Pipelines | Northwest Coast Energy News

Enbridge plans natural gas pipeline along Northern Gateway route

Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel has told Reuters in New York that the company would prefer to supply natural gas through Kitimat to Asia “over any other export project” and that Enbridge plans to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the
proposed Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline.

Pat Daniel was interviewed by Reuters reporter Edward McAllister. In a story with a New York place line the agency reports:

Pipeline operator Enbridge Inc
would prefer to supply natural gas to the Kitimat liquefied natural gas
plant in British Columbia over any other export project in western
Canada, the company’s chief executive told Reuters on Thursday.

Enbridge is interested in joining one of two proposed Canadian LNG
projects to ship natural gas to Asia, it said this week, as ample North
American supply pushes gas prices far below global levels.

But the location of Kitimat has attracted Enbridge more than Royal Dutch Shell’s potential project in Prince Rupert, also in British Columbia, company head Patrick Daniel said in an interview.

“Kitimat is the preferred project. Pipelining into Kitimat is
relatively straight forward compared to Prince Rupert, which is the
other proposed port,” Daniel said, though talks continue with both
projects…..

Enbridge plans to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the
proposed Gateway oil line, which would transport natural gas from Horn
River and other natural gas fields to the coast by 2016, Daniel said.

As Joint Review deadline looms, more complaints about lack of information for the public

Energy Environment

Environmental groups are saying that the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel and Enbridge haven’t given the public enough notice that the Thursday is the deadline for registration to participate in the hearings, which begin in January.

In Smithers, Pat Moss, with the Friends of the Wild Salmon says neither the
National Energy Board, or Enbridge had done much to let people know they
need to register this far in advance.

In Kitimat, Douglas Channel Watch distributed a leaflet door to door warning about the pending deadline.

Those who wish to make oral statements have until October 6 to apply to make an oral presentation to the Joint Review Panel. Applications can be made on the JRP website:

While the hearings are scheduled to begin on January 10, 2012, locations are still uncertain. The JRP website says

Have you made a decision on specific hearing locations?
No. Based on the comments received, the Panel intends to conduct oral hearings in locations close to the pipeline and marine components of the project. The list of oral hearing locations will be announced at a later date.

Moss says this lack of firm dates and locations for those hearings is likely a hindrance to some people who wish to participate, since they cannot know this far in advance where they will be when the hearings come to their area, “We’re very concerned that there
will be a lot of people who will only realize that the hearings are
being held much later, after the National Energy Board announces the
locations and dates for the hearings, and by then it’s long after the
deadline,” Moss says.

The environmental groups say the Joint Review Panel should have had a more aggressive campaign in newspapers, online and in the broadcast media to make people in northern BC aware of the looming deadline.

Egyptian LNG terminal is model for Kitimat project: Encana

Energy

The rugged, rocky, windswept shoreline of Douglas Channel and Kitimat harbour are very different from the Nile Delta, a gigantic flat estuary, so much bigger than the Kildala or Giltoyees, warm, on the Mediterranean, a cradle of human civilization.

KBR, the main contractor for the Kitimat LNG project front end engineering, is basing its planning for the Kitimat terminal on a project it built in Egypt, Dave Thorn, Encana Vice President of Canadian Marketing told an investor conference call on Tuesday, Oct, 4, 2011.

Thorn told the call that plans for the Kitimat terminal are based on the “Seagas” terminal in Damietta, (also known as Dumyat) Egypt, 60 kilometres west of Port Said on the Nile Delta.

The terminal is used to export liquified natural gas from fields in Egypt to customers in Spain.

In 2000, what was then Haliburton KBR was given the contract for front-end engineering and design (FEED) through a joint venture in Egypt, Damietta LNG Construction Llc. The joint venture later got the contract to build the LNG terminal complex.

The terminal is formally called SEGAS, an acronym for the Spanish Egyptian Gas Company.

According to the Wikipedia entry, the output capacity of the plant is 5 million tons of LNG per year. The complex includes the LNG liquefaction train, inlet gas reception area (metering and analysis), natural gas liquids removal and fractionation area, a docking jetty for tanker loading and transportation, LNG refrigerated storage and export facilities (tanks and booms), utilities and supporting infrastructure (power, water and roads), gas metering and treatment facilities (acid gas removal and dehydration), refrigerant condensate and LNG storage (two 150,000 m³ PC LNG storage tanks). The total investment costs of the LNG complex were around US$1.3 billion.

Unlike Kitimat, where the natural gas will come from the Horn River Basin, the natural gas in Egypt is close to the terminal, in large fields under the Nile Delta. The plant is supplied by natural gas from the West Delta Deep Marine Concession Area about 140 kilometres (90 mi) from the LNG complex.

About 3.2 million tons of LNG is sold to Unión Fenosa Gas which has a receiving terminal at Sagunto, Spain. The rest is sold on the open market by the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company.

View Larger Map

In ancient history the port was known as Tarniat, It was later overshadowed by the growth of nearby Alexandria. From seventh to the twelfth centuries, under Muslim caliphs, Diamietta was both an important naval base and an import point for goods from as far away as China. Today, in addition to the LNG terminal, it has a major container port.

KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown and Root has been involved in construction, mostly in the energy industry, for more than a century. For many years the company was part of the Haliburton empire, but was spun off in 2007 and is now headquartered in Houston, Texas.
The company was recently involved in a number of scandals and lawsuits, mainly tied to its role as a prime contractor for the US military in Iraq.

Encana conference call to update Kitimat, Horn River developments

Energy

Encana, one of the three partners in the KM LNG (Kitimat LNG project) will hold a conference call for executives and a simultaneous webcast, Tuesday, Oct. 4 at 9 a.m. MT, 8 a.m. PT to update on its Horn River shale gas development and also Encana’s view of the Kitimat project. Encana’s partners are Apache Corp. and EOG.

A news release from Encana says

Encana Corporation (TSX, NYSE: ECA) will hold a conference call and
webcast for the investment community highlighting its Horn River
resource play on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. MT (11:00 a.m.
ET). The presentation will be hosted by members of Encana’s senior
management team and will include information detailing the company’s
strategy, resource play hub development model and operations in the Horn
River play, as well information on the Kitimat LNG project.
A live webcast of the conference call will also be available via Encana’s website, www.encana.com, under Investors/Presentations & events, or directly at the following

URL:

Webcast link:
http://w.on24.com/r.htm?e=361512&s=1&k=56F984CEC6C224CE4C59E3D7FE8C9CB8

The Calgary Herald is speculating that Encana may be either selling some assets or announce that it has found development partners. For those in the know in the Alberta oil patch the sudden announcement has people in Calgary wondering what the announcement will be.

The Herald also quotes one analyst as wondering what is holding up the Kitimat LNG project.

Phil Skolnick of Canaccord Genuity said he’s hoping for “some clarity” on where the company is at in the joint venture process, as well as what’s preventing Kitimat LNG from moving full-steam ahead.

“What are the essential bottlenecks?” Skolnick wondered

Editor’s note:
With all the activity around town it’s certainly a surprise to hear the Kitimat project isn’t going “full steam ahead.” As far as Northwest Energy News is concerned if there were bottlenecks on the project at this end, the ever vigilant Kitimat rumour mill which has been churning another possible LNG project for more than a week now, would certainly have heard about it. Perhaps it is simply all the unusually stormy weather we’ve been having all summer has slowed things down.

We’re not afraid of Kitimat, Oregon rivals say, as papers filed for LNG export terminal permit

Energy

The Jordan Cove Energy Project, often cited by energy industry experts as Kitimat’s chief west coast rival as a liquified natural gas export project, sent a $50 filing fee to the United States Treasury on Friday, thus notifying the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the company is seeking to export liquified natural gas from its planned $3.5 billion terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon.

Although testimony at June’s National Energy Board hearings cited Coos Bay as a rival that could take LNG business away from Kitimat, the view from Oregon appears to be just the opposite.

Jordan Cove project manager Robert Braddock told the industry newsletter, Platt’s Gas, that he is “not afraid of competition from the north, where Kitimat LNG is planning an export terminal in British Columbia. ‘We actually presume that Kitimat would be built,” Braddock said. “We assume that we would be built number two and we think there is plenty of room for two such facilities on the West Coast.’

Braddock also told Platt’s that Oregon is not a rival for BC or Alberta gas nor competition for LNG terminals in Louisiana and Maryland. “The principal difference is we have access to a different range of resources from both Canadian gas and US gas. But equally important is we would have certainly much closer access to the Asian markets,” he said.

The Oregonian newspaper reported that prospective customers in Asia for the Coos Bay project may be waiting to see what happens in Kitimat before signing on with Jordan Cove. Braddock told the Oregonian that the company “is still testing the waters with potential customers, and won’t go ahead with the expensive and byzantine permitting process without firm commitments from terminal users.”

The pro forma initial application filed Friday informs the US Department of Energy that company wants to export up natural gas to countries that have a free trade agreements with the United States. Similar to the National Energy Board hearings on KM LNG, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must now hold hearings on the export licence application.

In another similarity, a few years ago, the Kitimat plans called for an LNG project to import gas. Jordan Cove received approval in 2009 to build a terminal to import LNG and to build a 370 kilometre (280 mile) pipeline that would carry the gas to Malin, Oregon, on the California border.

If the US Department of Energy approves the new application, the terminal would become an export, not an import, facility.

In another parallel with Kitimat, like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project bitumen export proposal, the Coos Bay project has prompted stiff opposition for years. The Oregonian reports “landowners and environmentalists in the region mounted a fierce campaign to block three proposals to build LNG import terminals in Oregon, including the one in Coos Bay,” in the belief that the terminals and associated pipelines would harm forests, farms and salmon habitat. The newspaper also says that local business groups and unions have supported the import projects, which would bring jobs and tax revenue.

An environmental lawyer, Susan Jane Brown, a staff attorney at the Western Environmental
Law Center, told Platt’s Gas she is still digesting the news, but that said the export
plan will likely rankle her clients, environmental organizations and
landowners. “It would be one thing to
import a good that would be used domestically. But exporting a
domestic product that they have long advocated that we need
domestically, it is a bait and switch,” she told Platt’s.

A powerful local politician, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat is skeptical of the idea of exporting LNG from the US and told the Oregonian: “I think it’s premature to conclude that the United States now has so much natural gas that it can afford to export it overseas…I think there ought to be a time-out on approving LNG exports until there is a better understanding of how much natural gas there is, whether it can be safely extracted, and what the impact on the U.S. economy would be from LNG exports.”

Sen. Wyden’s opposition is in stark contract with the various consultants and economists who testified at the Kitimat hearings in June which envisioned a totally integrated North American natural gas marketplace with pipes snaking all over the continent delivering the cheapest and most convenient gas to the nearest market. Wyden’s remarks may be an indication that American politics could put the break on the ideal free market visions of the experts that were expressed before the NEB.

Similar to plans to take shale gas from the Horn River Formation in northeastern BC, Jordan Cove would tap into the Ruby Pipleline, a 1,000 kilometre (680-mile), 42-inch diameter that would carry shale gas from the Rockies to a hub in Wyoming and then to Malin, Oregon to connect with the Jordan Cove pipeline there.

Christy Clark flies to Kitimat, spins on LNG, flies out again

Energy Environment Politics
BC Premier Christy Clark meets with the leaders of the Haisla First Nation at Kitamaat Village, Monday, Sept. 19, 2011. (BC government hand out )

BC Premier Christy Clark made a flying visit to Kitimat Monday, Sept. 19, 2011, dropping into Kitamaat Village to meet with the leaders of the Haisla First Nation and, as part of the flying, boarded a helicopter to take a look at the KM LNG at under construction at Bish Cove, before flying out again.

It was all part of the premier’s campaign style job strategy which sees Clark touring the province this week and unveiling a complete jobs package on Thursday.

The proposed liquified natural gas terminals at Kitimat are not as controversial in this region as the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. There is general support for the LNG projects, allowing for safety concerns about LNG tankers and environmental problems from the construction of the pipeline.

Clark’s visit to the Kitimat region is controversial here because from all appearances, there was little or no substance. If the visit had in been the early decades of the last century, when politicians traveled by train rather than helicopter, it would have been a “whistle stop,” nothing more.

A BC premier visiting the traditional territory of the Haisla First Nation should, of course, make a courtesy call on the leadership in the village, although it appears the visit was short, routine rather than a truly substantial meeting.

As for the rest of the Kitimat region was concerned, the premier’s short in and out photo op was not aimed at helping the people of Kitimat but appeared to be more spinning her jobs strategy throughout the rest of the province which is less familiar with the history of development in Kitimat.

No one in the local media, the Northern Sentinel, Kitimat Daily nor Northwest Coast Energy News were given any information about timing of the premier’s visit, perhaps because local reporters might ask tougher questions than the BC legislature pool traveling with Clark. The Northern Sentinel only found out about the time of the meeting after one of the numerous calls made by local media was actually returned in time for their reporter to be in the village for the premier’s visit.

As of Sunday, no meeting between the premier and Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan was scheduled. At the last minute, after some political arm twisting, the premier did have a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting with Monaghan and Municipal Manager Ron Poole at the village on Monday. (It should be noted that members of Kitimat council will meet with Clark at the up coming convention of the Union of BC Municipalities).

At 14:55 Monday, Sept. 19, Clark (or her PR team) tweeted.

We’re taking steps to get #kitimat’s liquefied natural gas plant running by 2015. A strong LNG industry means local jobs. #bcpoli

The message was quickly retweeted by Clark supporters. That tweet raised eyebrows, since the process for the KM LNG is already well under way, with construction apparently on schedule for the 2015 date when the first natural gas will flow into a tanker. The licence for KM LNG is in the hands of the federal National Energy Board.

What the tweet meant became clearer once the premier’s office issued a news release

Christy Clark’s “more aggressive approach to the development of the natural gas sector” includes traditional small c conservative elements:

Cutting red tape: accelerate the lengthy permitting processes and improve the decision making required to bring large-scale production facilities from a concept to a reality, and that these commitments will be a greater priority for B.C. on a go forward basis.

Skills training: working with industry partners for some time on the future skills required to support a new LNG industry. The goal is to ensure the post-secondary system is able to deliver the targeted training necessary to grow the oil and gas industry, including LNG.

Attracting investment: by working with industry stakeholders and First Nations to remove the barriers and secure the investment required to establish up to three LNG plants by 2020. As of today, the Province is aware of a handful of LNG proposals.

The only practical element in Clark’s announcement was help for the Haisla First Nation in dealing with multiple developments: (as related in the news release)

The Province’s assistance is timely,” said Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross. “Our own training capacity is limited by resources and capabilities, and these have been exhausted given the projects now underway on our territory and the demands they place on our people for skills and training. Our economic future has never looked better, and this assistance will help us deliver on this promise to our community.”

Michael Smyth of The Province (along with a number of Tweeters) noted that most of Clark’s announcement was recycled.

Those same economic storms have buffeted the government, too, and Clark doesn’t have a lot of money to spend on direct job creation — not if she keeps her promise to balance the budget in 2013.

So, expect many re-announcements of old projects. The proposed Kitimat liquefied natural gas plant Clark trumpeted Monday, for example, was approved three years ago.
She’s also expected to cheerlead the Northwest Transmission Line project this week, another one that’s been in development for years.

Without a lot of money to throw around, Clark will talk about getting government out of the way of private-sector job creation. Deregulation and cutting red tape is less expensive than direct stimulus spending to create jobs.

The environmentalists won’t be happy when she starts fast-tracking permits for mining and other resource extraction, but losing “green” votes is the least of her worries.

Veteran journalist Norm Farrell in his blog “Let’s play political football with Kitimat” gives a list of how often a Kitimat LNG project has been announced going back to an Associated Press report from 1981

The Rim Gas Project, which includes Petro-Canada of Calgary, Westcoast Transmission of Vancouver and Mitsui and Co. Ltd. of Japan, wants to deliver and sell liquefied natural gas to Japan from a plant it will build at Bish Cove, six miles from Kitimat.

And Kitimat Tweeter YWGSourpuss posted:

Kitimat has kinda sorta might been getting an LNG Plant since I was a teenager. Meanwhile, Methanex and Eurocan were culled, dust blows…

and then

I see media wonks waffling about LNG/Kitimat/need for cheap energy. Remember Kemano Completion? Ask Rio Tinto re: hole in the mountain.

On the Opposition side of the question, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer looked at an apparent split in the opposition NDP over the LNG issue Wednesday, noting that the environment critic NDP environment critic Rob Fleming is concerned about the controversial fracking process used to retrieve natural gas from shale:

When you look at where the gas would come from, we’re talking about major shale-gas deposits. There are big concerns there, from an environmental perspective, around water usage and whether it’s sustainable, and water contamination when it’s injected underground to bring the gas to the surface – the fracking process – and a lot of greenhouse gases produced.

Palmer reports that the NDP house leader John Horgan has indicated that he and Opposition leader Adrian Dix support LNG exports.

In Horgan’s estimation, it could be piped to the coast, liquefied and shipped out with minimal risk. “Liquid natural gas doesn’t stick to things. It blows up, or it vents. So the environmental consequence of a catastrophe with an LNG tanker is relatively insignificant,” he told me during an interview on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV.

“So the risk to our coastline from LNG is insignificant; the benefit to British Columbians is quite significant. And it’s our resource, so we’ll get the royalties for extracting it, we’ll get value added by getting it to an LNG facility, and then we’ll get a better price for it in Asia.

Palmer is concerned about Fleming’s caution not to rush things, stating that

For “you can’t rush these things” is precisely the opposite of what industry analysts are saying about LNG development. The window on the Asian market is closing, and if B.C. doesn’t get moving, the opportunity will be gone. Again.

One wonders where Palmer gets his evidence that window of opportunity for the Asian markets is closing? With the Fukishima meltdown, the market window for LNG is actually expanding, not just in Japan but across East Asia. What some in the energy industry are warning about is Canadian gas being exported through the United States, warnings that were prominent at the NEB hearings in Kitimat last June and is largely industry spin trying to hurry the approval process along.

The controversy over fracking will continue, with the energy industry claiming it is safe and the environmental activists saying it is not. What is apparent about fracking as Pro Pubilica have pointed out in their continuing investigation of the issue, is that use of the process on a wide scale is new and there aren’t enough adequate studies of the process. Inadequate study could mean consequences down the road, we don’t know, so there should be some caution.

The blasting continues at the KM LNG site at Bish Cove as the shoreline rocks are levelled to close to sea level. Meanwhile the political spin pitches just as much hot air and debris into the atmosphere.

Northern View: B.C. Jobs Plan’ keys on trade with Asia

Review: Pipeline to prosperity or channel to catastrophe? Globe and Mail

Energy Pipeline Review

Pipeline to prosperity or channel to catastrophe?

The Globe and Mail publishes an essay by Alberta author Chris Turner, author of The Leap: How to Survive and Thrive in the Sustainable Economy.

The essay appears, on the surface, to be an even handed look at the Northern Gateway Pipeline, balancing the environmental concerns with the economy.

In the end, however, Turner sides with where he lives, the province of Alberta, and his compromise could be the destruction of an area that is a thousand or so kilometres from his home.

There’s a more recent Canadian tradition, though – the one that celebrates moderation, fair play, stewardship and compromise. It gave rise to the national parks, land-claims tribunals, Nunavut, Greenpeace and the Montreal Protocol. It argues that Canada can do more with its natural abundance than extract, export and exhaust it at maximum speed. When Enbridge touts its pipeline-safety measures and marine stewardship – the double-hulled boats, the master mariners tugging the tankers carefully past Great Bear’s salmon streams – it is sincerely attempting to participate in that vision.

Yet sincerity is not the same as authenticity. Avoiding an oil spill is not a substitute for reducing greenhouse gases. The conversation has skipped ahead a generation while Canada slept. Catching up could begin with the simple agreement that the wild land of the spirit bear is no place for pipelines – but also that there will probably be a place for pipelines, at least for the near term. But that would be just the start of an honest discussion of Canada’s uncharted energy future.

For the long term health of the planet, reducing greenhouse gases is vital for the preservation of our current civilization.

For Turner, in the end, the old argument prevails, what is good for Albertans is good for the rest of the country, Alberta=Canada.

There is little doubt that the current management of Enbridge and Northern Gateway is sincere in their efforts, or as sincere as an energy company can be. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that subsequent management will care as much after the approvals are signed and sealed and the pipeline is built.

Apart from those who may actually work for Enbridge if there is an oil spill in the future, Albertans will be able to drive into the wilderness and enjoy the Rockies while, if there is a spill, the salmon, halibut, seals, whales, eagles, gulls, grizzlies, black and kermode bears, not to mention the residents of the northwest First Nations who have been here for thousands of years and the relatively recent non-aboriginal residents will be left to clean up the mess and pay for that cleanup, while Alberta continues to prosper.

Harper’s decision to defund coast management group may blow back on Enbridge, lawyer says

Energy Environment Link

The West Coast Environmental Law blog says the decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take funding away from the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area plan may actually blow back on Enbridge, delaying the Northern Gateway pipeline project for years.

The cancellation of the funding is perceived as part of the Conservative government’s aim of pushing the
Northern Gateway pipeline through no matter what the cost. (Two cabinet ministers, Joe Oliver and James Moore are publicly endorsing the Northern Gateway, despite the fact the Joint Review Hearings don’t even begin until January 2012. It is unlikely either minister would make an endorsement like that without Harper’s approval.)

In the blog post, Why Harper’s shot at PNCIMA also hit Enbridge in the foot, lawyer Andrew Gage argues that Harper’s move, apparently motivated by fears that the PNCIMA process could block the pipeline, fears created by Vancouver blogger Vivian Crause and her allies among PostMedia’s right wing columnists, will actually delay the pipeline for years because it negates the legal obligation to consult First Nations and thus will likely throw the entire process into the courts for years.

Litigation by any of the Coastal First Nation against the Enbridge Pipeline could pose a serious problem for Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Project. Because of First Nations title and rights that are protected by Canada’s constitution, the federal government has a duty to “act honourably” and to consult and accommodate First Nations who have a “credible but unproven claim” of rights that may be adversely affected by a government decision (such as approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project and related tanker traffic.)

As a result, anything that the federal government does in relation to consultations with the Coastal First Nations about tanker traffic and the Enbridge Pipeline that might be considered “dishonourable” creates legal uncertainty and problems for Enbridge. So was the decision to withdraw from the current PNCIMA funding arrangement “dishonourable?”

Gage notes that the federal government is required by the Oceans Act, passed under the Liberals in 1997, to set up integrated management plans for all coastal areas of Canada, not just the northwest, a process that began in 2005.

Gage also points out that Enbrige has, in the past, participated in the process:

A wide range of stakeholders, including one seat for the conservation sector, provide input and consensus based advice on an Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, but do not determine the outcomes of the PNCIMA process. Enbridge has itself participated on the Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, along with representatives of the fish farming, commercial fishing, renewable energy, recreational fishing and tourism industries, and even sponsored an early workshop in the PNCIMA process.

In short, PNCIMA is created by the federal government, managed jointly by the federal and provincial governments and First Nations, but with efforts being made to involve a wide range of stakeholders. Because the PNCIMA is co-chaired by a federal government staff-member, and requires sign-off from the government, it was unlikely to have resulted in a complete ban on oil tanker traffic, although it might have placed restrictions on marine travel, or otherwise provided protection for the coast from shipping impacts.

However, progress was slow, in part due to the limits of federal funding available for the process.

He goes onto to say that the Harper government itself agreed to the now controversial foundation funding in 2010. That was before the attacks from Crause and the PostMedia’s business columnists reached a crescendo in recent weeks. But now there is no longer any mechanism that can be perceived as neutral that consult with First Nations and other northwest coast stake holders.

To flip-flop now, slightly more than a year before the process was supposed to wrap up, leaves the PNCIMA process without the funding that the government has acknowledged is required for a thorough planning process. It is also a slap in the face for the Coastal First Nations, the BC government, environmental organizations and industry stakeholders who have worked on this process for years.

Prime Minister Harper’s government may have believed that it was helping Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Pipelines by withdrawing from this funding agreement. But the resulting uncertainty, and the appearance that the federal government has acted less than honourably towards the Coastal First Nations, may well cause Enbridge huge legal head-aches in the future.

Editor’s note: As I said in this post, there appears to be a double standard, since what the Harper government, PostMedia’s columnists and Krause apparently are saying that it is only acceptable if billionaire capitalists spend their money on a conservative or pro-energy industry agenda, but it is not acceptable if a billionaire capitalist decides to spend his money to protect the environment.

Kitimat Rod and Gun concerns forgotten at KM LNG NEB hearings

At final arguments Thursday on the application for the KM LNG export licence, it soon became clear that the concerns of Kitimat’s non-aboriginal residents for their own traditional hiking, fishing and hunting access to the area around the Bish Cove terminal have been forgotten.

At the June 7 hearings, Mike Langegger, representing the Rod and Gun asked the board help to preserve “the fish and wildlife values of the northwest,” from the “cumulative effects” of industry encroaching on the wilderness… Langegger asked that the NEB require the KM LNG partners, energy giants Apache, Encana and EOG, establish a joint committee with Kitimat residents, both First Nations and non-First Nations, to preserve the values of the wilderness around the liquified natural gas terminal.”

Langegger`s specific request is not included the list of 12 proposed conditions that the National Energy Board has proposed to KM LNG.

As well, during during the Thursday morning hearings, the lead lawyer for KM LNG, Gordon Nettleton, representing both the partnership and a major investor, Apache Corp., while reviewing the list told the board panel: “No further conditions were proposed
during the hearings,” despite Langegger`s testimony to the board while Nettleton and his staff were in the hearing room at Kitimat`s Riverlodge Recreation Centre.

The board has proposed that KM LNG file reports on the effect of the project and mitigation of problems on marine mammals, marine birds, fish, fish habitat and fisheries and “First Nations traditional use activities.” The request for the condition from the Rod and Gun does over lap with the possible parts of the report requested by the NEB and the traditional use of the region by the Haisla and other First Nations.

Throughout the morning Nettleton argued that the fact that the KM LNG proceedings are an export licence application only and so many of the environmental oversight concerns would not be covered by the decision.

The final arguments, including over environmental issues and law and regulations that may be applied, continued until late Thursday afternoon. The board panel then reserved its decision on the export licence.

NEB proposed conditions 1 – 9

A33_-_Letter_to_All_Parties_Phase_II_Update_and_Possible_Licence_Conditions_-_A2A2V5.pdf

NEB proposed conditions 10 – 12

A34_-_Letter_-_Possible_Export_Licence_Conditions-Environment_and_Socio-Economic_Matters_-_A2A3T7_.pdf

Sacred Headwaters book slated for October release

402-61zPym8OXFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Last summer, members of the International League of Conservation Photographers visited the northwest of British Columbia in what they call a RAVE (Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition).

One RAVE involved photographing areas which ILCP members feel may be threatened by the construction of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the increased number of supertankers plying the west coast of British Columbia. That RAVE shot mainly along the coast and in the Great Bear Rainforest.

At the same time the ILCP conducted a second RAVE along the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers.

Today, National Geographic announced that a book on the Sacred Headwaters would be released in October.

National Geographic says:

Now, against the wishes of all First Nations, the British Columbia government has opened the Sacred Headwaters to industrial development. Imperial Metals proposes an open-pit copper and gold mine, called the Red Chris mine, and Royal Dutch Shell wants to extract coal bed methane gas across a tenure of close to a million acres

National Geographic says the Sacred Headwaters RAVE was launched with partner Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition (SWCC) to produce images of the Sacred Headwaters of (the birthplace of 3 of British Columbia’s greatest salmon rivers – the Stikine, Skeena, and Nass). The text is written by author and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence, Wade Davis.

National Geographic is quite open about why it is publishing the book:

The book will be used as a tool by iLCP, SWCC, other local conservation groups and Wade Davis to derail proposed mining projects that would destroy the Sacred Headwaters. The book will be published in October 2011 right before the moratorium on mining in the Sacred Headwaters is lifted.

Information on the ILCP Great Bear Rave can be found here.

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

While the Great Bear RAVE did produce some stunning photographs, the photographers stayed along the coast and (at least for now) did not venture up Douglas Channel where the tankers will have to navigate the tricky waters to the port of Kitimat.

PRE-ORDER FROM AMAZON.CA