tar sands | Northwest Coast Energy News

Salon article calls Northern Gateway Keystone’s “evil twin”, asserts pipeline will never be built

Energy Environment Commentary

Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at UBC, writes about the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in Salon.com, largely for an American audience, calling the pipeline The evil twin of the Keystone XL oil pipeline

U.S. opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline should take take note: One of the greatest weaknesses of the proposed 1,980 mile-long pipeline from Canada’s tar sand fields to refineries in Texas actually lies in British Columbia on Canada’s west coast.

That’s where a second pipeline (“Northern Gateway”) could link the tar sands of central Canada to coastal British Columbia.

The U.S. State Department has accepted assertions that the production of heavy oil will increase regardless of whether Keystone XL is built, because the Northern Gateway pipeline would bring oil for shipment to China. Denying permission for Keystone XL would not promote the U.S. national interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the State Department says, because China will use the energy anyway.

Byers then goes on to describe in great detail the opposition to the pipeline in British Columbia from First Nations and residents of the northern part of the province. He also describes growing opposition to the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to Vancouver. (See today’s story Kinder Morgan buys natural gas pipeline) especially the hazards of sending tankers through Second Narrows.

From all that Byers concludes:

In short, there’s a bit of snake oil in the pipeline-to-China assumptions. The U.S. State Department must assess the full environmental impact of Keystone XL. It cannot ignore the carbon footprint of Canada’s tar sands because of an alternative pipeline to China that does not exist and will likely never be built.

It seems that Byers is certainly jumping to conclusions that the Northern Gateway will never be built, especially since Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and cabinet ministers John Moore and Joe Oliver has said it is in the national interest that the Northern Gateway should proceed.

Northern Gateway Pipeline will benefit all Canadians, Daniel says

Energy Link

Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel, writing on the Troy Media site says Northern Gateway Pipeline will benefit all Canadians

With the second largest proven
petroleum reserves in the world, Canada may like to flatter itself that
it is a global energy superpower, but it’s not true.

It could be. One day it might be. But it is not an energy superpower yet…

The Enbridge Northern Gateway
pipeline project, which will run from Edmonton, Alberta, to Kitimat,
British Columbia, is one step on the road to Canada becoming an energy
superpower. With Northern Gateway we will be able to safely move energy
to the West Coast, open new markets for Canadian petroleum and create
thousands of construction and supplier jobs as well as significant
permanent employment right across Canada.

Washington Post editorial argues that Northern Gateway will go ahead

Energy Link (Editorial)

An editorial in the Oct. 10, 2011 issue of the Washington Post argues that it is realistic that the Northern Gateway pipeline (without actually mentioning the name) will go ahead.

In Keystone XL pipeline is the wrong target for protesters

The Post takes aim at the protestors who oppose the Keystone pipeline, seeing it as a passionate fight against fossil fuels. The editorial then goes on to say

True, the petroleum that comes from Alberta’s “tar sands” isn’t very clean; it produces more carbon emissions than light sweet crude. And, true, pipelines can leak, as recent ruptures in Michigan and under the Yellowstone River demonstrate.

But rejecting the pipeline won’t reduce global carbon emissions or the risk of environmentally destructive spills.

Canada’s government — and rising world petroleum prices — guarantee that the country will extract the oil from its tar sands, and that Asia will take it if America doesn’t. That means using pipelines to transport Canada’s heavy crude hundreds of miles to the West Coast and then shipping it abroad, burning fossil fuels and risking ocean spills along the way. China already has a large stake in Canadian oil production. Plans are already in the works to build the necessary pipelines.

The Post notes the allegations that the bitumen sands crude, once refined will not benefit the US but will be exported through the Gulf Coast. Then adds, “But if export markets are that attractive, Canadian crude will reach them without transiting the United States, and American refineries will get their low-grade crude from somewhere else.” For the Post the bottom line is American security, preferring low-grade crude form Canada rather than from hostile Venezuela or the volatile Middle East.

The Post concludes:

Producing energy is a dirty business, and it will remain so for a long time, even with the right policies. Part of facing this reality is admitting that how the world produces energy must change over time. But another part is accepting that oil production will continue for decades and clear-headedly managing the risks — not pretending we can wish them away

The online comments, as you might expect, are about one third in favour (jobs and the economy), one third opposed (climate change, oil spills) and the rest the usual nasty diatribes.

Editors note: Whether or not one supports or opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline, the editorial is a prime example of arm chair rhetoric probably composed by a writer comfortably living in a Georgetown brownstone who will never come within 1000 kilometres of Douglas Channel. It is well known that The Washington Post is not the paper it was 20 years ago. The muddled talk about “clear-headedly managing the risks” shows how the once-great paper has declined. The editorial is actually insulting to both sides, since it is obvious that the Post editorial board have no knowledge of the thousands of pages filed by Enbridge that outline the risks of the Northern Gateway and the company’s contingency plans nor the reservations about the pipeline outlined by the environmental movement, First Nations and local residents.

But then not many news organizations these days bother to assign reports to actually come to the scene of any story. In recent months, just three, Alberta Oil, The Calgary Herald and The Globe and Mail have come here. The rest are content to sit at their desks and work on, as one former managing editor of a major Canadian daily put it, “telephone-assisted reporting.”

Not enough bitumen production to support both Northern Gateway and Keystone XL consultant says

Energy

Bloomberg news reports that a Calgary based energy research company believes Enbridge’s Oil Sands Project Is Years Early

Enbridge Inc., Canada’s largest pipeline operator, wouldn’t need to build the Northern Gateway project to export Alberta’s oil-sands crude for almost a decade if TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL is approved this year, according to IHS CERA, an energy research company.

The 732-mile (1,177-kilometer) Northern Gateway pipeline would pump 525,000 barrels a day from near Edmonton, Alberta, to the port of Kitimat, British Columbia, where crude would be loaded on tankers bound for Asia. The line, scheduled to start in 2017, would reduce Canadian dependence on U.S. markets and compete with the Keystone XL, designed to pipe 700,000 barrels a day to refineries in Texas along the Gulf of Mexico by 2013.

Jackie Forrest, a director of global oil at IHS CERA, said there won’t be enough oil sands production to support Northern Gateway’s launch even if, as she expects, Keystone XL approval helps the output double in 10 years to 3 million barrels a day.

The Bloomberg article goes on to quote one analyst who believes the Northern Gateway fight will get a lower profile than the Keystone XL.

Northern Gateway faces opposition from environmentalists and Indian groups because it passes through the Great Bear Rainforest and raises the risk of supertanker oil spills in the Douglas Channel. However, the Canada-only route may make the project less prominent than Keystone XL, which has drawn protests from celebrities such as Daryl Hannah and Margot Kidder, who played Lois Lane in several Superman movies.

“Northern Gateway would be an all-Canadian fight and thus perhaps could be less sensational and muscular, think Canadian Football League vs. U.S. NFL, but nonetheless might get very contentious,” Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist for ITG Investment Research, wrote in an e-mail from Calgary.

Approval of the Keystone XL may not be the slam dunk that some in the Calgary oil patch believe. As Konrad Yababuski reports in The Globe and Mail in Keystone XL: More about the politics than the petroleum

Proponents of the TransCanada Corp. project, which would double the amount of Alberta crude flowing south, now fear that President Barack Obama will give in to pressure from the base of the Democratic Party to nix the pipeline.

With Mr. Obama’s approval rating sliding to a record low – leading more than half of Americans to think for the first time that he will be a one-term President – the White House needs to bring every stray Democrat it can find back into the fold before the 2012 election.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been feeling particularly unloved by this White House. Killing the Keystone XL project would be a powerful way for the administration to show its renewed affection.

Which means of course if President Barack Obama does kill Keystone XL to keep his base happy, there will be more than enough bitumen sands for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Editor’s note: Disclosure. I have always liked the CFL game, with three downs and the bigger field over the NFL, so the analogy is probably apt in describing the contentious Northern Gateway debate, a more wide open and interesting struggle.

Enbridge says it is joining LNG export rush

Energy links

Reuters and the energy media are reporting that Enbridge told an investor conference call this morning the company is joining the liquified natural gas export rush.

In Enbridge eyes Canada LNG exports, Reuters reports:

Enbridge Inc said on Tuesday it is in talks with potential producers to export overseas liquefied natural gas from Canada, joining a lengthening list of North American companies looking to tap thirsty markets in Asia.

Enbridge would be interested in existing projects being developed in Canada, executive vice president Al Monaco said at a presentation, just as ample supply pushes North American natural gas prices to 11-month lows.

“We would certainly be interested in LNG exports, right from the midstream pipeline side, right up to the LNG export facility itself,” Monaco said at the company’s investor day in Toronto, which was webcast.

“We are in discussions with potential producers. That is probably a little bit longer term,” he added.

Both Reuters and the industry news site Upstream Online report that Enbridge would consider buying into an existing project.

Heavy oil pipeline in Columbia

Upstream Online also reports that Enbridge is considering a heavy oil pipeline from the interior of Columbia to the Pacific coast of South America.

“Over the past few months we’ve been discussing a possible project to access tidewater off the western coast,” Monaco said. “The line would provide direct access to the Pacific markets which have an appetite for heavy crude and provide takeaway capacity for the growing volumes that are coming from central Colombia.”

Monaco said the producers have confirmed their interest in the project, dubbed Oleoducto al Pacifico, and provided Enbridge with the money to carry out a feasibility review to determine the line’s route, capacity and costs.

Kitimat is the terminal point for the KM LNG and BC LNG points as well as the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project that would carry bitumen from Alberta to the terminal. All project contemplate exporting to the hungry markets of Asia.

Accuracy is the best neutrality. It’s all about the bitumen.

Editorial

Memo to my media friends and colleagues:

Last Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011, the District of Kitimat sponsored an “educational forum” here at Mount Elizabeth Theatre on the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project which, if approved, would carry bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and on to Asia.
.
There was an hour of presentations covering all sides the debate, followed by a question and answer period.

The Enbridge educational forum in Kitimat, Sept. 20, 2011. Left to right, Ellis Ross, Chief Counsellor, Haisla First Nation, Mike Bernier, mayor of Dawson Creek, Greg Brown, environmental consultant and John Carruthers, President Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. (Robin Rowland/ Northwest Coast Energy News)

Throughout those two hours, the word used to describe the substance that could come to Kitimat through that pipeline was the word “bitumen.” Panelists Ellis Ross, Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines talked about “bitumen,” so did environmental consultant Greg Brown, they all spoke about “bitumen.” The questions from the audience were about “bitumen.”

Of course, after a couple of years of hearings,briefings and educational forums on the Northern Gateway pipeline project, with more to come (especially when the Joint Review Panel’s formal hearings begin here in January) the people of Kitimat are used to the word “bitumen.” Everyone from grade school kids to seniors know the right words to use, especially since Kitimat is also the site of proposed liquified natural gas projects (which introduced a whole new set of terminology.)

When we talk about (and sometimes debate) the Northern Gateway project on the cross trainers and treadmills at the Riverlodge gym, the word used is “bitumen.”

While the Kitimat meeting was underway the rest of the continent, and especially the media was focused on another pipeline project, the proposed Keystone XL project that would carry bitumen from Alberta down to Texas to be refined there.

So it was no real surprise when Open File Ottawa ran a short item by freelancer Trevor Pritchard on the debate over media use of the words “oils sands” vs the words “tar sands.”

Type in “Alberta tar sands” into Google, and you get 852,000 results. Perform a search for “Alberta oil sands” instead, and you end up with 334,000 results–not even half that. And if you change “Alberta” to “Alberta’s,” the gap widens even further.
So why do most media outlets tend to default to the phrase “oil sands”? Is “tar sands” pejorative? Or do both terms carry their own bias?

Pritchard pointed back to an article in the Tyee posted after the Calgary Herald attacked the late NDP leader Jack Layton for using the term tar sands.

Tyee quoted the Calgary Herald editorial (no longer visible on the web)this way:

Interestingly, the Calgary Herald didn’t so much take issue with the statements themselves, as it did with his vocabulary.
“It’s not what Layton said,” read an editorial from early April. “It’s the loaded and inaccurate language he used repeatedly, referring to the oil sands as ‘dirty’ and ‘tar sands’ — a word that’s part of the propaganda lexicon for radical environmentalists.”

Nearly two weeks later, the Herald was still ruminating about Layton’s and Obama’s language choices.
“Tar sands is inaccurate and pejorative,” wrote columnist Paula Arab.

In today’s polarized world, you might expect the Calgary Herald, in the centre of the Alberta oil patch, to be in favour of the term “oil sands”

However, most of the mainstream media seem to have bought into the idea that if the sandy hydrocarbons found in northern Alberta are called “tar sands” (it certainly looks and smells and feels like tar) it is pejorative, while “oil sands” are neutral. As comments on both the Tyee and Open File stories show, those who tend toward the environmental point of view consider the term “oil sands” energy industry spin.

Open File asked the Canadian Press for their take on the subject, since the CP Stylebook (like its equivalent from the AP in the United States) is considered the usage Bible not only for the Canadian media for most non-academic writing in the Canada.

Senior Editor James McCarten responded:

Canadian Press style calls for the use of the term “oilsands” (all one word), as it is both the official term used by the petroleum industry and the least susceptible to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It is also in keeping with accepted style for terms like “oilpatch” and “oilfield” — consistency is a critical element of any effective writing style.
It’s also important to choose the most neutral term available.

“Tarsands,” while at one time the industry’s chosen term, has been appropriated in recent years by opponents of the oil industry and has taken on political connotations, so we choose to avoid it.

To which commenter Raay Makers responded:

So let me get this straight: CP deems the term preferred by the petroleum industry “neutral,” while the term “appropriated” by opponents of the oil industry isn’t. They obviously have misconceptions of the meaning of the term neutral.

An hour after I read the Open File story, I turned to CBC TV News and watched Margot McDiarmid’s item on the Keystone debate. In her first reference to the Keystone pipeline, McDiarmid used the term “oil sands bitumen” to describe what would go through the Keystone to Texas. Relatively accurate. But then at the end of her item she said “oil” would be flowing through the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat.

Even though I worked in radio or TV for three decades and know the necessity to keep things as simple as possible in a short item, I was appalled. To describe the bitumen that is going through those pipelines simply as “oil” is misleading and inaccurate.

If you’ve sat through briefings, attended hearings and read the documents, it is clear that bitumen behaves differently in a pipeline from conventional oil, whether it is crude oil or refined oil.

That difference is at the heart of the debate over both pipelines. It appears that no one outside of the local media here in Kitimat and media along the Northern Gateway route seems to understand that difference, not even at the centre of the current debate about the Keystone XL in Nebraska.

So I checked. What term is the media using to describe what will flow through the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines? The media is all over the place, calling it oil, crude oil, crude, tar sands oil, oil sands crude, oil sands bitumen.

I first checked the CBC.ca site:

Max Paris in the written story tied to McDiarmid’s item uses “oil sands bitumen,” the CBC interactive uses “oil sands crude.”

Today’s New York Times uses the term “oil pipeline” to describe the Keystone project.

In a Nebraska local paper, the Omaha World Herald, reporter Paul Hammel describes it as “a crude-oil pipeline”

In another local paper, the Lincoln Nebraska, Journal Star reporter Art Hovey uses “oil.”

An Associated Press story today, (at least as it appears on the Forbes site) is totally inconsistent, with the web friendly summary speaks about Keystone XL carrying “tar sands oil,” but the main body of the story calls it “oil.”

Reuters uses the term “oil” in this story

An editorial from Bloomberg uses “oil” in the lead

On first look, it might seem wrong to allow TransCanada Corp. to build the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It goes on to eloquently describe the situation in Alberta’s sandy hydrocarbons

What’s more, a new conduit would seem to only encourage the further development of the Athabascan oil sands in Alberta. This is a dirty business, to be sure: Vast tracts of spruce and fir are cleared to make way for open-pit mines, from which deposits of sticky black sand are shoveled out and then rinsed to yield viscous tar. For deeper deposits, steam is shot hundreds of feet into the earth to melt the tar enough that it can be pumped to the surface. Then there are the emissions associated with mining Canadian oil sands: It produces two and a half times as much carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as oil drilling in, say, Saudi Arabia or west Texas.

Bloomberg as you might expect from a business site, goes on to give the argument for building Keystone XL in terms of jobs and the economy (and in a much more measured way than the strident columnists in the Postmedia chain here)

Bloomberg concludes

Keep in mind, the U.S. is crisscrossed by thousands of miles of pipelines carrying crude oil, liquid petroleum and natural gas. One of these is the Keystone 1 pipeline, which already carries crude from the oil sands. Yes, these pipes sometimes leak — spectacularly last year when almost 850,000 gallons of oil spilled from a ruptured pipe in Michigan. Far more often, when leaks occur, they are small and self-contained.
After the public hearings, the U.S. should give TransCanada the green light — and then make sure the company manages pipeline design and construction with care.

Get the picture. As far as I can tell, no one, no one in the major news media is accurately describing what will flow through the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines. Again the accurate descriptions come from the local media in northwestern BC who have attended years of local briefings and hearings.

Oil comes from oil sands, right? Here is where the use of the term “oilsands’ leads to misleading coverage. It is where senior editors at CP and other senior editors at other news organizations are wrong. Saying oil or crude will flow through these specific pipelines does lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and it comes directly from the ill advised use of the words “oil sands.”

Say “oil” and, although it is a generic term, most people think of the substance you put in an engine, ranging from the thick, black gooey stuff that goes into a two stroke boat engine, through the lighter oil that goes into your car or the even lighter oil used by model makers. “Petroleum” would probably be a better generic term.

Say crude and most people would think of James Dean covered in the crude from the gusher in Giant or similar movie scenes. Or for those old enough to remember, they think of the opening of the Beverly Hillbillies when the “bubbling crude” comes out of the ground at Jed Camplett’s farm.

So what is going through the pipelines? While Enbridge uses the term “oil” in its promotional brochure on Nothern Gateway (pdf file), in the briefings here Enbridge officials always talk of “bitumen.” They know that the people living in Kitimat, again whether supporter or opponent, have done their home work. Everyone here knows it won’t be “oil” in the pipeline. But it seems that the public relations branches of Enbridge and TransCanada still believe they can spin the media into reporting the pipelines will just be carrying oil.

So what is going to be in the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines? Read the documents filed with the Joint Review Panel and you find out it is “diluted bitumen” (The bitumen from those sandy hydrocarbons in Alberta has to be diluted or it won’t flow through the pipeline.)

Documents filed with the Joint Review Panel by Stantec, an environmental consulting company based in Fredericton, New Brunswick, hired by Enbridge, and frequently retained by the energy industry uses this definition:

diluted bitumen A hydrocarbon consisting of bitumen diluted with condensate in order to reduce viscosity, rendering it suitable to be transported via a pipeline. In addition to condensate, other subjects can be used as a dilutant (naptha and synthetic oil)

So what is condensate?

Again as defined by industry consultant Stantec condensate is:

condensate: A low density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids that are present in raw natural gas produced from many natural gas fields or which condense out of raw gas if the temperature is reduced below the hydrocarbon dew point temperature of the raw gas.

(Another angle the media has ignored about the Northern Gateway project. While it carries diluted bitumen west from Alberta, there is a twin pipeline that carries the condensate east to Alberta.)

What to call the pipelines and the product?

So let’s talk about Northern Gateway and Keystone XL first. These pipelines are different from the other pipelines that Bloomberg and other media say crisscross North America.

These pipelines will be carrying diluted bitumen, not oil, not crude.

When the public think of oil they think of a lubricant that enhances flow, not a gritty substance that has to be diluted before it can move. Diluted bitumen is a mixture of sand and soil and crude hydrocarbons, with various petrochemicals added to so that that mixture can actually get through the pipelines.

The use of diluted bitumen is raising all kinds of questions. There were questions at last week’s forum on the effect of the friction from the sand on the stability of the pipelines. There were questions at the forum about the corrosive nature of the condensate added to the bitumen on the stability of the pipelines.

These questions do not arise when it comes to conventional pipelines which have been built for the past century.

While there have been major oil spills for decades on land and sea, there has never been a major spill of bitumen in either a pristine watershed or the ocean. There has never been a major spill involving this mixture of bitumen and condensate.

Unfortunately, the ultimate answer to the question of how dangerous such as spill could be, will only be found out if there is disaster.

A photo map of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline (in yellow) showing its route close to the Kitimat River, site of the town’s water supply. (Enbridge. Filed with the Joint Review Panel)

The Northern Gateway Pipeline follows the route of the Kitimat River. One of the most frequent questions is what happens to the town’s water supply if the pipeline breaks.

There are thousands of pages on the Joint Review Panel website that show that Enbridge and their consultants have done all kinds of tests, modelling and contingency planning to support their stand the pipelines and the tankers are as safe as possible. There are documents from environmental groups and others that take the opposite position.

So to maintain its already shaky credibility the media must be accurate. Accuracy is the best form of neutrality.

So here are my style/copy suggestions:

The media should call what is going into the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines “diluted bitumen” on first reference and “bitumen” on subsequent references.

It is NOT accurate to call it “oil.” It is not really accurate to call it “crude.”

It is crude oil mixed with sand and the condensate chemicals. To call what will go through the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline simply as oil or crude is leading to gross misinterpretation and complete misunderstanding.

The media should continue to use oil when they are referring to conventional oil flowing through a conventional pipeline.

The public isn’t stupid. If you ask a Grade Three student in Kitimat about bitumen and condensate you’ll get a pretty good answer. If the media has to produce sidebars, graphics, interactives, explainer items, to explain what bitumen is, the sooner the better, so that those taking part in the debate and those reporting it know what they’re talking about.

Tar sands/Oil sands

It is clear that the Canadian media managers who decided in the mid 2000s that the term “oil sands” was more neutral than “tar sands” blundered.

Yes the environmentalists do use “tar sands” and for some it can be pejorative. But if you have ever seen the stuff it certainly is tar.

Just as Enbridge uses “oil” in its brochure on Northern Gateway but says the real thing “bitumen” in meetings, “oil sands” is the preferred energy industry spin term. The use of the term “oil sands” reduces media credibility.

Using “oil sands” likely amplifies the general belief that the “corporate media” is in the pocket of big business and thus reduces the credibility of the shrinking numbers of hardworking reporters left working in the field.

Here crowd sourcing and social media help. There are postings both on Open File and Tyee saying the terms “bitumen sands” or “bitumen-bearing sands” are proper neutral terms. I have used the term “sandy hydrocarbons” in this article, I came across it in a briefing document some while ago and it stuck in my mind (though I can’t remember where I saw it).

It is up to public editors, ombudspersons and style book editors to make the call here for their organizations. I believe that if the media starts using “bitumen sands” as a technically accurate and neutral term for what is found in northern Alberta, the readers and viewers will quickly accept it.

Staff of the Joint Review Panel brief residents of
Kitimat on the process, June 16, 2011.
(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

The big picture. Why isn’t the environment in the style books?

There is a bigger problem that I discovered when I was looking into this issue. I checked the Canadian Press Stylebook to see what the editors said about the environment and found nothing. Absolutely nothing. There are chapters on business news, entertainment, sports, even travel, but nothing on environmental coverage.

A very quick check with copy editor friends seems to have come up with same result across the media. Media stylebooks don’t consider the environment important enough to have a full chapter. (I may have missed some of course, the check was very quick) yet environmental stories are in the news every day.

The Associated Press was founded in 1848, in part so the New York newspapers could cooperate in getting the latest business news from Europe, first from ships and then from the transAtlantic cable. So business news has been essential to the media for at least a century and a half. This, I believe, has created this historical, and probably unintentional, institutional bias that favours word usage preferred by business. If media style books had environment chapters then the question of oil sands/tar sands would have been considered more thoroughly and the “neutrality” of “oil sands” questioned.

Who knows what other environmental issues have been considered only superficially because stylebooks don’t have a chapter on the environment?

Reporters in the field are often left angry and frustrated by rulings from public editors and ombudspersons who may, despite their efforts, err on the side of “neutrality” rather than “accuracy” especially in this era of extreme polarization.

Media managers often take the path of least resistance, especially if they are being inundated with complaining e-mails and letters.

A stylebook chapter on the environment should stress accuracy over neutrality. Thus it serves the public.

A rigorous chapter in a media style book on the environment (and also on science which is also lacking) would give guidance to reporters in the field, editors at the desk and allow managers to tell the complainers with agendas just how the issue has been examined.

This site has always used bitumen to describe what will be in the Northern Gateway Pipeline. From now on it will use bitumen sands in copy, and will use tar sands and oil sands in direct quotes as appropriate. I hope the rest of the media will follow.

Disclosure: I worked for CBC.ca from 1996 until I took early retirement in 2010. I have also freelanced for both Canadian Press and OpenFile.

Glossary of terms used in Stantec environmental report (PDF excerpt from original file)

Wild salmon rivers should be considered ‘no-go zones’: Sun op ed

Environment Opinion Link

Wild salmon rivers should be considered ‘no-go zones’

Nikki Skuce a senior energy campaigner at ForestEthics and Karen Tam Wu a senior conservation campaigner at ForestEthics write in a Vancouver Sun opinion piece:

India has created “no-go zones” for coal mining. These areas are
forests and other ecosystems that have been set aside for protection
from coal mining.

When it comes to energy development in this province,
we should be looking at something similar.In the northwest of the
province, three major wild salmon rivers are born – the Skeena, Stikine
and Nass. These critical watersheds are known as the Sacred Headwaters.
The vast alpine landscape, territory of the Tahltan First Nation, is
also home to grizzly bears, caribou and moose. There are very few places
of its kind left in the world.

Natural Resources minister Joe Oliver continues to push Northern Gateway

Energy Links

Conservative Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is continuing to promote the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Oliver promoted both the Keystone XL pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to Texas and the Northern Gateway pipeline through Kitimat.

The Globe and Mail reports in New pipelines crucial to expand energy exports: Minister

Canada needs projects like Enbridge Inc. Northern Gateway pipeline to provide crucial access to growing markets for the country’s energy exports, says Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

In remarks prepared for a speech Friday in Toronto, the Minister said the federal government would respect the regulatory review now being conducted on the Gateway project. But he made it clear Ottawa supports the construction of oil pipelines to the west coast, despite opposition from environmental groups and First Nations…..

Projects such as the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline would connect Alberta’s oil sand to the port at Kitimat on the coast of British Columbia, where tankers could transport oil to Asian customers.”

While he said the government respects the regulatory process, he added: “It is a key strategic objective to diversify our customer base” beyond the U.S., which now accounts for 97 per cent of Canada’s oil exports.

The Associated Press also covered Oliver’s speech, as published in the Washington Post:

Canada’s natural resource minister says the country needs Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to the Pacific coast to be built so that it can diversify its energy exports to China.

Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver noted in a speech Friday that the U.S. is basically Canada’s only energy customer. Oliver says it is a key strategic objective to diversify the customer base.

But Aboriginal and environmental opposition to the Pacific pipeline is fierce. The opponents fear it will leak. The local member of Parliament, Nathan Cullen, has said accidents are inevitable in the rough waters around Kitimat, British Columbia, where the pipeline will end. And no one has forgotten the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, some 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) north of Kitimat….

Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan drawn up by the Alberta-based Enbridge to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast province of British Columbia.

Natural Resources Canada news release: Minister Oliver Touts Canada’s Energy Resources and Economic Strengths

Harper kills bitumen export ban, support for ocean monitoring group: reports

Energy Links

According to media reports, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has killed support for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Area Management Initiative (PNCIMA) set up to monitor the ocean on the northern BC coast, while at the same time killing a plan to ban export of bitumen to countries with poor environmental records.

The Calgary Herald, in Harper backs off from initiative that threatens opposition to Northern Gateway pipeline

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has withdrawn support from a deal with the B.C. government and First Nations due to concerns about excessive influence by U.S.-funded environmental groups in the development of an oceans management plan for the B.C. north coast….

There were specific concerns that a new plan being developed under the Pacific North Coast Integrated Area Management Initiative (PNCIMA) could be used to rally opposition to Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.’s proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that would funnel diluted bitumen crude from Alberta’s oilsands sector to Asian markets docking at Kitimat, B.C.

A letter dated Sept. 1, and sent to the B.C. government, three First Nations groups and the environmental organization Tides Canada, said Ottawa is withdrawing support for a proposed agreement that would have resulted in $8.3 million, from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation of Palo Alto, California, to fund the PNCIMA process.

The letter, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada regional director general Susan Farlinger, said the government still intends to come up with an oceans management plan by 2012 in co-operation with B.C. and First Nations.

The Vancouver Sun reports Conservatives’ promise to restrict bitumen exports falls by wayside

The Harper government has quietly buried a controversial promise to ban bitumen exports to countries that are environmental laggards…

One person familiar with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s surprise announcement during the 2008 federal election campaign said the pledge was simply electioneering at the time and was to be “buried and never seen again.”

Alberta’s energy minister also wonders whether the campaign promise is even a government policy any longer, noting the issue has never been discussed with him during his two years in the portfolio.

However, a spokeswoman for federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Wednesday the government policy — designed to halt the flow of raw bitumen and jobs overseas — remains in place but is being regularly examined.

Link Pacific North Coast Integrated Area Management Initiative

Editor’s note:A double standard?

On the issue of the PNCIMA, the controversy is over money for the organization from the foundation set up by the founder of Intel, Gordon Moore.

Moore is famous not only for starting the successful chip company but for Moore’s Law, which has governed the accelerating pace of technological change in the past decades and is described by Wikipedia in Moore’s original formulation: “The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. This trend has continued for more than half a century…” That simply means that computer processing power can be expected to double every two years.

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, according to the Herald, called for the money to be channeled through a group called Tides Canada.

Support for Canadian environmental efforts by American foundations has long been the subject of a heated campaign by blogger Vivian Krause who told the Herald, “I’m pleased that taxpayers’ money will no longer further a foreign-funded campaign that is against Canadian interests,” Krause said, adding that foundation money should go to the developing world.

Krause says she is an independent commentator. She once worked as Corporate Development Manager for North America for NUTRECO, one of the world’s largest producers of farmed salmon and fish feed but disassociates herself from current public relations campaigns by the fish farming industry. Her online biography says she spent some part of her childhood in Kitimat.

Krause is a favourite of many of the right wing columnists across the PostMedia newspaper chain.

While Krause may have some valid points, one wonders why for Krause and her supporters on the business pages across Canada, that it is perfectly acceptable for the billionaires in the transnational energy industry, many of them American, (as well as the state owned Chinese energy companies) to spend corporate millions supporting the oil sands and the pipelines, while is not acceptable for another American capitalist billionaire to spend his money earned in the free market to support his views on the preservation of the environment.

International backing for Northern Gateway pipeline grows: new Chinese investment, more Joint Review intervenors

Energy Northern Gateway Links

The Globe and Mail and Reuters are reporting that Enbridge has more Chinese support for the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project. One large Chinese group, China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (Sinopec), is already backing Enbridge’s efforts to build the Northern Gateway.

In Enbridge’s push to the Pacific wins support from China .

the Globe’s Nathan Vanderklippe says:

Sources have now told The Globe and Mail that the list of funders also includes MEG Energy Corp., which is partly owned by CNOOC Ltd., another Chinese state-owned energy company. Each funder gains the right to discounted shipping rates and an option to buy an equity stake at a later date…MEG spokesman Brad Bellows said the company is “not commenting on speculation.” But, he added, MEG is “interested in expanded market access, absolutely.”

On its website, MEG describes itself as “part of the next generation of oil sands development. We are an Alberta-based company that uses Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) technology to recover drillable (in situ) oil from the oil sands.”

Reuters reports

Enbridge declined to disclose any of the Northern Gateway partners. However, Gina Jordan, spokeswoman for the pipeline company, said they include a mix of oil sands producers and Asian refiners.

Several Chinese companies have invested in the oil sands over the past decade to tap what is currently ranked as the world’s third-largest crude deposit as a way to help fuel their booming economy at home.

Last week, Enbridge said it and would-be shippers had agreed on terms for moving oil on Northern Gateway… before regulatory hearings scheduled to start in January.

The Globe and Mail is also reporting that a growing list of international companies are filing as intervenors for the Joint Review Panel hearings slated for January.

Nearly two dozen companies have asked to be “intervenors” … including small Canadian companies, major multinationals like Exxon Mobil Corp. and foreign companies like South Korean conglomerate Daewoo International.

Companies typically intervene when they want to closely follow a project, are interested in using it – by sending crude through Gateway, for example – or have a financial interest in it.

[T]he project holds the promise of dramatically altering Canada’s energy geography, providing for the first time access to a major new – and growing – export market. That has made it an increasing object of global interest.

South Korean trading and construction firm Daewoo International, for example, is hopeful it can provide steel or engineering to the Gateway pipeline. That’s just one part of its Canadian strategy.