Tag Archives: KinderMorgan

flaring at a

BC NDP Must Come Clean on its Full Energy Policy

Energy and Resources, Hydropower, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons, , , , , ,
Share

The NDP are getting a free ride – at least they certainly are on the energy file.

I must ask again: Why are they not condemning the proposed twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Vancouver? All the arguments that prevail against the Enbridge line apply to Kinder Morgan, so to say that you’re waiting for the Kinder Morgan applicationto be filed is a flimsy excuse which waters down their general position on energy.

Speaking of a program, just what is the NDP energy policy? We’d better find out soon or it will be too late.

Some questions.

The NDP is wholly supportive of multiple liquified natural gas (LNG) plants in Kitimat, so far as can be told without any real consultation with the public on either the plant itself or the pipeline that would cross the same  mountains and forests that Enbridge does.

My feeling is that the NDP don’t want to appear to be against everything. Yet the party was much opposed to an LNG plant on Texada Island a few years ago, mainly on dangers it posed. There are not too many examples of plant failure in the past but when they do have one, the destruction of property and human life is extensive.

I don’t say that this project ought to be banned – I just ask when the public process took place. When was the public, including First Nations, consulted on both the need for such a plant and, if passed, what were the technical and environmental concerns, and, again, where was the public process?

John Horgan, the NDP Energy Critic, seems to favour, without reservations, the obtaining of natural gas through the process now called “fracking”, which is a technique whereby natural gas, trapped in shale beds within the earth’s crust is “mined” by forcing it out by the use of huge quantities of water and chemicals. British Columbia has lots of this natural gas and there’s a sort of “gold rush” mentality amongst those who want to get into the act.

There are huge environmental questions, not least of which is the chemical-laden water getting into the domestic water supply and ecosystems. Moreover, where is the water being taken from?

There are also very real worries for the security of the land under which the “fracking” takes place, namely earthquakes being caused by the controversial practice.

The concerns here are not just picky little matters brought up by traditional boo birds but very real worries.

There is a very big economic question involved: BC and Alberta are not the only places in the world where there are lots of potential fracking areas.

With a huge overabundance of natural gas available, can BC compete? Where are the markets? China, which itself has huge trapped natural gas resources?

Normally one might say, that’s the concern of the companies, not us.

But we know that’s not necessarily so, for corporations discount a good part of the downsides by expecting government bailouts if big trouble comes, for the same reason the US government bailed out the stockbrokers – the cost of not bailing out sinking corporate ships was higher than the subsidies. Moreover, the public is a shareholder in this resource and is receiving reduced dividends from it at these historically low market prices.

There is a further question that has been raised but not dealt with, either by the government or the opposition – why are we devoting energy from water resources, that belong to the public to create energy which then will be used by corporations to make new energy?

The nature of BC Hydro, since W.A.C. Bennett’s days, was to create cheap power for both the public and industry but not to be a partner in the industry, thus liable to losses concerned.

The proposed Site “C” Dam is not needed for domestic energy supply – as our resident economist Erik Andersen has amply demonstrated – but day by day looks more like a scheme to subsidize the untested abilities of fracking companies to do so without environmental damage, in questionable markets. And if not for fracking, then to subsidize comparably questionable new mining operations in northern BC – in any event, the power from Site “C” is patently not for the public that would be paying some $10 Billion to build it.

These are some of many questions being raised by everyone accept the Liberals, who are joined at the hip to industry, and the NDP who are not.

It’s bad enough to have a government of a gaggle of nincompoops, but without an Opposition to ask serious and penetrating questions because they fear the voters won’t like it is a potential tragedy which may well lead to an environmental and fiscal mess not only caused by an incompetent government but an incompetent Opposition as well.

Share

Squamish & Tsleil-Waututh Nations Sign Historic Declaration to Protect the Salish Sea

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers,
Share

Read this article from Tsleil-Waututh Nation on Canada Newswire about their canoe journey from Ambleside Park to Cates Park, and the declaration that came out of it. (September 2, 2012)

Read more: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1029413/squamish-tsleil-waututh-nations-sign-historic-declaration-to-protect-the-salish-sea

Share

Audio: Damien Gillis Discusses Energy and BC’s Economy on Co-op Radio

Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , , , , ,
Share

Check out this interview from Aug. 15 on Vancouver Co-op Radio’s “Discussion”, with host Charles Boylan. Guest Damien Gillis and Boylan cover a wide range of topics relating to energy and the future of the BC and Canadian economy. The pair discuss the myriad alternatives popping up of late to the embattled Enbridge pipeline, including Kinder Morgan’s planned twinning of its Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver, and shipping bitumen by rail. They also cover natural gas development in northern BC – including controversial hydraulic fracturing and the building of a new pipeline to carry this gas to Kitimat and covert it to Liquified Natural Gas to sell in Asian markets – plus an alternative economic vision for BC that doesn’t depend on becoming a major fossil fuel corridor to the world. (Aug. 15 – 1 hr)

Share
CN already transports bitumen by rail - more proposals to do the same are now being floated as Enbridge runs out of steam

Replacing Enbridge with Rail, Other Routes Misses the Point

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, , , ,
Share

The tide seems to be turning against the Enbridge Pipeline but we must take great care not to lose by winning.

Industry seems to be talking alternative routes by using rail or other methods.

My old friend Tex Enemark weighs in this morning in an op-ed in the Sun(August 15) and makes several points – we can soak the companies by levying high taxes for rights of way, we can make the pipelines safer (you will note he doesn’t say “safe”), we can use other routes, and that if we don’t permit the pipelines China will retaliate by reducing imports of our other goods.

WHAT NONE OF THESE VOICES SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SPILLS,THE DAMAGE, EVEN OF SMALL SPILLS, OF BITUMEN IS SO TOXIC THAT IT CAN NEVER BE REPAIRED AND THAT THE GUNK MUST GO TO MARKET VIA SOME OTHER METHOD.

Let me deal with the last point first – are we to announce to all trading partners, including the USA, that if you threaten our exports, you can come here and do as you please?

This is not a rhetorical question because a new government in 2013 will surely look at Private Power projects, many American owned, which could be canceled, altered or refused in the first place. Do we back off our sovereignty and say, “sorry for even thinking of this, Uncle Sam, please bring your money here and do with us that which you wish”?

Taxing the pipelines misses the point – this isn’t about money but our environment and while I know that old pols seem to believe that money solves all disputes, when it involves our sacred wilderness and our fish, money is off the table.

Making the pipelines safer is, with respect, a non starter. “Safer” does not mean “safe” and the latter is what we insist upon.

Let me pause for a moment and deal with the allegation that we environmentalists are simply bloody minded and are against all projects. The answer to that, from my perspective at any rate, is fourfold:

  1. We question all projects that impact our environment – if we didn’t, corporations would do as they pleased and that’s bad enough as it is.
  2. We insist upon any project that impacts our environment to leave little or no permanent damage. This can be and indeed is done all over the province.
  3. We expect the Precautionary Principle to be always in place, meaning that the onus of proving the environmental viability of any project rests with the proponent.
  4. We regard the safety and protection of our environment as protecting a sacred trust to be passed on.

The issue is unsolvable. It can’t be compromised or mitigated or compensated – not all problems can be solved by compromise, this and lost virginity being examples.

We run a very grave risk here – because once we get rid of the Enbridge line, we will be expected to go away.

We seem to be ignoring the Kinder Morgan line already pumping bitumen across British Columbia and plans to do more are coming. It will be said that because the absence of the Enbridge line removes the tanker issue in Douglas Channel, we can go away.

This simply is not so. Railways simply move the problem. The suggestion by Mr. Enemark that the port of Prince Rupert be used overlooks the fact that that pipeline would be alongside the Skeena River, one of the last great salmon rivers in the world. Always bearing in mind that pipeline leaks are inevitable, do we want to see the same happen to the Skeena that happened to the Kalamazoo?

We are, then, a hell of a long way from success and, in fact, must re-double our efforts.

A response from Tex Enemark:

Well, Rafe, there is a difference between “fair inferences” and quotes. You say flat out I said “safer” which I did not, and then reinforce your point by saying I did not say “safe” when in fact I said neither. I said “politically acceptable”. I think there is a very clear and quantifiable difference between the two. I made no mention of safe pipelines. Nor, as you say in your response, did I say anything about “better testing pipelines”.

One puts me in the position of being some kind of proponent or apologist for pipelines, which I am not. I am simply bringing out issues that have not yet surfaced.

The same with the allegation that I favour a pipeline to Prince Rupert. There are vast differences between the loss/possible breakage of a few rail cars that hold bitumen which will literally go nowhere when they hit cold water, and a pipeline in which the tar has been diluted.

Nonetheless, the damage to my reputation has been done among the readers of your blog.

I think a simple correction is in order, frankly–and fairly.

Share
Energy issues have been at the centre of Stephen Harper's political agenda - why are they not a key issue for BC voters?

Time for British Columbians to Get Serious About Energy Issues

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

It’s time Canadians and in particular British Columbians prepare for a crude awakening.

In a recent poll exclusive to the Globe and Mail, Canada’s most prominent and respected newspaper of record, these stunning results were reported in their online edition:

The online survey of 804 adults found the recent pipeline discussion had no immediate effect on the political landscape. Of those polled, 25 per cent said the economy was the most critical issue, while 19 per cent said health care. Twelve per cent chose leadership.

Energy – which scored 1 per cent in an Angus Reid poll in early July – remained at that figure, tied with aboriginal affairs and daycare. “Other” scored 4 per cent. (emphasis added)

At 4%, “Other” issues inconceivably scored 400% higher than Energy issues in terms of priorities for British Columbians.

This is not just some freak accident either, as the same result has been registered in two separate polls this summer. Energy issues registered at 1% before Christy’s EPIC roll-out as newly minted champion of British Columbia, with her pathetic and duplicitous BC First campaign, and then once again precisely at 1% immediately thereafter. (Note that the title of Christy’s Putting BC First campaign “coincidentally” lifts the name of the BC First independent MLA initiative)

While it is no surprise that Christy’s hollow mid-summer stunt has reaped little political benefit for her doomed government, it is incomprehensible that energy issues do not register on the radar screen of British Columbian voters, when in fact they are at the very epicenter of contemporary politics in Canada. It is quite possible people in British Columbia are under the misconception that Alberta is the entire Oil and Gas story, but they would be sorely mistaken, as BC is a huge player and no other jurisdiction besides Alberta has more skin in the game.

The traditional concerns with the economy and healthcare register as top priorities, but it would seem there is a deep disconnect prevalent in these numbers which suggest British Columbians do not fully comprehend the importance of energy issues and there impact on things like the economy and healthcare. In fact, all of the issues registered as concerns in this poll, including leadership, aboriginal affairs and even daycare, are almost entirely dependent on how we manage the energy portfolio in this country and it is time we give our collective head a shake and get with the program.

As I explained in my last piece here at the Common Sense Canadian, there is an agenda of EPIC proportions playing out in our country and this is an absolutely pivotal time. In fact, no other chapter in our Province’s history has been more important for our future success.

These polls illustrate that average Canadians do not fully appreciate what is involved and what is at stake. It is barely ever reported in this manner, but Oil and Gas is a multi-trillion dollar resource – the Tar Sands alone is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It is what is responsible for propelling Harper into power and it dominates the entire political and policy agenda of his government, not simply on the domestic front, but also in terms of foreign policy, as the Oil and Gas agenda has reshaped our role in the international community just as drastically as it has altered the very fabric of the country. It has budget ramifications that dwarf any other single contributing factor, is the single most heavily subsidized undertaking in the country, and it reaches into the pockets of each and everyone on of us and those of our children.

At no other time have our politicians been so utterly irresponsible in terms of their most fundamental purpose. Representing the citizens of this great country while protecting and forwarding what is in our best interest is the most basic function of a politician in a representative democracy such as ours and the current crop has failed in EPIC proportions. That a mere 1% of British Columbians believe “energy” is a priority reflects the fact that we have been given the old mushroom treatment – left in the dark and fed a lot of a manure – for if our politicians had properly communicated the importance of what we face at this time and with these issues it would undoubtedly be on top of everyone’s agenda. This is one instance where we cannot simply point the finger at the media – we must take a long hard look at our entire system in light of such an EPIC fail in terms of having the tools required to properly manage ourselves as citizens, our province and the most pivotal agenda we have ever experienced as a country.

When I sat down to carry out the research for a detailed piece about Canada’s EPIC “National Energy Strategy” – my fifth installment for the Common Sense Canadian on Energy Issues in British Columbia – I came across this stunning Globe and Mail story with their most recent poll. I will carry on with my original intention of detailing the all-encompassing, far reaching, essential aspects of the energy strategy and its implications for us all, however that will now have to wait for my sixth installment.

For now I will leave you with this brief synopsis of just a few of the main points underscoring the depth and breadth of these vital energy issues currently reshaping our country and province:

For starters, Canada led the NATO intervention that toppled the leader of an independent nation and led to his brutal death. A leader who, mere weeks before, filled the streets of his nation’s capital with over a million citizens in an overwhelming show of support for him – the likes of which this country has never seen. That was an unprecedented undertaking for us and not only did a Canadian lead the military offensive but we also flew 946 individual bombing sorties under the banner of a “humanitarian” mission and with a cost that was never truthfully disclosed to Canadians, neither was the resulting death toll.

Canada’s largest Tar Sands operator Suncor amongst other Canadian energy interests – most notably SNC Lavalin – were the major benefactors in the Libyan “humanitarian mission.” Canadian taxpayers, on the other hand, were handed the near-million dollar bill for the celebration upon the return of our service people. 

In another high profile oily foreign policy debacle, Canada’s role in Afghanistan has been extended repeatedly with little if any tangible results; however, many are aware of the oil pipeline to the Caspian that was at the heart of that conflict.

While the Government of Canada underwent a re-branding to “the Harper Government”, we also saw how the role of government was fundamentally altered. Our diplomatic role in most major developed countries slowly became overwhelmed with an agenda that revolved around the marketing of “ethical oil”. Here at home, in a shocking role-reversal, we saw a Conservative lawyer gain a national television platform to espouse the ethics of the new petro-state, while a television anchor man became the environment minister and promptly echoed the ethical oil mantra. He went on to pull us out of the Kyoto Protocol while overseeing the gutting of his ministry and rewriting most of the laws applicable to the extraction of “energy” resources.

This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally massive escalation in public debt, as Harper filed the largest deficit in history the same year Tar Sands production hit its peak.

Finally, British Columbians too have registered enormous debt over this time while having fracked the north of the Province beyond recognition to exploit what Christy Clark describes as near inexhaustible natural gas reserves.

It is very possible you may have missed it, what with the it being mid-summer and with the grand spectacle of the Olympics – not to mention Clark’s BC First campaign – but our Finance minister Kevin Falcon released a quiet little update stating that, whoops,  he was wrong and in fact The B.C. Government posted a deficit of $1.84 billion last year, higher than the $925 million originally communicated, doubling the most recent deficit numbers this government filed, which has contributed to the stunning $24 Billion in total debt the Liberals project they will have shoveled onto our backs during their time in office by by this budget’s end. This comes on top of an additional $50-plus Billion of other hidden liabilities, slammed by BC’s Auditor General.

This despite record-breaking activity in the natural gas sector and coming on the heels of the 200 million dollar “dent” in the budgetFalcon reported a mere three weeks earlier as a result of a dip in natural gas prices, underscoring how vulnerable the Liberal royalty regime leaves us to the whims of the “energy” market.

As you can see, Energy Issues are pivotal to British Columbians and therefore should be pivotal to the success of our politicians. We must not only ensure that British Columbians fully appreciate the importance of the oil and gas agenda, but also understand the importance of the political agenda and its impact on all of us – our future depends on it. I will explore these points in depth along with the National Energy Strategy in my next installment for the Common Sense Canadian.

Share

Harper Backtracks on Enbridge Review Panel – Says He’ll Listen to Science

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to BC amid his government’s apparent shifting stance on its favoured Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Contrary to previous assertions that he would push the pipeline through regardless of the Joint Review Panel’s findings, the PM is now assuring British Columbians that he will listen to science and maintains the panel’s independence. (August 7, 2012)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending the independence of the environmental review process underway for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, telling reporters in Vancouver the project will be evaluated scientifically and a green light to proceed would not be based on politics.

“Decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project. And that’s how we conduct our business,” Harper said.

“The only way that governments can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis scientifically and not simply on political criteria,” the prime minister added.

On Friday, the federal government announced a firm deadline to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays. But Harper’s cabinet will have the final say on the project.

“The government does not pick and choose particular projects,” Harper said, “the projects have to be evaluated on their own merits.”

Enbridge’s proposed pipeline, to move bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands across B.C. to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for export to Asia, has been identified by the Harper government as beneficial to its international trade strategy.

The prime minister reiterated his government’s position that trade with the Asia-Pacific region is of “vital interest” to Canada and British Columbia, as the country’s Asia-Pacific Gateway.

Harper also reminded reporters of investments in last spring’s budget to bolster federal government inspection and monitoring for resource development projects such as this one.

Harper was in Vancouver Tuesday to announce a new type of employment insurance benefits for parents of seriously ill children.

Journalists in B.C. were keen to get questions to the prime minister after sharp criticism of Enbridge from the prime minister’s senior cabinet minister for B.C., James Moore, last week. Harper did not contradict Moore directly, but appeared to offer a somewhat softened version of the government’s previous position on the pipeline.

Reporters were kept well back from Harper and Moore on Monday when they attended Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain’s annual summer barbecue.

Public Opinion Set Against Pipeline

Harper’s stops on the West Coast this week come at a challenging time for supporters of the pipeline.

Public opinion polls suggest the majority in B.C. is against the Northern Gateway pipeline project. Some First Nations along the route are determined to block it.

Enbridge’s efforts to garner approval for the project have been set back by recent oil spills along other Enbridge pipelines, including damaging revelations about the way Enbridge handled its 2010 spill in Michigan.

Last spring’s budget implementation bill streamlined the regulatory approval process for major natural resources development projects like Gateway. A firm deadline has now been set to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays.

Cabinet will have the final say on the project. A statement from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s office Friday continued to emphasize its potential to create jobs and economic growth.

But last Wednesday, Harper’s senior minister in B.C. James Moore told a private radio program in Vancouver that Enbridge had put a “sour taste in the mouth” with its past actions and wasn’t doing enough to win the confidence of British Columbians generally, and its First Nations specifically.

Moore said doubts about the Enbridge pipeline were “widespread” and repeatedly denied the Harper government would simply ram through approval for the pipeline, despite recent changes to streamline the approval process.

It was not immediately clear from Moore’s remarks whether he was speaking only for himself as a senior minister representing the province’s concerns, or whether his dressing down of Enbridge was an early signal of a still-evolving position from the federal government.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/07/pol-gateway-tuesday-harper-bc.html

Share

Did Obama’s Rejection of Keystone XL Push Canada into China’s Arms?

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , , ,
Share

Read this story from Yahoo News on the ramifications for Canada and the Alberta Tar Sands of the Obama Administration’s obstruction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas. (July 25)

China is in the process of acquiring a stake in Canada’s valuable Alberta oil sands, months after Obama suspended a plan to invest in the region.

Has China swooped in to claim a prize the U.S. forfeited? This week, China’s state-run energy giant CNOOC announced that it was buying Canadian oil producer Nexen for $15 billion, the largest-ever acquisition by a Chinese company. The deal would give China control over Nexen’s oil sands operations in the Canadian province of Alberta (among other Nexen oil properties around the world), a huge win for the energy-hungry nation. The purchase still needs to be approved by Canada’s parliament, which has blocked foreign takeovers of domestic businesses in the past. However, analysts say the odds look good, partly because oil-rich Canada has been forced to turn to other investors after President Obama suspended the Keystone Pipeline, a massive project that would have delivered oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, over environmental concerns. Did Obama push Canada into China’s arms?

Yes. Canada has to sell its oil to someone: When Obama stalled the Keystone Pipeline, “it spurred Canada to look to China as a new partner,” says Nathan Vardi at Forbes, and now “Canada’s vital oil industry appears to be drifting to China.” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to Obama’s “snub” by immediately “heading to China to start negotiating energy deals.” If Canada continues “to diversify its economic dependence away from the U.S.,” it could be a “strategic setback for the U.S., which has been searching for years for secure sources of oil that are free from the political uncertainty that exists in Venezuela and the Middle East.”

“CNOOC’s Nexen deal shows how Obama pushed Canada toward China”

And Obama’s environmental objections are now moot: “The lesson for America, and especially Democrats, is that Canada’s oil sands will be [further] developed,” despite objections over the environmental impact, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. “If the U.S. doesn’t want the oil, China and the rest of Asia will gladly take it.” China is trying to “replace the U.S. as Canada’s biggest energy investor and market,” and Obama is letting it happen over the most meaningless of objections.
“China’s Canadian energy play”

Let’s not get carried away. Nexen’s Canadian presence is small: While CNOOC will win a stake in the Alberta oil sands, Nexen’s holdings in Canada are relatively small, say Lee Chyen Yee and Jeffrey Jones at Reuters. Canadian lawmakers are hardly enthusiastic about having their natural resources owned by communist China, but “most of Nexen’s assets lie outside Canada, making it less likely that it would be seen as a national champion falling into Chinese hands.” The deal is unlikely to spark a wave of Chinese acquisitions in the U.S.’s backyard, and the U.S. still enjoys a healthy advantage in its trade relations with Canada.

“China’s CNOOC scoped Nexen, partnered, then pounced”

Read more: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/did-obama-push-canada-chinas-arms-rejecting-keystone-142500318.html

Share
BC Conservative MP James Moore

Conservative MP James Moore Dumps Enbridge for Kinder Morgan, Needs Refresher on Company’s Record

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , , , , ,
Share

And so it begins.The spin to jettison Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline in favour supposedly “safer” alternatives.

This narrative will play out in two ways. The first was demonstrated by Conservative MP James Moore on CKNW’s Bill Good Show earlier this week (read the full interview here). After slagging Enbridge for its poor public engagement and safety record, the MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam moved onto what he presented as the superior alternative. 

And I think, you asked the question, who else is there out there? I think if you look at the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the way in which they are very judiciously and responsibly engaging with British Columbia’s First Nations, the way in which they’re taking environmental challenges seriously, they way in which they’ve operated for 60 years without any spill—there’s one on land that had nothing to do with Kinder Morgan, but had to do with contractors who were tearing up the streets in Burnaby. There’s a difference, I think, night and day between a company that gets public engagement, Aboriginal engagement, environmental stewardship and Enbridge, which I think their track record is not one that I think any other company should follow if they want to do business in BC.

Bear a few things in mind when you read these extraordinary statements by Mr. Moore. First, Moore, the Federal Heritage Minister, is a rising young star in the Consetvative Party – particularly in BC.

Second, nobody but nobody in Stephen Harper’s button-down caucus opens his mouth – especially about something so key to the Prime Minister’s agenda, not to mention such a hot button issue – without having first received explicit directions to do so from the very highest echelon. What this clearly means is that Moore has been tapped to do Harper’s Enbridge damage control in BC – and the choice of the Bill Good Show to debut this new framing was as calculated as a Catholic Sunday Mass.

The second alternative to the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat is one that will only work if Enbridge’s reputation is deemed salvageable – and let’s face it, at a spill a week, that’s looking increasingly doubtful. Neverheless, there may well yet be a move to reroute the Kitimat line to Prince Rupert, dumping the perilous planned port at the end of Douglas Channel in favour of a safer harbour just up the coast.

In many ways, Rupert is the more sensible choice, although the pipeline route itself is potentially riskier in this case, transiting several hundred km down the Skeena Valley – a vital salmon artery, rife with geological instability. It is for this reason the Prince Rupert option lost out to Kitimat back in 2005 when both were still on the table.

No matter the comparative safety of the Port of Prince Rupert, many other concerns about the pipeline, the Tar Sands it would carry and whose expansion it would facilitate, and the dangers of a spill in BC’s rugged coastal waters – particularly in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, which the tankers from Prince Rupert would still transit – remain unchanged in this scenario.

Moreover, Enbridge’s credibility remains a major obstacle no matter what. The choice could be made to switch to a different pipeline company altogether, such as TransCanada or Kinder Morgan (the company from whom Kinder bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Terasen, had a rival bid to build a pipeline to Rupert in the early 2000s)…but I wouldn’t bet on the Prince Rupert option, for all of the above reasons.

Rather, as James Moore predictably indicated, the twinned Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver would seem to be the alternative the powers that be will most likely glom onto to salvage their dreams of expanding the Alberta Tar Sands and accessing new Asian markets.

It is for that reason Mr. Moore needs a refresher on Kinder Morgan, the Texas-based energy giant that has indicated it wants to boost its bitumen pipeline capacity through BC from 300,000 barrels a day to 850,000, meaning a five-fold increase in tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet, the Gulf Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Moore was wrong on everything he told Bill Good about Kinder Morgan’s track record.

First, to his claim of good aboriginal engagement on the part of the company, just ask the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, in whose territory the pipeline terminus lies and the tankers would transit. They came out last month, along with their neighbours the Squamish First Nation, to sign the “Save the Fraser Declaration”, joining over 60 BC First nations who’ve already declared their opposition to oil pipelines and tankers through BC.

The Musqueam First Nation of Vancouver, who also have a big say in the company’s plans, had already signed onto the declaration.

The Tsleil-Waututh have voiced their concern about the lack of consultation they’ve recieved on this matter from the BC Liberal Government and stated in April after the company made its plans official, “We want to make it crystal clear that we will oppose any and all increased oil tanker traffic in the Inlet and we oppose the notion of Kinder Morgan turning Vancouver into an oil port city.”

To Moore’s point that Kinder Morgan wasn’t to blame for the rupturing of its line in Burnaby in 2007, he must not be aware that the company plead guilty in 2011 in provincial court for the spill. The court heard that the pipeline’s owner should have done a better job of monitoring work near the line that tore into it, as this Global TV report shows.

Moore must also be ignorant of or deliberately ignoring the leak of 110,000 litres of oil the company suffered at its Abbostsford tank farm earlier this year.

Moreover, with drastically increased bitumen flow and tanker traffic – up to nearly 400 a year from the company’s port in Burnaby, if it gets its way – comes vastly increased risk; or, as my colleague Rafe Mair and many others remind us, certain calamities. And with such a disaster in the waters of Vancouver or the Salish Sea come enormous consequences, both environmental and economic, as Rex Weyler has illustrated in these pages.

Kinder Morgan may not have faced the same scale of public opposition to its plans as Enbridge has seen – but that’s only because it just made its plans official a few months ago. Campaigns are already developing to target the Texas company (full disclosure: I’m part of one of them) and with the likes of Moore shaping this new narrative – dumping Enbridge for a supposedly “safer” Trans Mountain option to Vancouver – the spotlight will increasingly be on Kinder Morgan.

Either Mr. Moore is deliberately deceiving the public about Kinder Morgan’s track record or he’s simply ignorant of it – and being from Vancouver, frankly, he should know better.

Share
Why isn't Adrian Dix fighting Kinder Morgan like he is Enbridge?

Dix Should be Questioned on his Free Pass for Kinder Morgan

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province took on Adrian Dix this morning for not applying the same principles in his stance on the proposed Enbridge pipeline and consequent tanker traffic to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning.
 
Mike is absolutely right. Dix has shown a political wimpishness which puts him, on this issue at any rate, right there alongside Premier Christy Clark.
 
The proposed lines both go through wild, inaccessible areas of BC, will carry the same gunk (bitumen), with the same certainty of disaster. Bitumen is impossible to clean up at the best of times (see Kalamazoo/Enbridge) and spills will be out of reach of any spill cleanup attempted. As I say, that doesn’t much matter because they can’t be cleaned up anyway.
 
We will have, along side the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, the same pattern of serial spills, growing with each spill, with the same deadly results.
 
Dix’s cowardice comes out of the recent Chilliwack by-election when he felt it unwise to be against Kinder Morgan because it would look like the NDP was against everything. He came up with the weasel explanation that he hadn’t yet seen the Kinder Morgan environmental plan.
 
Why are those “weasel” words?
 
Because Dix knows as much about Kinder Morgan as he does about Enbridge. The argument has been proved. Both pipelines go through a hugely sensitive environment with fish bearing rivers and streams and Kinder Morgan’s threatens the Fraser River directly. The bitumen is the same, the spills a certainty and impossible to clean up.
 
The tanker traffic is deadly for both.
 
Get your act together, Mr. Dix or, on this issue at any rate, you aren’t much of an improvement over Premier Clark.

The Angus Reid poll on Enbridge published today shows a majority of British Columbians against the project. It must have been commissioned by Enbridge – at least that’s the suspicion when the story in both morning papers emphasizes that 24% might change their minds if Premier Clark gets her demands met. That sounds to me like “if the dog hadn’t stopped to pee he’d have caught the cat.”
 
This issue is not going to get any better for the pipeline people as the inevitability of catastrophic ongoing spills and the accumulation of ecological disasters becomes more firmly understood by the public. This will get clearer and clearer as time passes.
 
As I’ve said before in these pages, Premier Clark’s demand for better environmental oversight and money from Alberta are going nowhere. No matter what environmental safeguards are put in place there will be spills on land and sea on a serial basis. And there is no such thing as a “minor” spill of bitumen.

Enbridge’s Kalamazoo disaster turned out to be the biggest land spill in US history.
 
Finally, in my view as on octogenarian native of British Columbia, I say that our wilderness and coastlines are not for sale and I think that’s a view supported by most of us.

Share

BC Liberal Envrironment Minister: Kinder Morgan Faces Same Hurdles as Enbridge

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , ,
Share

Read this story from The Province on BC Liberal Environment Minister Terry Lake’s statement that American energy giant Kinder Morgan faces the same challenges over the proposed twinning of its existing Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver as Lake’s government has recently outlined for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (July 31, 2012)

B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake says some of the conditions that the province has set out before approving the Northern Gateway project will also be applied to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

The government wants the company to beef up oil-spill prevention and response before it will support the project, he said.

B.C. also wants a larger share of revenue from the company to offset the financial costs of an oil spill.

Kinder Morgan’s expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver, would see an increase in the size and number of tankers passing through Vancouver’s harbour.

Last week, Premier Christy Clark called for more economic benefits from the Enbridge pipeline before it will be approved because B.C. would bear all the environmental risks.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford has rebuffed any suggestion of increased compensation for B.C.

Meanwhile, a group of Burnaby residents who live next to the Kinder Morgan pipeline want to ensure the company can afford to compensate them for the “inevitable leaks and ruptures” from a twinned pipeline.

The 12 residents plus a housing co-operative in the neighbourhood at the southeast end of Burnaby Mountain have applied for intervener status at a public hearing by the National Energy Board.

“As landowners who stand to be affected by leaks, ruptures or explosions along the pipeline right of way … they have a direct interest in the operation” of the pipeline, says a letter filed with the board by Ecojustice, a Vancouver environmental law group representing the group.

Burnaby-Douglas NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who has also applied for intervener status, said he conducted a telephone poll of 35,000 Burnaby residents and 75 per cent were against expansion of the pipeline.

 

Share