Robin Rowland | Northwest Coast Energy News

Non disclosure demands from new energy industries raise tensions at Kitimat Council

Members of the District of Kitimat council vote on Nov. 7, 2011, in favour of releasing three internal consultants reports that had been commissioned to ease the council’s dysfunction and improve relationships among members. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Apparent demands for confidentiality from the companies that plan to locate in Kitimat, or may locate in Kitimat, have thrown gasoline on the flames of long existing tensions that exist on District of Kitimat council.

Those tensions, which have not been that apparent in recent meetings, but have been reported in the past three years, flared up Monday, Nov. 7, 2011, when Councillor Randy Halyk, a candidate for mayor in the municipal election two weeks from now, introduced a motion to publicly release three consultants reports on internal dysfunction and personality conflicts in the council.

Halyk then accused the current mayor, Joanne Monaghan of withholding information from the rest of
council “on numerous occasions.”

As Monaghan sat by stoically, Halyk listed his grievances against the current mayor: “Meeting with industry people or government on the sly, signing
letters of intent without council’s blessing or even their knowledge,
discussing in camera topics with non governmental groups, yet not
communicating with council on important matters…A mayor, as part of council, should promote teamwork and yet… it has not happened in the last three years.”

Retiring councillor Gerd Gottschling joined Haylk, accusing Monaghan of not following the usual collegial practices among municipal councils, keeping council members out of the decision making process. “I believe this is a team effort, we are a team and you are our leader, and when we have to make decisions, we need information to make those decisions.”

Monaghan replied by simply saying that she had had conversations with various industry representatives visiting Kitimat and that often those people visiting Kitimat had requested confidentiality. She emphasized that she had never signed a letter of intent without disclosing information to District Council.

Between 2009 and 2010, the council hired three different consulting firms to help facilitate the operations of the council, help members to overcome their differences. Previous attempts to release all or part of the reports failed in the past.

Much of the debate went over old grievances, including a time a BC cabinet minister had requested a meeting with Monaghan where council members were excluded. A couple of councillors pointed out that the three consultants reports could have been released at any time between 2009 and 2011 and that two weeks prior to an election was not perhaps the best time.

Halyk said that the council had “run by the seat of its pants for the previous three years,” pointing out that the council had to scramble to deal with the closure of the Eurocan paper plant and didn’t deal with it very well and said that was one reason he was standing for mayor.

Council then voted to release redacted copies of the reports, with one member, Mario Feldhoff, voting against, the rest, including Mayor Monaghan, voted in favour.

It was not the first time that demands for confidentiality have been raised in Kitimat. During the June National Energy Board hearings on the Kitimat LNG project, counsel for the KM LNG partners, Gordon Nettleton, requested that the project be exempt from certain NEB disclosure requirements to satisfy the stricter confidentiality demands from Asian natural gas customers, a request that the NEB granted in its decision.

So, in effect, when the Asian LNG rush began last spring after the Japanese earthquake, Monaghan, whose practices and personality did sometimes cause tensions with the rest of the council, was getting demands from potential industries that could locate in Kitimat, to follow Asian, not North American customs for non disclosure of information prior to the announcement of any final deal. Members of council were excluded when standard practice meant they should have been in the loop.

Two of the many reasons for are:

One is that Asian companies generally have to disclose less information to the public than North American companies, unless they are publicly listed in the United States and thus subject to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.
The second is the long time custom of not disclosing a potential deal in case if fails and the parties loose face.

The longer term problem, beyond the personality conflicts on the District of Kitimat Council, which may or may not be solved by the upcoming election, is whose transparency practices Kitimat should follow, North American or East Asian, the seller (Kitimat and its port) or the buyer (China and Japan)?

For legal reasons, it may be that Kitimat will have to follow Canadian transparency rules in future dealings.

At very least, if there is any money left in the consulting budget, the new council should probably hire yet another consultant, one who can advise the members on business practices in China, Japan and the rest of East Asia, a subject they didn’t need to know much about a year ago, but is now vital to Kitimat’s future.

Joint Review media analysis Part two: Postmedia and The Great American Energy Conspiracy

In her column in The Calgary Herald, Nov 4, 2011 aimed at making the Northern Gateway Joint Review process quick, efficient and excluding a lot of people who want to make oral comments pro-pipeline columnist Deborah Yedlin raises once again what is a big deal for the mostly conservative Postmedia columnists. (See Part One of this analysis: Calgary Herald columnist advocates curbing free speech on Northern Gateway Hearings)

It could be called ” The Great American Energy Conspiracy,” which has apparently now gone international since a tiny minority of those wishing to give oral comments to the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel are not only from the United States, but from the United Kingdom and even Germany. Yedlin doesn’t want non-Canadians (at least non-Canadian environmentalists, no mention of oil executives flying up from Houston) to give oral testimony at the Joint Review Panel.

So where does this conspiracy originate? It was uncovered from the research by blogger Vivian Krause, who has detailed all the contributions made by US-based foundations to support environmental issues in Canada, especially on the bitumen sands, protecting the coastline and salmon farming.

Several Postmedia columnists, including Yedlin, go completely ballistic over this issue, quoting Krause as saying, in effect: How dare these foreigners interfere in a Canadian issue
(They don’t actually use the term foreigners)

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Sea Change Foundation and San Francisco Oak Foundation. She will show you how these organizations have heavily funded the opposition to the oilsands in Canada.

To wit: a tax return filed for 2009 by Sea Change indicates $2 million was given to the Tides Foundation to be used for “promoting awareness and opposition to oilsands.”

(I should note here that Postmedia’s reporters continue with generally fair and accurate coverage of the pipeline issues, although the chain as a whole tends to tilt in favour of the energy industry)

Yedlin goes on to say

the involvement, nay, interference, by U.S. foundations in the development of Canada’s natural resources constitutes a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement or of Canadian economic sovereignty.

Were the shoe on the other foot, and Canadian organizations were sending money to U.S. environmental concerns opposing development of, say, shale gas reserves, it’s a good bet steps would be taken in short order to shut it down.

Really?

Has the United States taken any steps to stop the millions of dollars Canadian corporations are spreading along Washington’s lobbying central, K Street, not to mention throughout the six western mountain and southern states the Keystone XL pipeline will cross, to promote that proposed pipeline?

Is the United States objecting to Ambassador Gary Doer crisscrossing the United States until he will equal George Clooney’s character in Up in the Air, building up frequent flier points lobbying in favour of the bitumen sands and cross continent pipelines?

Yedlin’s statement is the height of hypocrisy. For conservative columnists in Canada, it is unacceptable for American foundations to support the groups concerned environmental issues and opposing the bitumen sands. Yet apparently there is nothing wrong for Canadian companies to spend millions of dollars to lobby the United States on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline:

The Globe and Mail reported on Oct. 20, 2011 that

In the past two years, TransCanada Corp. which is seeking to build the $7-billion pipeline, has spent over $1.5-million on U.S. federal lobbyists, and even more in individual states like Nebraska, where opposition has been the most vocal. That’s in addition to the money it has poured into advertising campaigns, which include a current print, TV and online effort in Washington, D.C., aimed at persuading decision makers that the pipeline will help “real Americans.”

TransCanada has been joined by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), which has marshalled the considerable connections of Gordon Giffin and David Wilkins, both former U.S. ambassadors to Canada, to press the case for the pipeline and the Alberta oil sands. The American Petroleum Institute has banded together with the Laborers International Union of North America to feed union workers and ferry them to public meetings, clothe them in orange shirts and ask them to make the case for the pipeline.

Now, of course, the United States is taking some action, with the Inspector General of the State Department investigating possible undue influence by TransCanada, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

The U.S. State Department’s Inspector-General on Monday launched a conflict-of-interest review of the pipeline’s permitting process to examine “the Department of State’s handling of the Environmental Impact Statement and National Interest Determination for TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL permit process.”

The Inspector-General review comes after a request by several powerful U.S. senators, who questioned the impartiality of Cardno Entrix, the consultant hired to conduct the Keystone XL permitting process. Cardno Entrix has listed TransCanada as one of its major clients, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.

TransCanada denies any wrong doing and told the Globe

… spokesman James Millar welcomed the Inspector-General’s review “so that these latest claims by professional activists and lawmakers who are adamantly opposed to our pipeline project can be addressed.”

“At TransCanada, we conduct ourselves with integrity and in an open and transparent manner,” he wrote. “We are certain that the conclusion of this review will reflect that.”

Note that the Inspector General is not investigating the money that Canadian corporations and the Canadian government is showering on the United States, but the fact that a company that had worked for TransCanada was reviewing the company’s plans for the State Department. Is it just “professional activists and lawmakers” who perceive that as a conflict of interest?

In her column Yedlin says one of the foundations Krause has “exposed” has lobbied against Keystone.

Sea Change was apparently a signatory to a letter signed by 251 environmental organizations and sent to the U.S. State Department asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Just what is going on here? Sea Change is, as Krause and Yedlin point out, an American foundation. Now these two object to an American foundation lobbying the US Secretary of State on the issue of a bitumen sands pipeline crossing United States territory. Huh?

Why? Apparently this is all a giant conspiracy to cripple the Canadian energy economy:

it’s hard not to wonder if some of what is going on vis-a-vis Northern Gateway in particular is a (not so) veiled attempt by the U.S. foundations to ensure there is a wide differential between the continental North American price of oil price and the world price.

After all, low oil prices are better for the U.S. economy than are higher prices and what better way to do this than by cloaking oneself in an environmental cape?

So American environmental foundations, worried about the effects of a giant oil spill along our mutual coast, are secretly in the pocket of the American energy companies. Quick call Dan Brown and hire a boat to look for a Da Vinci Code among the petroglyphs along the cliffs of the Inside Passage and rocks on the shores of Douglas Channel.

Then there’s the issue of Chinese investment in the bitumen sands and various pipeline projects. Some of those millions of yuan will surely make their way into the lobbying funds used by Canadian energy companies. Apparently there’s nothing wrong with China having its hand in Canada’s natural resources, as long as they’re sending money to energy companies and not to environmental groups.

No conspiracy, just more hypocrisy.

Joint Review media analysis Part one: Calgary Herald columnist advocates curbing free speech on the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings

Dave Shannon, an engineer and a member of Douglas Channel Watch discusses Enbridge’s planned oil spill response for the Northern Gateway Pipeline along the critical Hunter Creek region at a meeting of the District of Kitimat Council, Nov. 7, 2011. The circled numbers indicate the barrels per day of diluted bitumen that Enbridge planners say would spill from a “full bore breach” of the pipeline. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

With all the scandals around the media these days, one who loves journalism at first cannot imagine that a Canadian newspaper could hit a new low. But in these polarized days when you suddenly see a newspaper columnist arguing against free speech, you’re no longer surprised, just a little sicker.

Writing in The Calgary Herald on Nov. 4, 2011, columnist Deborah Yedlin wanted to limit the number of people who can make oral comments at the Joint Review Panel on the Northern Gateway Pipeline, because in her view, there were just too many people who wanted to make a ten minute presentation to the panel and horror, of horrors, some of them aren’t even Canadian, they’re foreigners (although Yedlin doesn’t actually use the word foreigners). For Yedlin, all those didn’t make the cut should simply write letters of comment.

With today’s announcement by the Joint Review Panel of the locations for the panel hearings, it looks like the bureaucracy didn’t take Yedlin’s advice.

Since the Joint Review Panel will make a decision that will affect
peoples’ lives for decades to come, (whereas having demonstrations,
blogging or
shouting from the rooftops would be totally ineffective in this case)
speaking before the panel is a free speech issue. To forbid these people
their ten minutes before the Joint Review Panel,
to tell them to just write a letter just to speed things up, as Yedlin
suggests, is a blatant
denial of effective free speech and another step in chipping away at
the already fragile Canadian democracy.

The column was called “Does everyone have a right to complain at Northern Gateway pipeline review?” In it, Yedlin asks.

The question – with more than 4,000 individuals, companies and organizations registered to make a 10-minute statement – is whether it will be more of a filibuster than a hearing.
lthough the math suggests about 95 days of hearings, assuming everyone shows up and the panel sits for seven hours each day, it’s highly likely it will go on much longer.

Although, to be fair, she does ask “should individuals who do not live along the pipeline route, are not Canadian residents or citizens, be allowed their 10 minutes?” the implication of the entire column, read as whole, especially her overall conclusion, is that everyone, not just non-Canadians, who want to speak are just part of that filibuster against the pipeline and should be excluded, if possible. (More on the non-Canadian issue in part two of this analysis, The Great American Energy Conspiracy)

Yedlin wants to deny ordinary people just 10 minutes to speak. (The lawyers, as anyone who has attended one of the hearings knows, can go on for hours and hours) She thinks writing a letter is just as good. Her column is nothing less than advocacy of denying effective free speech on an issue vital to peoples’ lives, their livelihood and their communities.

Then you realize that her column, like similar columns from other business writers, mainly also employed by Postmedia, is an off the shelf opinion, based on “reporting” if you can all it that, that is too lazy to even click a mouse on a website. That too is something you have come to expect.

It’s pretty clear that Yedlin, sitting at the centre of the oil patch, is in favour of the pipeline. Although she doesn’t spell it, she says:

if a national energy strategy were in place, it would be easier for the NEB [National Energy Board] to decide whether Northern Gateway was in the public interest.

(I always thought for Albertans that “National Energy Program” were “fightin’ words.” Apparently not if it is a “national energy strategy” that favours Alberta.)

The Herald, of course, is free to write as many editorials in favour of the pipeline as it wants.

Just the facts?

A column, while opinion, should have some basis on facts. This where Yedlin and many of her columnist colleagues fall down again and again.

So let’s ask a question. What’s the difference between a columnist and an actor when it comes to the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipeline controversies?

Answer the actors usually do more research. A good actor, in researching a role often undertakes extensive research on the character and the environment of the story where the action takes place.

What I find astounding is that in covering this story for the last two years, I have seen no evidence that any columnist for any Canadian or American newspaper has bothered check a single document on the Joint Review site that would bolster a pro-pipeline argument. There are lots of pro-pipeline documents from Enbridge on the site. It doesn’t cost anything, except time, for a columnist to click down (if you’re too lazy to check here’s the link ) and find documents. You don’t even have to spend pennies on long distance calls or (imagine that) actually do some on the ground reporting. The beancounters should be happy.

A journalist is supposed to research a story before they write.

Several reporters for The Globe and Mail and the Report on Business do check Joint Review site regularly. So does Mike De Souza of The Vancouver Sun, apparently the only Postmedia employee who bothers to do so.

When I
was teaching journalism at Ryerson, journalism students who didn’t do
research failed. These days most columnists don’t bother to do research,
I guess they’re too important for that.

It doesn’t help the pro-pipeline side that columnists don’t bother check facts that are in favour of their position. Those columnists, if they wished, could probably make strong arguments if they bothered to read the Enbridge documents. The trouble is they don’t. They just repeat and repurpose each other.

If Yedlin (and other columnists) had bothered to click her mouse and read the studies by Enbridge, she would have learned the precautions that Enbridge says are necessary, at the cost of multiple millions of dollars, to protect the coast of British Columbia. If she had clicked a mouse a second time, she would have read the Enbridge studies that tackle the rugged and unstable geological formations of the mountain ranges that the pipeline will cross, whether buried, in tunnels or on bridges or pylons, where building the pipeline will cost multiple millions of dollars (and perhaps, if the opponents are right, millions that will have little or no effect in case of a pipeline breach and oil spill).

So with same old, same old repetitive writing, the columnists undermine whatever points they are trying to establish, actually strengthening the position of those who don’t support the pipeline, who do make strenuous efforts and take precious time to understand and interpret the facts in the Enbridge filings.

Worse than that, with journalism’s reputation for accuracy, fairness and thoroughness already in tatters, the pro-pipeline columnists are accelerating that decline, kicking more bricks out from the already weakened foundation. No wonder fewer and fewer in the public, no matter their ideological position, trust the “main stream media.”

Public commentary

So let’s take Yedlin’s objections

Yedlin says:

Thus, the question arises as to whether those who are planning on being present are truly interested in the public process itself or if their real intent is to overwhelm it.

While the review panel has said public commentary is an important part of the process because it might yield information useful to its decision, the 4,000-odd submissions work out to seven times the number that presented to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings – and we know efficiently how that process worked.

Moreover, public hearings are held to raise issues that cannot be easily presented in written form. In other words, the only reason to appear is if your information can only be presented orally.

While environmental groups were encouraging people sign up to make oral comments for the Joint Review Panel, the vast majority of people who are registering are signing up not to filibuster but to express fears about vital concerns. Also the National Energy Board Joint Review Process, as anyone who has attended a hearing knows, is so arcane that sometimes even lawyers who practice outside of the energy field have trouble understanding the rules of procedure. That’s why people who are worried likely need support from environmental organizations.

If Yedlin had bothered to click her mouse on the Joint Review website, she would have found there are already hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pages of documents on all aspects of the pipeline that have been filed by Enbridge and the consulting firms that Enbridge has employed. Thousands more pages, including extensive questions for Enbridge based on the original filings are being submitted by environmental groups and First Nations. For those “ordinary” people who are registered intervenors, their slim documents outline those vital concerns.

Yedlin was not in Kitimat for the preliminary oral hearings held here on the Northern Gateway Project in August 2010.

Yedlin was not in Kitimat for the NEB hearings on the Kitimat LNG project last June. In fact, no one from a national news organization bothered to attend either hearings, reporter or columnist. Only local reporters, like myself, were present.

On both issues, the Northern Gateway pipeline which most people oppose, and the LNG projects, which most people support, the NEB/Joint Review hearings (one hearing completed, another planned, a third, for the Shell project likely) there are all kinds of issues, local issues, that can only be presented orally. These issues are extremely important to a local residents, but apparently of no concern to columnists in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa.

Take one example from the LNG hearings. Traditional access to lands for the Haisla First Nation is part of the agreement with the KM LNG partners. However, access to the land around Bish Cove by non-aboriginal people for hunting, fishing and hiking was not part of any agreement. So Mike Langegger of the Kitimat Rod and Gun club made that point at the hearings and this was recognized by the NEB in its decision.

At the most recent public forum in Kitimat on the Northern Gateway pipeline, (not an NEB hearing), Liz Thorn of the Nordic Valley Ski Club pointed out that the pipeline would cross and disrupt the club’s ski trails. At the forum Northern Gateway president John Carruthers promised to have his staff look into the issue. Call that a micro-issue, but an important one for those cross country skiers.

Most of the people who want to make presentations to the Joint Review Panel cannot afford the time or the money to be official intervenors, can’t pay hourly rates for lawyers, and some say they aren’t that good at setting things down on paper. They can speak eloquently about their concerns.

View Larger Map

One big issue is Wright Sound where the Douglas Channel meets the Inside Passage. Wright Sound is where the BC ferry The Queen of the North sunk in good weather. I have heard at least a dozen people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who have sailed those waters for years and who can relate in great detail the potential problems from the currents, winds and tides that swirl through Wright Sound and the fears of what could happen to a supertanker in Wright Sound, despite the precautions that Enbridge say it will take.

A skipper who can describe being caught in a sudden storm in Wright Sound is not filibustering.

The Gitga’at First Nation, at nearby Hartley Bay, still complain about how traditional shellfish beds are still being affected by the relatively little oil (compared to a supertanker) leaking from the sunken ferry.

Local knowledge

While the First Nations who are intervenors have hired competent legal counsel to represent them (as they must to survive the convoluted legal proceedings of a NEB hearing) there are other issues where members of First Nations must have the opportunity to make oral presentations. For the First Nations collectively there is “TLK”, traditional local knowledge, often about relatively small stretches of river or coastline and TLK is best described in an oral statement. Then there are the issues where individual members of First Nations are concerned, for example, where the pipeline may cross a family’s trapline, an issue that, according to my First Nations sources, has, so far, fallen through the cracks in the pipeline so to speak.

Yedlin continues her belief that as much as possible should be on paper, while again in the column she is saying that non Canadians should present their case only in written form, the implication is that everyone else should as well.

Moreover, public hearings are held to raise issues that cannot be easily presented in written form. In other words, the only reason to appear is if your information can only be presented orally. Presumably if there is salient, scientific evidence coming from respondents who live outside Canada, that information could be put forward on paper. That’s the beauty of good science.

There are plenty of local examples where the information on paper is far from adequate.

Take, for example, Enbridge’s contingency plans for a pipeline breach along the critical Hunter Creek zone of the pipeline route, where the pipeline would emerge from a mountain tunnel, then head downslope by Hunter Creek toward the Kitimat River, in an extremely rugged area, where, if there was a spill, it would be difficult to reach under even under the most optimum conditions.

In an oral (yes oral) presentation to District of Kitimat Council on Nov. 7, 2011, John Shannon, an engineer representing the environmental group Douglas Channel Watch described how he and colleague Murray Michin checked out the old logging road that is the only access to the area, only to find landslides and wash outs all along the old road. That road is constantly washed out in summer, In winter it would be covered with at least a metre of snow if not more. At that point, a pipeline breach that was below Enbridge’s detection level would mean that the bitumen would flow under the snow perhaps for months before anyone found out.

The beauty of a good hike is that you find what you isn’t in the scientific report on paper, probably written by a fly-in fly-out consultant, not by a local resident.

All these questions for oral commentary could be called micro-issues if you will but these micro-issues should not be swept away for the convenience of giant corporations. The Northern Gateway pipeline will snake across Alberta and British Columbia for 1777 kilometres and there is likely at least one micro-issue at each of the 1,777,000 metres.

Denying free speech is something you might expect from Stephen Harper’s spinmeisters (and we’re seeing the time limitations at all stages of a Commons bills in the current parliament, especially at the committee hearings on the crime bill)

For a newspaper columnist to suggest that a lot of people actually affected by the pipeline be denied opportunity to speak in person, relying instead on a letter, just because the time it will take is inconvenient, is, as I said, a betrayal of everything journalism should stand for.

Yedlin concludes:

As the beginning of the hearings looms near, the panel might want to take a closer look at the list of presenters and determine who truly has the right – and the need – to speak. Chances are if they do this, the list will be significantly shorter, and the process will fulfil the mandate that it is meant to do.

So much for free speech in a democracy. I guess for The Calgary Herald, and the mostly Postmedia columnists who want to rush the pipeline hearings, free speech is just too much trouble when the economy is at stake, especially the Alberta economy.

Flatlanders

The pipeline controversy has created a new term being used in northwestern British Columbia to describe Albertans: “Flatlanders.”

I first heard the term from an aboriginal leader. He used “flatlanders” to describe the three members of the Joint Review Panel, none of whom is from British Columbia. (Sheila Leggett is from Montreal and now lives in Calgary, Kenneth Bateman is a life long Albertan and Hans Matthews is a member of the Wahnapitae First Nation in Ontario). The aboriginal leader was asking how these people on the Joint Review Panel can understand living on the mountainous coast or sailing the waters of Wright Sound. He asked if it was fair that no one from British Columbia is on the Joint Review panel when most of the pipeline route will be in British Columbia.

A week or so later, I heard a discussion between two non-aboriginal avid salmon fisherman at a supermarket lineup. The two men were worried about the probable death of the Kitimat River if there is a pipeline breach and they were wondering if the “Alberta flatlanders” would ever care if there was a major pipeline breach (as opposed to their friends from Alberta who actually come to the Kitimat River to fish).

At a reception Saturday night at the Great Bear Rainforest photo exhibit in Kitimat, I heard a couple of local environmental activists, who while they didn’t use the term “flatlanders” were discussing why Albertans are so arrogant and so unaware and uncaring about life in northwestern British Columbia.

That growing feeling across northern BC is bit unfair to many people in Alberta.

Then again it appears that some Albertans do have an attitude problem, an attitude that the problems of people in northern British Columbia don’t amount to a hill of beans in this world.
At least that is the impression one sees reflected in the local Alberta media, (appearing daily on Google News) as well as the ongoing tide of pro-pipeline tweets from companies, politicians and individuals in Alberta.

The fact that most of the Canadian media, not just the Alberta media, feel that they can cover northern British Columbia without leaving a desk in Calgary only compounds the problem.

Perhaps Deborah Yedlin, The Calgary Herald and those Albertans who deserve to be called “flatlanders” should contemplate about what would happen to their free speech if the Alberta shoe was on the BC foot.

If the people of the northwest coast were to apply Yedlin’s views from her column, then, of course, the Joint Review Panel, would have downplayed the views of the Alberta “flatlanders” because the “flatlanders” know nothing about the storm warnings for Douglas Channel, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound you regularly hear year round on the marine radio forecast. Applying Yedlin’s argument, any advantages the pipeline may bring to Alberta should simply be stated in a letter.

That, of course, will never happen. The Joint Review panel’s announcement today of wide spread, often two visit hearings to affected communities, combined with training sessions by NEB staff for those unfamiliar with the Joint Review Process, shows that there are at least some government institutions left in Canada that respect the democratic process.

Perhaps the columnists who want to curb the free speech of others for economic convenience, should wonder if some day they will get what they wish for and someone will try to curb their right to free speech. To start avoiding that, those columnists should start doing the kind of research and reporting expected from a first year journalism student.

After all, if you deny free speech to someone who has something important to say on the Northern Gateway, whether they are from Kitimat, Hartley Bay, Grand Prairie, Calgary, Montreal, San Diego or London, whose free speech are you going to deny on the next issue?

Joint Review panel releases list of communities for hearings on Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline

Energy Environment

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has released a list of communities where it will hold hearings on the pipeline project.

In a news release this morning, the panel confirmed that hearings will begin in Kitimat on January 10, 2012.

It then goes on to say

The Panel has determined that due to the large number of registrants, it will be visiting some communities more than once to allow all who have registered an opportunity to address the Panel. The Panel will hear oral evidence first from registered Intervenors so that the information request process can proceed according to the schedule. The Panel will then focus on hearing the oral statements of other participants.

The communities that the panel will visit at least twice, the first session for intervenors, the second session for oral statements are

Bella Bella, BC
Bella Coola, BC
Burns Lake, BC
Courtenay, BC
Edmonton, AB
Fort St. James, BC
Grand Prairie, AB
Hartley Bay, BC
Kitimat, BC
Kitkatla, BC
Klemtu, BC
Massett, BC
Prince George, BC
Prince Rupert, BC
Queen Charlotte, BC
Smithers, BC
Terrace, BC

The panel will also hold single hearings in

Calgary, AB
Hazelton, BC
Kelowna, BC
Port Hardy, BC
Vancouver, BC
Victoria, BC

Earlier, the panel also announced that it will hold more online training sessions for intervenors.

The panel says the workshops are designed to help participants understand aspects of the joint review process. This second online workshop is on the topic of Evidence and Motions. This workshop is designed for registered Intervenors and Government Participants. Additional workshops will be held in the future and will also include topics of interest to other participants.

The online workshop will be held on November 15, 2011 and November 23, 2011 and will consist of a short presentation by the Process Advisory Team followed by questions and answers. It is expected that the workshop will be no longer than one hour. The sessions will be held at the following times:

Tuesday 15 November 2011

– Daytime Session: 9:00 a.m. PT (10:00 a.m. MT)
– Evening Session: 7:00 p.m. PT (8:00 p.m. MT)

Wednesday 23 November 2011

– Daytime Session: 9:00 a.m. PT (10:00 a.m. MT)
– Evening Session: 7:00 p.m. PT (8:00 p.m. MT)

Great Bear photo exhibit opening reception in Kitimat

The opening reception for the Great Bear Rainforest photo exhibit was held at the City Centre venue on the evening of Saturday, Nov. 5, 2011.

The photos are by members of the International League of Conservation Photographers. The Kitimat exhibit was co-sponsored by Douglas Channel Watch and the Kitimat Valley Naturalists.

Above. Carl Whicher takes a close look at one of the photos. Left Walter Thorne, (left) and Dennis Horwood of the Kitimat Valley Naturalists discuss issues with Murray Michin of Douglas Channel Watch. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

AltaGas signs distribution deal with BC Hydro

Energy

Just two days after its friendly take over of Pacific Northern Gas, AltaGas has signed a electricity purchase agreement with BC Hydro.

The deal covers the McLymont Creek and Volcano Creek run-of-river hydroelectric projects. Both are in the traditional territory of the Tahltan First Nation.

Along with a third project, know as Forest Kerr, the three projects will total approximately 277 megawatts and are known as “the Northwest Projects.” The three will be the anchor tenants for the Northwest Transmission Line, which will upgrade the hydro infrastruture of northern western British Columbia.

David Cornhill, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AltaGas said in a news release

“With a combined capacity of approximately 82 MW the McLymont Creek and Volcano Creek projects, in addition to our 195 MW Forrest Kerr project, represent a $1 billion investment in British Columbia,”. “These three projects align with our strategy of adding low-risk, long-life assets as we continue to build long-term contracted assets that will generate power and deliver strong shareholder value for generations to come.”

The news release also says:

The Northwest Projects will be constructed solely within Tahltan Nation traditional territory. AltaGas and the Tahltan Nation have signed IBAs for all three projects and have established a strong working relationship that will provide the people of the Tahltan Nation with employment, business opportunities, and economic participation. Once completed, the projects will provide enough electricity for approximately 95,000 homes in British Columbia and will offset more than 780,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalents annually.

Cornnhill said the hyro projects will generate more than 400 direct jobs during construction. He added there will be a lot of indirect economic benefits resulting from increased business activities in the area. “Not only will our Northwest Projects help support government job creation strategies but they will also provide much needed power to BC Hydro, which will allow them to meet the growing demand for power in the northwest.”

In a second news release, AltaGas said it will issue 4.27 million common shares to a syndicate of underwriters, co-led by TD Securities Inc. and RBC Capital Markets, at $29.30 per share, bringing the company approximately $125 million to be used to repay debt and for general corporate purposes.

AltaGas takes over Pacific Northern Gas

Energy

Pacific Northern Gas, the main supplier of natural gas to much of northern British Columbia, has agreed to be taken over by the much bigger Calgary-based AltaGas Ltd. in a deal worth $230 million or $36.75 a share.

The deal gives AltaGas a stake in the natural gas export race, since Pacific Northern’s pipelines link Alberta and British Columbia gas fields to Kitimat, where there are at least three projects underway to export liquified natural gas to Asian markets.

Pacific Northern Gas distribution network. (PNG)

In a news release, Pacific Northern Gas said that company executives began considering the future after PNG sold their interest in Pacific Trails Pipeline last February to the partners in the Kitimat LNG project.

Roy Dyce, president and CEO of PNG said in the news release:

This transaction is in the
best interests of our shareholders, customers, employees and other
stakeholders. Among the reasons we recommend the proposed transaction to
our shareholders are the size of the premium, the immediate liquidity
and the certainly of value the cash consideration offers, and the fact
that we believe AltaGas’ offer fairly values the $20 million contingent
payment that PNG will receive if the Kitimat liquefied natural gas
project proceeds.

Pacific Northern already had a small partnership with AltaGas to build a gas pipeline from a Montney gas plant to
British Columbia.

In its news release, AltaGas said “We are pleased to welcome all PNG employees to our team. AltaGas has a
long history of operating natural gas utilities across Canada and we
will continue to deliver safe and reliable service to our customers.”

AltaGas says the transaction will result in a 50 per cent increase in AltaGas’ holdings of regulated natural gas to consumers and businesses, now worth over $500 million and increase customers from 75,000 to more than 110,000.

The company is looking to increased natural gas exploration taking place in areas northeastern BC in the Montney and Horn River gas fields. AltaGas also expects to profit from “increased industrial activity in northern BC are expected to result in rate base and customer growth as areas such as Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.”

The new company would align the PNG system with AltaGas assets such as the Bear Mountain Wind Park and the Younger facility, BC’s only natural gas liquids extraction plant.

AltaGas adds. “Growing North American natural gas supply and continued attractive natural gas prices in Asian markets continue to support growth of an LNG industry in western Canada. PNG’s Western system is well positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for additional pipeline capacity along the Summit Lake to Kitimat/Prince Rupert corridor.”

AltaGas assets include small utilities, a gas business, and power. AltaGas describes itself this way:

AltaGas is an energy infrastructure business with a focus on natural
gas, power and regulated utilities. With the physical and economic links
along the energy value chain together with its efficient, reliable and
profitable assets, market knowledge and financial discipline, AltaGas
has provided strong, stable and predictable returns to its investors.
AltaGas focuses on maximizing the profitability of its assets, providing
services that are complementary to its existing businesses, and
growing through the acquisition and development of energy
infrastructure.

Consumers in northern British Columbia will be wondering, despite any long term spinoffs from liquified natural gas projects, what the deal will mean for their natural gas bills. Despite the statement by Dyce, “We look forward to joining with AltaGas in continuing our mutual history of delivering safe, reliable service to our customers” and Cornhill’s similar statement, “AltaGas has a long history of operating natural gas utilities across Canada and we will continue to deliver safe and reliable service to our customers,” it is highly likely that consumers in BC will be skeptical of the deal because up until now, while the price of natural gas has been falling, Pacific Northern Gas continued to charge very high (some would say extortionate) transportation and other fees to consumers.

Great Bear photo exhibit makes it to Kitimat

Environment Arts

The Great Bear Wild photo exhibit arrives in Kitimat Wednesday. The exhibit will open in a Kitimat store front, in the City Centre mall, for a ten day run, on Wednesday Nov. 2, 2011, continuing to Nov. 12. The opening reception is Saturday, Nov. 5 at 7 p.m.

Bringing the exhibit to Kitimat took a lot of time and effort sources say. That’s because the District of Kitimat’s officially neutral stance on the Enbridge Northern Gateway precluded official venues such as the Riverlodge Recreation Centre and the Kitimat Museum. The local environmental sponsors of the exhibit also tried, unsuccessfully, sources say, to find a space in a number of other possible venues around town.

The local sponsors are Douglas Channel Watch, Kitimat Valley Naturalists and Friends of the Wild Salmon.

At the beginning of September. 2010, the International League of Conservation Photographers sent some of the world’s best shooters on a RAVE (Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition) into the Great Bear Rainforest. That photo exhibit was sponsored by Pacific Wild, Save Our Seas, the Gitga’at First Nation and National Geographic. The shoot concentrated on the area along the coast within the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest and the mouth of Douglas Channel around Hartley Bay.

The ILCP says

The 14-day expedition to the Great Bear Rainforest called upon 7
world-renowned photographers and 3 videographers to thoroughly document
the region’s landscapes, wildlife, and culture. The RAVE provided media
support to the First Nations and environmental groups seeking to stop
the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline project (and thus expansion of
the tar sands) and to expose the plan to lift the oil tanker ship
moratorium.

The photographers did not come any further up Douglas Channel. One ILCP photographer, Neil Evers Osborne, is photographing the route of the pipeline by air. That project is ongoing, hanpered, in part, by this summer’s miserable weather.

Oliver in media blitz hinting at pushing Northern Gateway in case US stops Keystone XL

Energy Environment Politics

Canada’s minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, has embarked on a media blitz, quietly pushing the idea that

Canada will go ahead and build the Northern Gateway pipeline to send bitumen sands to Asia if the United States blocks the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

In a meeting with The Globe and Mail editorial board on Friday, and an interview with Reuters Monday, while attending the World Energy Council in Houston, Texas, Oliver warns the American that if they don’t buy bitumen sands oil, China will.

Speaking with the Globe and Mail editorial board Oliver said:

that he does not make this point to U.S. officials “unless they ask,” but “if they don’t want our oil….it is obvious we are going to export it elsewhere.”

China could be a key customer in the future, he said. “As a broad strategic objective we have to diversify our customer base…..[and] China has emerged as the largest consumer of energy in the world, so it is utterly obvious what we must do.

Speaking with Reuters, Oliver made similar statements

What will happen if there wasn’t approval — and we think there will be — is that we’ll simply have to intensify our efforts to sell the oil elsewhere,”

“It may be other parts of the United States, it may be a rerouted pipeline, and then, of course, there’s Asia.”

The Globe and Mail also reported that:

Mr. Oliver did not specifically endorse the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry oil sands petroleum to the west coast, where it would be transported to Asia by tanker, saying he will respect the regulatory process that is now evaluating that project.

Reuters also says Oliver did not specifically endorse Northern Gateway in that interview.

Which means that Oliver has changed his tune a bit since becoming minister, since in the past he has been openly supportive of Northern Gateway “in the national interest” months before the Joint Review hearings on the pipeline are even due to begin.

In the Reuters interview, Oliver, apparently determined to promote energy from the oil sands, for the first time apparently, hinted that a bitumen pipeline might head somewhere to the east.

“What we want to do in respect to Asia, that objective is not mutually exclusive with the Keystone pipeline. We have a lot of oil and we want to get it to welcoming markets and open markets,” Oliver said.

“And there are also possibilities of moving it east as well. We just have to look at the whole picture. But there would be a delay, and that wouldn’t be positive for either country in our view,” he said.

Oliver also told The Globe and Mail he does not use the “ethical oil,” agrument in talks with the United States, instead emphasizing that Canada is a reliable producer. Oliver also continued his criticism of the EUropean union for an initiative that would label crude from the oil sands as dirtier than fuel from conventional sources.
Oliver told the Globe that the European Commission’s proposed fuel quality directive is “discriminatory” and not based on science.

In a news release, summarizing Oliver’s speech in Houston, the Ministry of Natural Resources quoted Oliver this way:

“Canada’s vast energy endowments of oil, gas, hydro and uranium, along with an innovative clean energy sector, provide us with a unique advantage — one that strengthens our role as a safe and secure global energy supplier….

“We welcome international investment because it is good for our economy, for our jobs and for our energy future.”

Minister Oliver reaffirmed the Government of Canada’s commitment to ensuring the environmentally and socially responsible development of the oil sands, a strategic resource that is critically important to Canada and its energy partners. He noted Canada’s energy policy is rooted in free market principles, coupled with a regulatory regime that is “efficient, transparent and effective.”

“Canada is a responsible and reliable partner in achieving a secure and sustainable global energy supply. We are fully mindful of the need to balance economic activity and energy demand with environmental sustainability,” the Minister added. “The Government of Canada is committed to the development of our energy resources, including the oil sands, in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.”

(Photo Canada Ministry of Natural Resources)

Forest biofuel may actually increase carbon dioxide emissions, West Coast study suggests

Biofuel Environment

A study of west coast forests in California, Oregon and Washington concludes that biofuel from forests could increase carbon dioxide emissions by at least 14 per cent.

Oregon State University calls the study “the largest and most comprehensive yet done on the effect of biofuel” from the US west coast.

A diagram from the Oregon State University shows how using biofuels would increase the carbon emissions by releasing more forest carbon, including the processing and transportation of biofuel. (Oregon State University)

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, contradicts previous findings that suggest biofuel could be either carbon neutral or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It is uncertain whether the conclusions of the study could apply to northwestern British Columbia, due to different ecological conditions, including pine beetle devastation and the effects of climate change.

For four years, the Oregon State study examined 80 forest types in 19 ecological regions in the three states, ranging from temperate rainforests to semi-arid woodlands. It included both private and public lands and different forest management practices.

Tara Hudiberg, a PhD candidate at Oregon State and lead author, said in an e-mail interview, “We applied thinning scenarios which would remove whole trees and use the merchantable portion for wood products and the rest for bio-energy use (tops, branches, smaller trees of less then five inch DBH (diameter at breast height ).

“On the [US] West Coast, we found that projected forest biomass removal and use for bio-energy in any form will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current forest management practices.

“Most people assume that wood bio-energy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there’s also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire,” Hudiburg said. “However, our research showed that the emissions from these activities proved to be more than the savings.”

The only exception was if forests in high fire-risk zones become weakened due to insect outbreaks or drought, which impairs their growth and carbon sequestration as well as increasing the potential for large forest fires (a situation prevalent through much of British Columbia due to the devastation caused by the pine beetle.) The study says in that situation, it is possible that some thinning for bio-energy production might result in lower emissions in such cases.

“Until now there have been a lot of misconceptions about impacts of forest thinning, fire prevention and bio-fuels production as it relates to carbon emissions from forests,” said Beverly Law, a professor in the OSU Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society and co-author of this study.

(Oregon State University)

“If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bio-energy from forests will be counterproductive,” Law said. “Some of these forest management practices may also have negative impacts on soils, biodiversity and habitat. These issues have not been thought out very fully.”

The study examined thousands of forest plots with detailed data and observations, considering 27 parameters, including the role of forest fire, emissions savings from bio-energy use, wood product substitution, insect infestations, forest thinning, energy and processes needed to produce bio-fuels, and many others.

It looked at four basic scenarios: “business as usual”; forest management primarily for fire prevention purposes; additional levels of harvest to prevent fire but also make such operations more economically feasible; and significant bio-energy production while contributing to fire reduction.

Compared to “business as usual” or current forest management approaches, all of the other approaches increased carbon emissions, the study found. Under the most optimal levels of efficiency, management just for fire prevention increased it two percent; for better economic return, six percent; and for higher bio-energy production, 14 percent.

“We looked at CHP (combined heat and power from combustion) and cellulosic ethanol and we accounted for all sources of Carbon emissions from harvest to use,” Hudiberg said.

She added, “We don’t believe that an optimal efficiency of production is actually possible in real-world conditions. With levels of efficiency that are more realistic, we project that the use of these forests for high bio-energy production would increase carbon emissions 17 percent from their current level.”

About 98 percent of the forests in the three western US states are now estimated to be a carbon sink, meaning that even with existing management approaches the forests sequester more carbon than they release to the atmosphere. Forests capture a large portion of the carbon emitted worldwide, and
some of this carbon is stored in pools such as wood and soil that can
last hundreds to thousands of years, the scientists said.

The study suggests that increases in harvest volume on the US West Coast, for any reason, will instead result in average increases in emissions above current levels.

“Energy policy implemented without full carbon accounting and an understanding of the underlying processes risks increasing rather than decreasing emissions,” they conclude.

When asked about British Columbia, Hudiberg noted: “We are not aware of anything in particular, but we do know that BC forests may (or already are) be more susceptible to climate change impacts and insect outbreaks. So initially, it may be a more suitable region for bio-energy but the same analysis we did here would have to be done [in BC] to know for sure. She cautions, “The study conclusions are based on the regional conditions and current regional carbon uptake with current management practices For other areas, the current conditions need to be assessed before deciding if bio-energy will increase or decrease carbon emissions.”

Biofuel in northwestern BC

Biofuels are seen as a growth industry in northwestern British Columbia, with a number of companies are starting to work on various forms of biofuel investments including large corporations as well as medium and small business.

In Kitimat, Pytrade has proposed a biomass plant that would use pyrolysis to convert wood waste into liquid bio-fuels and also generate heat that can be used by green houses used to train people in horticulture in conjunction with North West Community College. Pytrade also plans to make money by selling carbon offsets for every tonne of C02 not emitted into the atmosphere they will make money by selling credits. An application by company for a provincial a one million dollar Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) grant has been approved.
General Biofuels Canada is planning a 500,000 metric tonne per year wood pellet facility in Terrace. This project would use hemlock fibre from “non-saw grade fibre” from area forest licence holders.
Toronto-based CORE BioFuel Inc. Wants to build a plant, likely in Houston, (and perhaps more plants) to turn forest waste fibre into gasoline. Each plant would cost $100 million and require 220,000 tons of fibre a year to produce 67 million litres of gas.

As well as the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, the study involved institutions in Germany and France. It was supported by the US Dept. Of Energy.