Tag Archives: featured

US woman sues Canadian mining titan Teck over toxins, disease

US woman sues Canadian mining titan Teck over toxins, disease

Health and Environment, Metals and Minerals, Mining
Share
US woman sues Canadian mining titan Teck over toxins, disease
1988 image of effluent from Teck’s lead and Zinc smelter in Trail, BC (photo: Joel Rogers)

by Dene Moore, Canadian Press

VANCOUVER – A Washington state woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Teck Resources (TSX:TCK.B), claiming toxic pollutants from the company’s smelter in southeastern British Columbia are to blame for her breast cancer diagnosis and other health ailments.

Barbara Anderson is a longtime resident of Northport, Wash., a small community about 30 kilometres south of Teck’s lead and zinc smelter in Trail.

The lawsuit filed in the Eastern District Court says Anderson was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012 and inflammatory bowel disease in 2010. Says the claim, filed Thursday:

[quote]Teck negligently, carelessly and recklessly generated, handled, stored, treated, disposed of and failed to control and contain the metals and other toxic substances at the Trail smelter, resulting in the release of toxic substances and exposure of plaintiff and the proposed class. [/quote]

US government, aboriginal group sue for $1 Billion in clean-up costs

The smelter has been in operation under various ownership since 1896. Last year, the Vancouver-based mining giant admitted in another lawsuit brought by the Colville Confederated Tribes that effluent from the smelter polluted the Columbia River in Washington for more than a century.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eventually joined that lawsuit and wants Teck to pay the estimated $1-billion cost of cleaning up the contamination.

The latest lawsuit claims that between 1930 and 1995, the smelter discharged into the Columbia River at least 9 million tonnes of slag containing zinc, lead, copper, arsenic cadmium, barium, antimony, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, selenium and titanium.

“This discharge was intentional and made with knowledge that the waste slag contained metals,” says the complaint.

Teck has spent more than a billion dollars on improvements to the Trail operation. Today, the company says, metals from the smelter are lower than levels that occur naturally in the river.

The company has also spent millions remediating the area in and around Trail following decades of industry, but the company said the international border complicates the issues.

Recent toxic release

Though the discharges were meant to end in 1996, the suit claims there have been numerous unintentional releases since then, most recently in March 2011, when 350,000 litres of caustic effluent went into the river.

A 2012 study by the Washington Department of Ecology found elevated levels of lead, antimony, mercury, zinc, cadmium and arsenic in soil, lakes and wetlands downriver from the plant, the lawsuit claims.

And another study, concluded this summer by the Crohn’s and Colitis Centre at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, found that among 119 current and former residents of Northport, there were 17 cases of ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease — a rate 10 to 15 times higher than expected in a population of that size.

The lawsuit also says the smelter released 123 tonnes of mercury into the air from 1926 to 2005, and discharged at least 180 tonnes into the river in that time.

Complaints go back 70 years

Complaints south of the border about the contamination from the Trail smelter surfaced as early as the 1940s, when farmers from Washington state sued Cominco, Teck’s predecessor, over air pollution. That case was eventually resolved in arbitration by the two federal governments and set a precedent for cross-border pollution law.

Anderson and potentially others who could form part of a class-action, if approved, “have suffered a personal injury as a result of Teck’s wrongful conduct in violation of federal common law, nuisance, and Washington negligence and strict liability laws,” the claim says.

The suit asks the court for a declaration that the Trail smelter is “a public nuisance and an abnormally dangerous activity.”

[quote]Teck releases and has released hazardous and toxic substances, which create a high risk of significant harm…Teck has known or should have known about the potential health, safety and environmental dangers these substances pose to the public.[/quote]

The company has a duty to prevent injury, it says.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court. Teck has yet to be served with the lawsuit and file a response with the court.

“It’s possible that this could take a long time,” Barbara Mahoney, Anderson’s lawyer, said Friday.

Share
No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge

No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
No Surprise: Panel finds in favour of Enbridge
Former Enbridge CEO and Northern Gateway champion Patrick Daniel

Updated 3:20 PM PST

CALGARY – A review panel has recommended that the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast go ahead.

But the panel has attached 209 conditions, which cover everything from protecting caribou habitat to research into how the oil would behave in a marine environment.

The controversial proposal has pitted Calgary-based Enbridge (TSX:ENB) against environmental groups and First Nations, who have raised concerns about potential oilspills on land or in the water off the B.C. coast. The panel says any environmental effects can be mitigated effectively if its conditions are met.

Supporters say the pipeline is critical if Alberta is to get its oil to emerging markets in Asia. The panel’s report says that opening up that market is important to the Canadian economy and the benefits far outweigh the risks.

The panel did suggest that Enbridge must be able to prove it would have the financial resources immediately available to respond to any cleanup of a spill or other damage.

“Northern Gateway must file with the (National Energy Board) for approval, at least nine months prior to applying for leave to open, a financial assurances plan … capable of covering the costs of liabilities for … cleanup, remediation and other damages caused by the project during the operation phase,” the report says.

The final decision rests with the federal government, which has roughly six months to respond.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the government will thoroughly review the report and consult with aboriginal groups before making that decision.

The cost of the pipeline appears to have sky-rocketed. It had been pegged at more than $6 billion, but the report released Thursday used a $7.9-billion price tag, which includes pre-development costs and marine navigation enhancements.

Enbridge said in a news release that it will work toward meeting the conditions.

“We will closely analyze the panel’s conditions — many of which reflect commitments we put forward at the hearings — and continue to listen and be open to change,” project leader Janet Holder said.

B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak said the province wants to assess whether the panel’s report addresses five conditions B.C. has set out before it will support the pipeline.

[quote]We are not yet in a position to consider support for any heavy oil pipeline in B.C.[/quote]

The Alberta government welcomed the panel’s recommendation that the pipeline go ahead. Environment Minister Diana McQueen called it a “critical milestone toward getting Alberta’s oil to new international markets.”

Reaction from opponents was swift.

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation said political and corporate agendas won out over the interests of the public. And David Miller of the World Widlife Fund questioned how the panel could acknowledge the environmental risks, but still support the pipeline.

“I think the case is very clear that there is a real risk to the environment, the local economy and the social well-being of people who live in this region,” Miller said. “The (joint review panel) agrees with that yet it’s full steam ahead.

“I think that decision is very unwise.”

Miller suggested it’s still important for people to voice their concerns.

[quote]It’s in the political arena now and it’s up to people to continue to speak up. Our First Nations friends have legal rights as well, and I’m quite certain that coastal First Nations and others will be looking to ensure that their legal rights are respected.[/quote]

If approved by the federal government, the pipeline will probably be just the first to put billions of dollars into the coffers of Alberta, Ottawa and other provincial governments — not to mention the bank accounts of Enbridge and the international companies with a stake in the project.

The pipeline faced an uphill battle in B.C. where the environmental movement was bolstered by a decades-old “War in the Woods” against old-growth logging.

Enbridge and the oilpatch drastically underestimated the power of Green Corp., the older, wiser and better-funded modern version of the tie-dyed denizens who were arrested trying to save trees in the 1990s. Flush with cash from green philanthropists largely from south of the border, groups such as Forest Ethics Advocacy, the Dogwood Initiative and Rising Tides mounted a relentless campaign in Canada and abroad.

Growing concern over climate change has been a factor.

Northern Gateway and other pipeline projects — Keystone XL to the U.S. Gulf Coast, the reversal of Enbridge’s Line 9 through Ontario and Quebec, and Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain line to Metro Vancouver — mean production in the Alberta oilsands could triple by 2035, also increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

But protests in B.C. have been more of the grassroots, not-in-my-ocean variety.

There are also concerns that the heavy, molasses-like diluted bitumen coming from the oilsands is more corrosive and difficult to clean up in the event of a spill.

But perhaps the toughest hurdle for the project has been the simmering tension between B.C. First Nations and the federal government.

Unlike the rest of Canada, most First Nations in the westernmost province never signed treaties with the Crown. Decades of treaty negotiations have largely gone nowhere and aboriginal rights have been left to the courts.

Before Enbridge ever filed its application for the pipeline, Ottawa made the decision to let the joint review by the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency stand for its duty to consult with First Nations.

“The federal government would not support a process for aboriginal consultation separate from the (joint review panel) process…,” said an internal Aboriginal Consultation Plan obtained by The Canadian Press using an Access to Information request.

That didn’t go well.

“We’re treated as a stakeholder in this process,” Carrie Henchitt, a lawyer for the Heiltsuk Nation, said as the panel hearings became increasingly adversarial earlier this year. “We are not just stakeholders. We have specific rights very different from other interest groups.”

Many aboriginal groups opposed to the pipeline refused to take part in the review. Several indicated they were preparing court action should the project get the nod.

The political backlash was not limited to First Nations.

The Conservative government became defensive over oilpatch expansion and Oliver branded opponents as “foreign special interests groups” that threatened to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

The government changed the rules to give cabinet the final say on approval and rewrote rules around waterways and environmental protections.

It wasn’t until after the project was mired in controversy that Oliver announced rules that began to address some of the concerns around tanker and pipeline safety, and over liability in the event of a spill.

— With files from Dene Moore in Vancouver

Share
BC LNG bigger than Tar Sands? Export licences face Cabinet review

BC LNG bigger than Tar Sands? Export licences face Cabinet review

Energy and Resources, LNG
Share
BC LNG bigger than Tar Sands - Export applications face Cabinet review

BC LNG applications dwarf oil pipeline proposals and Tar Sands production, but receive only a fraction of the attention.

On Monday, the same day the news broke that Kinder Morgan has finally filed its Vancouver pipeline expansion proposal, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver also chose to announce that four massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) export licenses recommended by the National Energy Board (NEB) will go to Cabinet for review and final decision.

This is in the same week we expect to hear the NEB approve the Enbridge Heavy Oil pipeline proposal with “conditions” that reflect the social license posturing of the BC Liberal Government – and, once again, much media debate will ensue.

However, it is important that we do not let this overshadow the NEB’s approval of four more LNG export licenses, reaching 7 total approved licenses, involving a mind-boggling 109.18 million tonnes per annum (mtpa.) of natural gas. That’s a staggering total gross volume of 2905.5 million tonnes over 25 years, requiring a massive increase in hydraulic fracturing in BC to feed these LNG plants and tankers.

Details for the three largest are as follows, with the much smaller Woodfibre application linked to in the complete table below, which includes all 11 export applications, four of which are pending approval and thus not included in the above totals.

  • Pacific NorthWest LNG – Proponents are Petronas, Progress Energy Canada Ltd. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co.  Located in Prince Rupert.  Submitted an application to the NEB on July 5, 2013, to export 19.68 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
  • Prince Rupert LNG – Proponent is BG Group plc. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 21.6 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.
  • WCC LNG Ltd. project – Proponents are Imperial Oil Resources Limited and ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. Will be located in the vicinity of Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Submitted an application to the NEB in June 2013, to export 30 million tonnes of LNG annually for 25 years.

Complete list of 11 Export Licenses currently before the NEB

Company

Application Status

Term Length

Regulatory Documents
KM LNG Operating General Partnership Approved 20 yr Application [Filing A27596]Reasons for Decision[Filing A33553]
BC LNG Export Co-operative LLC Approved 20 yr Application [Folder 704633]Reasons for Decision[Filing A39041]
LNG Canada Development Inc. Approved 25 yr Application [Folder 834774]Reasons for Decision[Filing A50334]
Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd. Approved 25 yr Application [Filing A53130]Letter Decision[Filing A55995]
WCC LNG Ltd. Approved 25 yr Application [Filing A53032]Letter Decision[Filing A55993]
Prince Rupert LNG Exports Limited Approved 25 yr Application [Filing A53011]Letter Decision[Filing A55992]
Woodfibre LNG Export Pte. Ltd. Approved 25 yr Application [Filing A53055]Letter Decision[Filing A55997]
Jordan Cove LNG L.P. Under review 25 yr Application [Filing A53974]
Triton LNG Limited Partnership Under review 25 yr Application [Filing A54964]
Pieridae Energy Ltd. Under review 20 yr Application [Filing A55130]
Aurora Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd. Under review 25 yr Application [Filing A55578]

Taken in total and converted to the “oil equivalent”, these LNG licences and applications dwarf current Tar Sands production. At the low figure of  80 mtpa, BC Premier Christy Clark has boasted these license applications are the oil equivalent of 1,960,000 barrels per day, every day, for as long as 25 years.

The 80 mpta that Christy Clark admits to is only about 3/4 of the actual NEB-approved volume of 109.19 mtpa.

That would be the oil equivalent of 2,674,910 million barrels a day, every day for up to 25 years, of APPROVED volumes – remember, 4 more licenses are awaiting for approval, totalling an additional 49.3 mtpa.

Some have estimated that to supply the volumes approved in these licenses would require upwards of 50 thousand fracked natural gas wells. For perspective see this image of a few hundred gas well pads in Texas.

BC LNG plans: Gas equivalent of 4 million barrels of oil/day

Again, the 101.19 mtpa approved total does not count the 49.3 mtpa awaiting for approval, bringing the grand total to 158.49 mtpa or the oil equivalent of 3,883,005 barrels per day. One of those proposals is Sinopec’s Aurora application, which was just received and is the second largest behind WCC’s approved license.

The license volumes in these applications, if approved, would launch BC to the forefront of the world’s LNG export market, surpassing the current world leader Qatar.

Window of opportunity for public input

As a result of recent changes, driven by the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the Harper Cabinet will be making the final decision on these export applications.

At the same time, the Harper Government is negotiating the final details of unprecedented trade agreements in terms of their magnitude, scope and impact on BC’s emerging LNG industry. Those include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China (FIPPA).

These agreements will dictate the terms of BC’s emerging LNG industry for generations – which is why this is a pivotal time to register your concerns.

Take the time and use this contact information below to register your concerns with Natural Resources Canada about BC LNG export volumes, trade agreements and the impact on our economy and environment.

If you could impact the unbridled exploitation of the Tar Sands BEFORE they were “locked in” and well underway, would you? If so, now is your chance to act and influence the BC “Tar Sands”, as defined by Christy Clark’s vision.

Share
$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

Economics, Hydropower, WATER
Share

$10 Billion Site C Dam: You pay, no say

If you live in BC, it will cost you, conservatively, $10 Billion – paid through skyrocketing power bills and taxes. It will flood tens of thousands of acres of excellent farmland – sacrifices you will make entirely for the benefit of multinational oil and gas companies.

And here’s the kicker: you have no say in the matter. The environmental hearings into the proposed Site C Dam currently underway in northeast BC have utterly excluded the people who will be paying the lion’s share of the financial costs: you. No hearings in Vancouver, Victoria, or anywhere outside of the Peace Valley, of which 50,000-plus acres of quality wildlife habitat and farmland would be flooded for the project.

Debunking Site C’s myths

Let’s begin by setting aside a few popular myths, peddled by your government, often repeated by the mainstream media.

First, when you hear $7.9 Billion, remember that dams all around the world run notoriously over budget – an average of 27%, according to the World Bank. Add to that the dismal track record of cost overruns for major capital projects under the supervision of the BC Liberal Government – from the convention centre to the stadium roof to the Port Mann Bridge – and we’ll go ahead and call Site C Dam a $10 Billion project…at least.

Second, whenever you read that Site C Dam would power 450,000 homes, remember that this power is not for yours or anyone’s home or small business. And that comes straight from the horse’s mouth – BC Premier Christy Clark, that is. She has told us repeatedly that Site C is necessary to power BC’s much-vaunted, proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.

You see, BC is totally self-sufficient in electricity now and well into the future. According to Stats BC, we exported a surplus of over 5,800 gigawatt hours last year – about 10% of our total domestic demand. That trend shows no sign of reversing for decades to come…unless, that is, we decide to power enormously energy-intensive LNG plants on the coast with subsidized public power.

If we go that route, BC Hydro has nowhere near enough power – even with Site C – as its befuddled, draft Integrated Resource Plan recently demonstrated.

These plants have been granted special permission to break the Liberals’ own climate laws and burn some gas to power the cooling of the rest of the gas into liquid – bringing massive air pollution and climate impacts. Site C would provide only enough energy for one of the larger proposed LNG plants, so it makes little sense for the beautiful Peace Valley, its environment, farmland, First Nations and citizens to make such a costly sacrifice at the altar of LNG.

$10 Billion, zero voice

For all the environmental and food security costs, the widespread opposition from local First Nations, the enormous cost to your pocket book, you get no say in the matter.

With these hearings scheduled over the holiday season and only in the north, the message from the BC Liberal government could not be clearer: They do not want your voice to be heard. Just sign the cheque, give the land and the power to someone else, and keep your mouth shut.

$10 Billion of your money for a dam you do not need: That’s Site C Dam in a nutshell.

So whether they want to or not, this BC Liberal Government needs to hear from its constituents in the Lower Mainland, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Interior  the coast. With a government that’s already racked up more debt – both hidden and obvious – than all its predecessors over the past century combined, the people of BC cannot afford to allow it to add another $10 Billion to their children’s Visa.

The founders of the American republic had it right: No taxation without representation. This government badly needs a refresher in that concept.

Share
Quebec to investigate PCB contamination throughout province

Quebec to investigate PCB contamination throughout province

Health and Environment
Share

Quebec to investigate PCB contamination throughout province

MONTREAL – Quebec’s environment minister has announced a new inspection program will be carried out on known PCB sites in the province.

Yves-Francois Blanchet says priority will be given to 60 licensed PCB sites, which will be checked between now and April 2014.

The inspections will be carried out on 1,300 sites around the province over the next five years.

“All real and potential sites on Quebec’s territory will be visited to be checked to ensure that they conform to existing rules when it comes to PCBs,” Blanchet said.

[quote]We want to make sure no sites have slipped through and that our repertoire is up-to-date.[/quote]

Blanchet made the announcement at a news conference Tuesday in suburban Pointe-Claire, a town where a company had been illegally storing PCBs.

Toxic materials had been present there for years, but were only detected in March after a spill of about 1,000 litres on the property.

Reliance Power Equipment Ltd., the company that had been illegally storing the polychlorinated biphenyls, has ignored repeated warnings to clean up the mess.

In September, the Quebec government stepped in and took over the cleanup of the site, which could cost as much as $3.5 million.

Blanchet also told a news conference that decontamination of the site will resume in the spring.

Pointe-Claire Mayor Morris Trudeau said his town is working with other elected officials and Montreal fire services to ensure that prevention experts inspect all industrial buildings on the island of Montreal on a yearly basis.

The environment minister said the inspections across Quebec will be carried out using existing resources and without any additional inspectors.

He pointed to a chart which showed a massive reduction of PCBs in Quebec since 2000. The quantity of legally stored PCBs went from 1,200 metric tonnes to less than 200 metric tonnes in 2012.

Blanchet is also calling on residents who are worried that PCBs might be stored near their homes to contact his department.

The incident has stirred memories in Quebec of the 1988 St-Basile-le-Grand crisis, where thousands of people were evacuated from their homes following an explosion at a warehouse that housed PCBs.

Share
Kinder Morgan files plan to turn Vancouver into 'Port McMurray'

Kinder Morgan files plan to turn Vancouver into ‘Port McMurray’

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers
Share
It's official: Kinder Morgan files plan to turn Vancouver into Port McMurray
Kinder Morgan Canada CEO Ian Anderson talks pipelines at the Vancouver Board of Trade in 2013

It’s official. Just days before the National Energy Board is expected to announce its findings on the controversial, proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, US pipeline giant Kinder Morgan has filed its application to build a massive new oil pipeline to its tanker terminal in Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet.

The eight-volume submission – covering everything from project design to aboriginal relations, environmental compliance and risk management – will take some time to chew through. For starters, though, the proposal would add a new pipeline carrying 590,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen and synthetic crude from the Alberta Tar Sands to the company’s Burnaby terminal.

It will inevitably be presented as a logical alternative to Enbridge, as merely a “twinning” of the 50-year-old TransMountain pipeline – but it is much more than that.

Before the Texas-based company, helmed by former Enron executive Richard Kinder, bought the old TransMountain line in 2005, its function was mainly to supply local refineries with crude and bitumen products for the region’s energy needs. At that time, a small bit of surplus oil was loaded onto tankers – on the order of 15 per year – and shipped to other local refineries like the one in Cherry Point, Washington.

From 15 to 400 tankers  a year

Since then, Kinder Morgan has increased the old line’s capacity from 200,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil products per day – without any environmental assessment. It has also moved aggressively to ramp up exports – meaning on the order of 5 times as many tankers leaving Vancouver Harbour every year, as the lone remaining local refiner, Chevron, has struggled to get its hands on oil from the pipeline.

But with this “twinning” project – which is really a new pipeline with 590,000 barrels a day of capacity, scalable beyond that – Kinder Morgan would go full hog, transforming Vancouver into a major international oil export hub. Those 15 tankers would explode to upwards of 400 a year, considerably escallating the risk of an diluted bitumen spill. Burrard Inlet tanker

Kinder Morgan and its Harper Government backers will present the project as a breath of fresh air compared with the intractable dispute with First Nations over the Enbridge project. That too is inaccurate, as the three major Vancouver-area nations – the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam – have all signed onto the “Save the Fraser Declaration” against oil pipelines and tankers on the coast, making it clear that they’re no more amenable to this project than to Northern Gateway.

Pre-Christmas filing no accident

In filing the application the week before Christmas, Kinder Morgan demonstrates that it has every intention of sailing under the radar with its project. The timing of the announcement is no coincidence. But expect this issue to stoke considerable opposition across one of Canada’s largest metro regions.

Some things to watch for in the New Year:

  • With the Enbridge announcement out of the way, to what extent will First Nations and environmental groups turn their attention to the Kinder Morgan file? The significant infrastructure, mailing lists, social media networks, volunteers, and alliances between different groups already in place from the Enbridge battle could easily be redeployed towards this issue.
  • The growing divide between the Lower Mainland’s progressive mayors and councils – i.e. Gregor Robertson and Burnaby’s Derek Corrigan – and provincial and federal governments intent on pushing this project through. The popular Robertson is the ace up Vancouver’s sleeve in opposing Kinder Morgan, as he continues to show real leadership on the subject.
  • Where the NDP goes with its opposition to the project. After Adrian Dix fumbled the party’s announcement on Kinder Morgan in the May election, the NDP is likely to be gun shy on the topic. It shouldn’t. That’s what oppositions are for. And I predict this will be a popular position if they handle it right, which would include giving the lead to local MLAs David Eby and George Heyman, both of whom leveraged the issue successfully in their urban ridings. West End-based Environment Critic Spencer Chandra Herbert should really step up on the file too.
  • How the Harper Government attempts to further restrict public participation and fast-track the hearings to avoid a repeat of the contentious, drawn-out Enbridge process. It should consider such moves very carefully, as they stand to backfire with the public.
  • The effect the pipeline debate has on largely Conservative ridings in the Interior and Fraser Valley, whose properties would be straddled by the new pipeline.
  • Finally, the extent to which Vancouver rediscovers its activist roots. This is, after all, the birthplace of Greenpeace and a formidable anti-nuclear movement in decades past. Kinder Morgan could well ignite something this country hasn’t seen for awhile: a massive urban environmental movement.

Share
National Energy Board approves 4 LNG export licences for 25 years

National Energy Board approves 4 LNG export licences for 25 years

Energy and Resources, LNG
Share
National Energy Board approves 4 LNG export licences for 25 years
Petronas/Progress’ proposed LNG project near Prince Rupert, BC obtained 1 of 4 25-yr export licences

CALGARY – The National Energy Board has approved applications by four companies for 25-year licences to export liquid natural gas from the West Coast.

Subject to final government review, the applications approved by NEB would see licences go to Prince Rupert LNG Exports Ltd. (owned by BG Group), Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd. (owned by Petronas/Progress and Japex), WCC LNG Ltd. (Imperial Oil Canada and ExxonMobil Canada) and Woodfibre LNG Export Pte. Ltd. (owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tonato).

In announcing the approvals Monday, the national energy regulator noted that recent developments in gas production technology have resulted in a significant increase in the Canadian gas resource base and the North American gas supply.

“One of the major impacts of this increase is lower demand for Canadian gas in traditional gas markets in the United States and Eastern Canada,” it said.

“As a result, the Canadian gas industry is seeking to access overseas gas markets through exports of LNG.”

The board said it had determined that the quantity of gas each company proposed to exported “will be surplus to Canadian requirements,” and that the large North American natural gas resource base can accommodate “reasonably foreseeable Canadian demand.”

Meanwhile, federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver confirmed that the federal government would be reviewing the approvals before licences are issued.

“. . . The Harper government supports energy projects that will create jobs and generate economic growth in Canada for future generations,” Oliver said.

However, the government will only allow energy projects to proceed “if they are found to be safe for Canadians after an independent, science-based environmental and regulatory review.”

Share
Industry seeks right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds

Industry seeks right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds

Energy and Resources, Tar Sands, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons
Share
Industry wants right to release water from oilsands tailings ponds
Syncrude tailings pond (photo: David Dodge, Pembina Institute)

EDMONTON – Oilsands producers are talking with the federal and Alberta governments about conditions under which water from the industry’s tailings ponds could be released into the environment.

Officials say releases would only involve treated water and wouldn’t happen until the end of a mine’s life.

Environmentalists are watching the discussions closely and warn that quality standards for released tailings water should be high.

“If they’d be willing to take the water and dump it in the Bow River near Calgary, then perhaps,” said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace.

Alberta has a zero discharge policy for the oilsands. No water affected by processing is allowed back into the Athabasca River and even rain that falls on developed sites must be collected and stored.

Most of that water is kept in tailings ponds.

Companies failing to meet regulations for tailings ponds

The ponds — covering 170 square kilometres with a toxic blend of hydrocarbons, silt, salts and heavy metals — have been a lingering headache for the industry. Alberta’s energy regulator has already had to relax on enforcing regulations about cleaning up the ponds after companies pleaded they would simply be unable to meet their targets.

But as the province develops new tailings regulations, there is general acknowledgment that something will have to be done with the water currently filling the ponds once contaminants have been removed and stored at the bottom of so-called end-pit lakes. Said department spokeswoman Nikki Booth in an email:

[quote](Alberta Environment) is consulting on a tailings management framework with industry and First Nations. Included in that consultation are discussions about introducing tailings water (free of the tailings) back into natural waterways at the end of a project.[/quote]

Those discussions have been occurring for some time. Documents obtained under Access to Information laws refer in the summer of 2012 to “the industry request for tailings release as a management option.”

Federal environment spokesman Mark Johnson confirmed that reference.

“A small number of oil and gas stakeholders … have expressed an interest in a science-focused dialogue with experts from Environment Canada and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Development on the environmental considerations of water management, including release of tailings ponds water by the oilsands sector.”

Industry downplays concerns

Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said the only interest he’s aware of involves water in tailings ponds at the end of a mine’s life.

“We’re going to have extra water left over that needs to be treated and processed and put back into the environment in some sense. We’ve started talking about how that will happen at the end of the mine life.

“There’s no current request to release anything in place.”

That’s small comfort, said Stewart. He points out that the reason the tailings ponds have been such an intractable problem is because it’s so difficult to get impurities such as salts and heavy metals out of the water. Stewart notes:

[quote]The problem they’ve had is that they can’t get the stuff out of the water and they’ve been trying for 40 years. For 40 years we’ve been hearing we’re just about to solve this problem and we haven’t.[/quote]

Not only is the cleanup proving difficult, it’s also expensive, Stewart said. He fears industry is lobbying government to allow it to release some level of process-affected water back into the environment.

Stringham said any released water would meet government standards.

“What we’re looking at is the water that would be liberated from tailings during the reclamation process that would then be treated to meet all the environmental criteria, and then put back into the environment.”

Booth suggested Alberta is approaching the idea with caution.

“More work is needed on treatment technology and science,” she said. “If potential technology is developed that may allow for tailings water to be released into the natural environment, then it may be something government would consider at that time.”

Share
Newfoundland national park, world heritage site spared from oil fracking

Newfoundland park, world heritage site spared from oil fracking

Energy and Resources, Fracking
Share
Newfoundland national park spared from oil fracking
Newfoundland’s Gros Morne National Park (Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism)

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – An oil exploration company that set off intense debate with plans to frack near Gros Morne National Park in western Newfoundland says it will lose its licence next month to drill wells near the UNESCO world heritage site.

CEO Mark Jarvis of Shoal Point Energy Ltd. (CNSX:SPE) said his company’s bid to extend one of three exploration licences it holds in the province was rejected Dec. 5 by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

The company said the decision means his company will lose the licence as of Jan. 15 as well as a $1-million deposit made last January for a one-year extension on drilling exploration wells.

“We are disappointed by this decision,” Jarvis said in a statement Thursday.

Shoal Point Energy and Black Spruce Exploration, a subsidiary of Foothills Capital Corp., had proposed to hunt for oil in shale rock layers in enclaves surrounded by the park using hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.

The process involves pumping water, nitrogen, sand and chemical additives at high pressure to fracture shale rock formations and allow gas or oil to flow through well bores to the surface.

The prospect of drilling in the Green Point shale near the picturesque park raised alarms about groundwater pollution and other risks.

Last month, the provincial government shut the door on applications for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas while it reviews regulations and consults residents.

In a statement issued Friday the offshore board said it considered and rejected three separate proposals from the company for a one-year extension to its exploration licence.

The board said in making its decision it considered that the licence was issued based on conventional exploration work and that eight years had passed with minimal exploration undertaken.

It said the company’s proposal did not identify a plan to proceed with the drilling obligation on the licence and instead identified “a physical and legal impossibility to undertake a drilling program” in the only format now under consideration.

The board also said the company did not incorporate a forfeiture of its drilling deposit for not meeting the obligations of the licence to date.

Shoal Point Energy said it was willing to give up more than half of the approximately 202 hectares covered by the licence if the board approved the extension, including the portion neighbouring Gros Morne.

The company said it was also prepared to make an additional drilling deposit of $250,000, but the board denied both requests.

Jarvis said the Vancouver-based company felt its application respected the importance of the park.

“Our proposal balanced a desire to protect this unique and beautiful park with a desire to safely and responsibly develop a much-needed economic opportunity on the west coast of Newfoundland,” he said.

In total, the company’s three licences cover approximately 291 hectares in western Newfoundland.

“We still have a very large prospective resource to explore and develop in our remaining exploration licences,” said Jarvis. “We believe that the majority of people in this area want economic opportunity, as long as they are satisfied that operations are safe and respect the environment.”

Share
Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal

Alberta questions downstream impacts of BC’s Site C Dam proposal

Hydropower, WATER
Share
Alberta concerned about downstream impacts of BC's Site C Dam proposal
BC Hydro’s proposed Site C Dam (artist’s rendering)

by Dene Moore, Canadian Press

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The province of Alberta is concerned that a multibillion-dollar hydroelectric dam proposed in northeastern British Columbia could increase mercury levels in fish and escalate the risk of floods or drought along the Peace River that flows through its province.

Alberta’s Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, which manages lands, forests, fish and wildlife in the province, has filed a 23-page submission setting out its concerns to the panel reviewing the massive project.

Environmental review hearings for the $7.9-billion Site C dam proposal by BC Hydro are underway in Fort St. John, B.C.

Site C would be third strike against Peace River

Two existing dams on the Peace River in B.C. have already significantly altered the flow of the river into the neighbouring province, the Alberta submission said, and this has both positive and negative impacts in Alberta.

“Alberta is concerned that Site C will further exacerbate the negative impacts,” said the document filed Nov. 29.

The Site C dam would flood an 83-kilometre stretch of the Peace River from approximately Fort St. John to just upstream of Hudson’s Hope. It would be the third dam on the river, downstream from the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams.

The two existing dams already lower the river’s natural flow from May to late July, and increase flow from mid-October to mid-April. There are benefits to the flow regulation from BC Hydro, such as a reduced risk of flooding, but there are also risks, Alberta said.

Among those risks is an expected increase in methylmercury levels in fish during construction of the dam.

“Alberta acknowledges that BC Hydro expects increases in MeHg levels in fish populations downstream of the Alberta-B.C. border to be temporary and within fish consumption guidelines,” the submission said.

“However, it is unclear whether Albertans are aware of this increase, the amount of the increase, and the duration of the impact.”

The Alberta government requested ongoing information from BC Hydro to enable the province to inform fishermen on the Peace River of changes to methylmercury levels in fish until concentrations return to pre-construction levels.

Water flow, temperature changes

The impact of the dam on managing ice-related flooding and concern about minimum flow rates during construction were also singled out as concerns. Reduced peak flow affects the aquatic ecosystem on the Peace River, the Peace-Athabaska delta and other riparian wetlands, the document said.

Water fluctuations also cause mortality to fish and eggs by stranding, or indirectly through increased stress on fish, the report said.

There are also concerns about changes Site C will cause in water temperature downstream from the dam and reservoir, making the Peace River slower to warm in spring and slower to cool in summer.

“Such changes to water temperatures, though slight, may impact the current distribution and range of cold and cool water fish species within Alberta causing potential declines in some species and increases in others,” the report said. “Temperature changes may also impact the timing of ice freeze-up and break-up events.”

That could result in changes to spawning runs, in egg incubation rates and access to spawning habitat, the submission stated.

Dam could restrict fishing opportunities for Albertans

The province is also concerned about the flow of fish in the river. According to the report:

[quote]Upstream and downstream movement of fish populations is necessary for gene flow and hence long term resiliency in those populations, as well as to allow access to spawning, rearing, feeding, and overwintering areas.[/quote]

BC Hydro has told the neighbouring province that it is exploring options for fish passage, but as yet, “Site C could result in more restrictive fishing opportunities for species Albertans value more highly in the Peace River.”

Parks Canada raises issues with Site C

Parks Canada has also expressed concern about the cumulative effects another B.C. hydroelectric dam could have downstream, on Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace Athabasca Delta.

The federal agency said the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort Chipewyan Métis Association, Little Red River Cree Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation share those concerns. The Athabasca Cree, Dene Tha’, Mikisew Cree and Deninu Kue First Nations, as well as the Metis Nation of Alberta Region 6, have registered to appear before the panel.

“It is Parks Canada’s view that assessment of the operational phase of Site C must include consideration of the impacts of sustained, ongoing operations of all three Peace River dams managed by BC Hydro to ensure adequate assessment and consideration of the cumulative effects of flow regulation,” Parks Canada wrote to the panel.

Share