read. “In all cases, the standards for fisheries protection are established by DFO and the Fisheries Act Authorizations continue to be done by DFO.”

Yet the department strains belief in touting the NEB’s ability to protect fish habitat as well as DFO:

[quote]Our collaborative arrangement builds on the decades of training, experience and expertise of NEB biologists in assessing the potential environmental impacts of development projects, including regarding fish and fish habitat…The National Energy Board is best placed to deliver regulatory review responsibilities under the Fisheries Act for activities relating to federally regulated energy infrastructure (such as pipelines).[/quote]Ecojustice Executive Director Devon Page sees this as the latest in a long line of coordinated attacks on Canada’s environmental laws by the Harper Government. Says Page, “Taking authority for assessing harm to fish and their waters from fisheries experts and granting it to a pipeline approving body, after having vastly weakened of our laws through omnibus bills, is pretty much the straw that breaks the environment’s back when it comes to appropriate stewardship of the thousands of lakes, rivers and streams that are proposed to be bisected by pipelines.”

First Nation blockades water intake construction over salmon impacts

January 17, 2014First Nations, Fisheries, OceansfeaturedCanadian Press

First Nation blockades water intake construction in Lillooet, BC — Cayoose Creek, where construction of a municipal water intake may be harming salmon habitat (Jim Upton)

LILLOOET, B.C. – Members of a First Nation in Lillooet, B.C., have set up a blockade near that Fraser River district to protest work they believe is destroying fish habitat on disputed land.

Sekw’el’was Chief Michelle Edwards says the blockade on Cayoose Creek (a.k.a Seton River), on Lillooet’s southern outskirts, began at 7 a.m. Friday.

There’s no indication when it could be removed, but Edwards says traffic on nearby Highway 99 is not affected and members are only halting hired contractors at the work site.

construction-cayoose creek — Early construction of a water intake on Cayoose Creek Thursday (Michelle Edwards)

She says the District of Lillooet has fast-tracked construction of a water intake on land claimed by the Sekw’el’was, although it knows the project will be appealed to the provincial Environmental Appeal Board.

Edwards says damage is not yet irreversible, but warns the work has the potential to wipe out spawning beds and incubating eggs in a section of Cayoose Creek used by coho, steelhead, chinook, pink, sockeye and bull trout.

She says many First Nations along the Seton and Fraser rivers rely on those salmon runs and, as caretakers of the watershed, the Sekw’el’was must protect the fish.

Peace Valley’s “extraordinary” farmland could feed a million people, agrologists tell Site C Dam review

January 16, 2014Farmland and Food Security, Food, Hydropower, WATERfeaturedDamien Gillis

Peace Valley extraordinary farmland could feed million people-Site C Dam — The Peace River Valley is one of Canada’s most fertile regions (Damien Gillis)

A pair of highly-respected agricultural experts made a compelling case this week for sparing some of BC’s best farmland from a proposed dam on the Peace River. Together, veteran agrologist Wendy Holm and soil scientist Evelyn Wolterson argued that BC Hydro’s error-ridden study of the flood zone for the $10 billion proposed Site C Dam missed the unique soil and climate values that would enable this land to feed up to a million people – were the focus to shift from hydropower to farming.

Conversely, if a third dam on the Peace were built, it would create the single largest loss of land in the 40-year history of the province’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) – drowning or severely impacting over 30,000 acres of largely exceptional land.

On Tuesday, the Joint Review Panel investigating Site C heard from Holm, a highly-decorated former President of the BC Institute of Agrologists with 40 years’ experience in the field, and agrologist and farming consultant Evelyn Wolterson – both presenting their findings on behalf of the Peace Valley Environment Association and BC Women’s Institue.

“The Peace River Valley has extraordinarily high value for agriculture,” Wolterson told the panel from the outset.

[quote]It is our opinion that the public interest is better served [by] agriculture and other uses for this valley, rather than a hundred years of power production…Power has other alternatives; agriculture doesn’t.[/quote]

Over 30,000 acres to be flooded or impacted

Site C Dam location — Location of the proposed Site C Dam (Damien Gillis)

In all, the project would impact 31,528 acres of class 1-7 farmland, roughly half of which lies “within the project’s flood, stability and landslide-generated wave impact lines,” notes Holm’s report to the panel. The other half will be permanently lost beneath the reservoir and access roads. Of the total land impacted and compromised, over 8,300 acres are class 1 and 2 soils – making it some the best farmland in the country.

According to Holm, Hydro ignores the half that won’t end up under water immediately but will nevertheless be heavily compromised over time and rendered largely un-farmable. Meanwhile, in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, the crown corporation determines the loss of the other half “is insignificant, because all ‘costs’ associated with any such loss can be mitigated and/or compensated.” Holm charges that the crown corporation understates everything from the amount of land impacted, to the long-term damage from the project to the local farming economy.

And that’s just the beginning of the problems with BC Hydro’s EIS which Holm and Wolterson unearthed for the panel.

The Peace Valley’s surprisingly “extraordinary” land

The panel seemed genuinely interested to learn from Holm and Wolterson about the special properties of the valley that make it so productive agriculturally.

For starters, the Peace River’s largely east-west orientation means the valley gets more sun, thus experiencing longer growing days and seasons than other land that far north. “The best farmland in BC is in the southern valleys,” Wolterson told the panel. “The notable exception is the Peace River Valley.”

Other factors like lower wind speeds, excellent Spring moisture, and a longer frost-free period mean, counterintuitively, that “crop yield goes up as you go from the south to the north,” Wolterson explained.

[quote]These are all elements of this valley that make it absolutely unique…not only in the region but in all of British Columbia, and perhaps Western Canada.[/quote]

Even a BC Hydro representative acknowledged to the panel in an earlier presentation Tuesday, “Our assessment certainly accepts that this is highly capable land and a favourable climate.” If anything, he conceded, the climate has improved since the last major study conducted by BC Hydro 30 years ago.

Yet throughout the project proponent’s 15,000-page report, “flawed data is leading to faulty conclusions,” Wolterson asserts.

Hydro cultivates wrong idea about valley’s farmland

Peterson farm — A sampling of the diverse produce grown at the Peterson market garden in the 1980s (photo: Larry Peterson)

Both experts ticked off a long list of problems with Hydro’s methodology for the EIS. “The panel does not have in front of it reliable information on which to measure the economic loss to agriculture and the public interest,” Holm stated at the top of her presentation.

Wolterson gave several examples of BC Hydro’s flawed analysis. For instance, a higher-elevation region above the valley known as the Uplands was given roughly same growing season as a monitoring station at the Fort St. John Airport, while the dam proponent ascribed 30 fewer growing, or “crop opportunity” days to the valley itself. “There’s something wrong with that data,” Wolterson told the panel.

“What it shows here is the capability of these [valley] lands in Attachie Flat and Bear Flat are equivalent to what they are at the Fort St. John airport. I’ve worked in this community for 20 years…I know that’s not true,” Wolterson testified, offering an example of crop yields 30% higher in the valley, compared with farms closer to Fort St. John.

In some cases, the valley beats even the Lower Mainland’s farms for productivity. For instance, Larry Peterson, who ran a successful market garden there with his wife Lynda in the 1970s and 80s, would get 13.6 tonnes per acre for potatoes, compared with the average yield in the Lower Fraser Valley of only 10.2 tonnes per acre.

In broader terms, Holm emphasized:

[quote]The land to be flooded by Site C is capable of producing high-yielding fresh fruits and vegetables for over a million people.[/quote]

BC’s food security withering on the vine

“There is a misperception that there is a vast amount agricultural land that is waiting to be exploited. It’s simply not true,” Wolterson warned the review panel.

Much of the Peace Valley's best farmland is already under the Williston Reservoir, behind the WAC Bennett Dam (Damien Gillis) — Much of the Peace Valley’s best farmland was flooded in 1968 by the WAC Bennett Dam (Damien Gillis)

According to the Ministry of Agriculture’s own 2007 assessment, titled BC’s Food Self-Reliance (download here), BC grows just 48% of the food it consumes. Vegetable production per capita has fallen to half of what it was in 1970. And the problem is only getting worse, says Wolterson. “Over the last 10 some-odd years, there’s been a serious and alarming decline in agricultural land area” – driven by everything from urban encroachment, industrial projects, and declining of productivity.

The combination of a shrinking food supply and growing population has put BC on a path to serious food security challenges, both presenters emphasized.

In that sense, Site C Dam should be viewed in the context of a wide range of cumulative impacts, together whittling away BC’s food security. Issues like fracking, roads, and segmentation of farmland for other industrial projects have all made farming more difficult and dragged down productivity, says Wolterson.

Moreover, BC Hydro’s flood reserve – a land bank it has accumulated over the years, buying out farmers in preparation for a future dam (Site C has been on the books for three decades now) – has had an “enormous”, detrimental impact on agricultural investment in the valley, giving a false impression of the productivity of the land. Hydro’s EIS and rationale for the dam leans heavily on this fiction.

Economic value of farmland underestimated

Peace corn — Cash crop: Is Hydro underestimating the economic value of farmland?

Holm’s presentation focused in part on the economic value Hydro assessed to farmland that would be lost from the dam, arguing it has made some dangerous miscalculations. With “global loss of farmland, water shortages, soil salinization, higher energy costs, transportations costs, supply chain concentration, population growth, there is no question that there is going to be intense pressure on food prices as we move into the future,” cautioned Holm.

In other words, land that is fallow and of seemingly little value today could see its economic worth – and value as a local food source – skyrocket in the future, something we may rue when we can no longer depend on truckloads of cheap tomatoes from California rolling across the border.

British Columbians currently spend 11% of household income on food, Holm noted, but that figure could rise significantly in the not-too-distant future, based on these myriad shifting factors. Viewed in that light, Hydro is recklessly lowballing lost economic value from flooded farmland, pegging it a a paltry $20 million.

The Shadow of the Dam

Holm came back to the flood reserve issue as well, suggesting that Hydro’s assumptions of the productivity and economic value of the land are erroneously based on a false dynamic that discourages farmers from working the land to its full potential.

[quote]The ‘shadow of the dam’ refers to the flood reserve that fell across the farmland in 1957. Considerable farmland was purchased by BC Hydro, farmers were told not to get too attached to their fields as Site C moved on, then off, then on again to the provincial drawing boards. Naturally, this has prejudiced farm decision-making. As a result, current land use does not reflect the agro-economic potential of the land.[/quote]

Process designed to fail the public

Audio: Why Site C Dam is a bad deal for taxpayers, environment — The proposed Site C Dam – artist’s rendering

Much like the Liberal Government did to the BC Utilities Commission – barring the public’s independent energy watchdog from reviewing the economics and need for Site C – it has also stripped the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) of its lawful oversight of the biggest potential land removal in its history

“This independent body, which was specifically created to ensure a thorough, non-partisan assessment of large projects like Site C, is not going to be allowed to do its job,” says Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) Coordinator Andrea Morison. The PVEA wrote to the Joint Review Panel, suggesting it ask the ALC for details on the process that they would have undertaken in assessing Site C – despite the provincial government’s attempts to exclude it from the conversation. The panel declined the request.

And so it is that both public watchdogs designed to keep the government and Hydro in check in this very situation curiously find themselves sitting on the bench for the biggest game of their careers.

Even the public hearing process was scheduled over the holiday season and limited to the region of the dam, despite the enormous bill taxpayers around the province would foot to build it. The whole process has been anathema to public participation.

Hydro’s work “weak and meaningless”

In the ALR’s place, BC Hydro has done a predictably poor job of assessing these agricultural issues and planning for their mitigation, say Holm and Wolterson.

“BC Hydro acknowledges that the mitigation plan and the compensation program that they’ve put together…they don’t really know how much is needed; there’s no specifics in how it would be implemented; there’s no evidence of possible uptake; there’s no proof that there’s a benefit,” Wolterson said in her conclusion.

[quote]I think it’s weak and I think it’s meaningless and it gives me no confidence and I can’t see how the panel can determine if this plan is going to adequately compensate for the loss of these incredibly valuable lands.[/quote]

What’s more important: energy or food?

Arlene Boon’s family would lose its century old farm at Bear Flat to Site C

Beneath the 15,000-page reports, the political shenanigans with the review process, and all the rhetoric about economic development lies a simple truth: Last year, BC generated about 110% as much electricity as it needed, but produced, at most, 48% of the food it consumed. In other words, while we have plenty of electricity to power our homes and businesses well into the future, the same thing cannot be said about our food security.

The problem is virtually invisible to British Columbians today. Most of us have no idea we exported a net surplus of 5,840 gigawatt hours of power last year (at a loss!) – you certainly wouldn’t learn this listening to BC Hydro, which has a long history of exaggerating future demand. And as long as those trucks keeping rolling north from California and Mexico – as long as Superstore’s shelves remain stocked and Costco keeps selling giant bags of tri-coloured peppers for 5 bucks – most of us will never know how real the danger is, how foolish the choices are that our government is making today.

The fact is, the only reason we really “need” this dam, according to Premier Christy Clark herself, is to power incredibly energy-intensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants on the coast, her government’s one big – if not bright – idea.

So the choice we face with Site C Dam – if you can even call it a choice for BC’s marginalized citizens and First Nations – is this: Power that we don’t need…or food that we do?

Oil lobby tries to tar Neil Young

January 16, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

CALGARY – The president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says rock legend Neil Young’s anti-oilsands statements are irresponsible and do a disservice to the aboriginals he’s trying to help.

Dave Collyer made his remarks ahead of Young’s fundraising concert in Winnipeg.

The Friday concert will be the second stop on a four-city circuit in support of a First Nation that lives downstream from the oilsands.

Collyer says the musician’s statements show a lack of understanding about the oilsands and the economic benefits they bring.

Collyer says he’d be happy to meet with Young on the final stop of the “Honour the Treaties” tour in Calgary this weekend.

Conservative Manitoba MP Candice Bergen has released a statement criticizing the anti-oilsands stance of — quote — “champagne socialists” who “hypocritically” use products made from oil.

Young’s tour is meant to raise money for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which is in a legal battle to protect traditional territory from further industrialization.

Read: Neil Young amps up national oil sands debate

Neil Young amps up national oil sands debate

January 14, 2014Energy and Resources, First Nations, Oil&Gas, Tar SandsfeaturedDamien Gillis

Neil Young amps up national oil sands debate — Neil Young at a benefit concert in Toronto on Sunday (Mark Blinch/AP)

When Neil Young first wandered into Canadian energy politics last year, comparing Fort McMurray to Hiroshima following a trip to the northern industry town in his biomass-powered car, it provoked a handful of rebuttals from conservative columnists. But the legendary Canadian-born rocker’s latest wading into that political and geological morass known alternately as the Alberta oil sands or Tar Sands has been a very different story.

Young’s Canadian concert tour, in support of an oil sands-related legal challenge by the Athabasca-Chipewyan First Nation, has somehow struck a nerve. The media has been rife with stories on Young’s provocative critique of Canadian energy policy and treatment of First Nations, eliciting a tidal wave of responses from everyday citizens, journalists, political pundits, industry advocates and top Harper Government officials.

A google news search of “Neil Young, oil sands” at the time of this writing yielded a staggering 34,000 news items from around Canada and the world.

If the comments posted on this site and others are any indication, Young has somehow fostered a frank debate about the kinds of economic choices we’re making for our future.

Round 1: Harper underestimates Young

The Harper Government underestimated Neil Young from the get-go, beginning with a juvenile rebuttal from a spokesperson for the PMO this past weekend: “Even the lifestyle of a rock star relies, to some degree, on the resources developed by thousands of hard-working Canadians every day.”

Apparently, to the Harper Government, two wrongs do make a right.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver – the Conservative pitbull on critiques of the government’s energy agenda – also chimed in with a rather lame response:

[quote]We don’t go ahead with any project unless it’s safe for Canadians and safe for the environment – it’s a a very rigorous, objective and independent review. We rely on that rather than an entertainer – no matter how talented – who compares Fort McMurray to Hiroshima, which is deeply insulting to the people of Fort McMurray and is both a travesty and a wild exaggeration.[/quote]

This from a government that has spent the past few years gutting environmental laws (most recently handing over fish protection along pipelines to our Calgary-based energy regulator) and “streamlining” and politicizing environmental assessments to facilitate its energy agenda.

Young fires back

Mr. Young – flanked on the four-city tour by First Nations leaders, David Suzuki, and climatologist-cum-BC Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver – wasted no time firing back at Harper and co. through a statement issued yesterday:

[quote]Our issue is not whether the natural resource sector is a fundamental part of the country, our issue is with the government breaking treaties with the First Nation and plundering the natural resources the First Nation has rights to under the treaties…There are better jobs to be developing, with clean energy source industries to help make the world a safer place for our grandchildren.[/quote]

Despite the polarizing nature of his earlier comments about the oil sands as Hiroshima, in his statement yesterday, he expressed compassion for everyday Canadians facing tough choices in today’s economy. “As to the thousands of hard working Canadians, we have respect for all working people,” Young emphasized. “The quandary we face is the job they are working on. They are digging a hole that our grandchildren will have great trouble digging their way out of.”

Canadians chime in

The complex and essential conversation which Young has stoked shows up in the comments section of the many well-read stories appearing on the subject. The sheer volume of responses provides a telling glimpse at the power of Young’s voice. Sure, there are plenty of the simplistic barbs that typically pepper Canadian energy stories – on both sides of the conversation. But there is also much heartfelt grappling with what has become perhaps the defining Canadian question: What role should fossil fuel development play in our economic future?

One oil sands worker simultaneously defends Fort Mac and illustrates the plight many Canadian workers face as a result of the country’s economic policies: “There is no other place in Canada that you will be able to make the type of money to provide for your family, even without any education.”

Another counters:

[quote]Our choices are more like oil vs. electric cars/solar power/biofuels/mass transit expansion/conservation investment/etc. There are so many different paths we could be walking…It’s short-sighted, destructive and counterproductive to progress where we need it.[/quote]

Is it because it’s Neil Young that this debate has suddenly blown up – or because it’s a conversation with which Canadians are about ready to engage? Perhaps it’s a bit of both. While it remains to be seen the longterm legacy Mr. Young’s tour will leave on the public discourse, for the time being, at least, it’s amping up an urgent national discussion.

This site has also seen a fair share of “Neil Young for PM!” comments. That maybe a bit of a stretch – but, hey, if the whole music thing doesn’t work out, Mr. Harper may want to watch his back.

New federal study: Oil sands bitumen sinks in water

January 14, 2014Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar SandsfeaturedCanadian Press

New federal study: Oilsands bitumen sinks when mixed — 2011 Rainbow Pipeline diluted bitumen leak in Alberta (Rogu Collecti/Greenpeace)

VANCOUVER – A new federal government study has concluded that diluted bitumen — the product that would be transported by the Northern Gateway pipeline — sinks in seawater when battered by waves and mixed with sediments.

However, when free of sediments, the molasses-like crude floats even after evaporation and exposure to light.

The report also says that the commercial dispersant, Corexit 9500, used in previous clean-up efforts had a limited effect on dispersing diluted bitumen.

The study examined two blends of crude, the Access Western Blend and Cold Lake Blend, which represent the highest volume of bitumen products transported by pipeline in Canada between 2012 and 2013.

Conducting research on how the oil would behave in a marine environment was one of the 209 conditions announced by a review panel that approved the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in December.

The pipeline, if approved by the federal government, would carry diluted bitumen from Alberta’s oil sands to tankers on the British Columbia coast.

Read Engineers poke holes in Enbridge tanker safety