Uncategorized | Northwest Coast Energy News

Chevron takes over Kitimat LNG operations from Apache, EOG and Encana

Apache has a new partner in the Kitimat LNG project, Chevron Canada Ltd and, in effect, Chevron is taking over the project from Apache who has been unable to find customers for the liquified natural gas project in Asia.

A news release from Apache announced “a broad agreement with Chevron Canada Limited to build and operate the Kitimat LNG project.”

Chevron Canada and Apache Canada each will become a 50 per cent owner of the Kitimat LNG plant, the Pacific Trail Pipeline and 644,000 gross undeveloped acres in the Horn River and Liard basins. Chevron Canada will operate the LNG plant, which will be located on the northern British Columbia coast, and the pipeline. Apache will continue to develop shale gas resources at the Liard and Horn River basins in north eastern BC.

Encana and EOG Resources — currently 30 percent non-operating partners in Kitimat LNG and Pacific Trail Pipeline — will sell their interests to Chevron and exit the venture. As part of the transaction with Chevron, Apache will increase its ownership of the plant and pipeline to 50 percent from 40 percent.

G. Steven Farris, Apache’s chairman and chief executive officer said in the company news release, “This agreement is a milestone for two principal reasons: Chevron is the premier LNG developer in the world today with longstanding relationships in key Asian markets, and the new structure will enable Apache to unlock the tremendous potential at Liard, one of the most prolific shale gas basins in North America.” “With experience developing LNG projects, marketing expertise and financial wherewithal, Chevron is the preferred coventurer to join Kitimat LNG,” Farris said. “Apache has a proven record in finding and developing shale gas resources in Canada and is the logical operator for the upstream elements of the joint venture.”

In its news release, Chevron quoted vice chairman George Kirkland as saying: “The Kitimat LNG development is an attractive opportunity that is aligned with existing strategies and will drive additional long-term production growth and shareholder returns.”

“This investment grows our global LNG portfolio and builds upon our LNG construction, operations and marketing capabilities. It is ideally situated to meet rapidly growing demand for reliable, secure, and cleaner-burning fuels in Asia, which are projected to approximately double from current levels by 2025.”

The two-train (stage) Kitimat LNG Project is still working through the Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) phase. Construction has continued at the Bish Cove site throughout the summer but has slowed down to the uncertainty over the future of the project and some environmental problems.

Current plans call for two liquefaction trains, each with expected capacity of 5 million tons of LNG per annum (about 750 million cubic feet of gas per day). Kitimat has received all significant environmental approvals and a 20-year export license from the Canadian federal government.

The 290-mile (463-km) Pacific Trail Pipeline is planned to provide a direct connection between the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline system and the Kitimat LNG terminal.

While the Apache release says: “The project has strong support from many of the First Nations along the route,” there is no support at this moment from the Wet’suwet’en, in the area from Burns Lake through Smithers to the mountains, because some houses are strongly opposed to the pipeline on their traditional territory.

In the Apache news release, Farris says: “”We want to thank and acknowledge EOG and Encana for their contribution to the development of the Kitimat project. We appreciate the hard work of many employees and contractors to advance the project to this stage and the strong support the plant and pipeline projects have received from local communities, provincial and federal officials and the Haisla and other First Nations.

“Construction of the plant and pipeline will have a significant economic impact, and the operational phase will provide opportunities for employment as well as royalties and tax revenues for the Federal, Provincial and local governments for many years,” he said. “Chevron and Apache will continue to develop this project in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.”

As the news releases point out Chevron is a major player in Australia’s LNG projects, considered by many to be Canada’s rival in finding market for natural gas in Asia. Chevron is the operator and led marketing efforts at Wheatstone, a two-train plant with capacity of 8.9 million tons of LNG a year that is expected to commence operations in 2016. Chevron also operates the Gorgon LNG project in Australia and LNG Angola.

Much of the media attention is also on the deal for the natural resources northeastern BC, with, Chevron Canada acquiring approximately 110,000 net acres in the established Horn River Basin from Encana, EOG and Apache, and approximately 212,000 net acres in the Liard Basin from Apache. Chevron Canada Limited and Apache will each hold a 50 percent interest and Apache will operate these two natural gas resource developments.

In its news release, Encana concentrates on the natural gas deal, quoting Randy Eresman, Encana’s President & CEO, “This investment by Chevron, a multinational LNG player, represents a key step in the development of LNG export from Western Canada. Our main goal since we first acquired an interest in Kitimat LNG almost two years ago was to help ensure the progression of this project towards its development. While we are no longer a direct participant in this project, we continue to support LNG export as vital to diversifying markets for North American natural gas.”

The company goes on to say that: “The sale of Encana’s interest in the proposed Kitimat LNG export facility is consistent with the company choosing to focus on its core business. In addition, this transaction reduces Encana’s future capital commitments. The proceeds from this transaction will help to strengthen the balance sheet and provide further financial flexibility to fund capital programs and develop key and emerging resource plays.”

The Financial Post points out that “the Chevron deal leaves most of the LNG projects in the hands of foreign companies, which have competing interests in LNG projects across the world.” That means that the Haisla Nation, with its partnership with the BC LNG project, is one of the few Canadian players left in the LNG scramble.

Kitimat council endorses tax breaks for LNG facilities

The District of Kitimat Council Monday, Dec. 17, 2012, endorsed a campaign by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers asking for tax breaks of Liquified Natural Gas liquefaction facilities in the 2013 federal budget.

A report to the Kitimat council said that on November 23, the mayors of Kitimat and Prince Rupert, sites for proposed LNG terminals, and the mayors of Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, where the shale gas deposits are found, held a video conference call with CAPP to discuss the new tax proposals.

CAPP is asking that the federal government to change the classification of LNG liquefaction facilities under tax law so that they are equivalent of manufacturing facilities. Currently LNG liquefaction are can claim depreciation at eight per cent, while manufacturing and processing facilities can claim depreciation at 30 per cent.

The report to Kitimat council from chief administrative officer, Ron Poole, said “This change will increase Canada’s competitiveness for global market access and support significant economic growth.”

A report written by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers attached for council argues that by turning natural gas into its cold, liquefaction form, it is actually being manufactured. CAPP quotes tax law as saying:

manufacture of goods normally involves creation of something…processing of goods usually refers to a technique of preparation, handling or other activity designed to effect a physical or change in an article or substance.

CAPP goes on to argue:

The chemical composition of the natural gas is changed through treatment process and physical change occurs through the liquefaction process. The treatment processes include removing impurities such as acid gases and mercury, as well as dehydration and the removal of heavier hydrocarbons in order to facilitate the manufacturing process and to meet end market specifications.

CAPP goes on to argue that the current taxation levels put Canadian LNG facilities at a competitive disadvantage with potential competitors in the United States and Australia. It says that under the current tax treatment in Canada, an LNG liquefaction facility would take 27 years to depreciate. In the United States and Australia, LNG facilities are depreciated over 10 years. Changing to the Canadian manufacturing level would depreciate over seven years.

CAPP notes that there are currently six liquefaction plants under consideration by their respective corporate boards. It says that the tax change could hasten a positive decision by those companies, ensuring the projects go ahead because “Canada is a natural fit with its open-for-business attitude, stable political environment and commitment to responsible development.”

DFO study on ancient Douglas Channel tsunamis shows minimal impact on Kitimat, devastation at Hartley Bay

A follow up study by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the discovery of prehistoric slope failure tsunamis in Douglas Channel concludes that the events would have had minimal impact on Kitimat but would have destroyed Hartley Bay.

The studies were filed by DFO with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel on Friday, November 16, following an earlier study the Geological Survey of Canada that reported the discovery of the submarine slope failures. The filing comes just three weeks after the region was shaken by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake off Haida Gwaii and a subsequent coast-wide tsunami warning.

The DFO follow up study was aimed at better understanding the dynamics of tsunamis during the two slope failure events on the southern end of Hawkesbury Island during the mid-Holecene period, between 5,000 and10,000 years ago.

The wave dynamic model study does not address the discovery by the Geological Survey of Canada of a possible fault line along Hawkesbury Island which could have been the cause of the slope failures.

The study estimates that the wave amplitude of the first tsunami reaching the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway terminal site near Kitimat would have been about .09 to .12 metres. Since the actual wave height hitting land from a tsunami is one half of the amplitude, the height of tsunami waves reaching Kitimat at the time would have been about 60 centimetres or 23 inches. At Hartley Bay, on the other hand, the maximum estimated wave amplitude from the second tsunami would have been 15 metres, meaning a wave height of 7.5 metres or about 25 feet.

The main reason for the difference is that both the submarine slope failures occurred south of the dogleg in Douglas Channel at Gertrude Point. That meant the configuration of the channel from Gertrude Point up to Kitimat would lessen the amplitude whereas because Hartley Bay was so close, it would be hit by a higher amplitude. The report says that because of their relatively short wavelengths, the tsunami waves undergo multiple reflections that the “high degree of scattering from the complex shoreline and bottom topography in Douglas Channel” would “combined with the flux of tsunami energy through adjoining waterways and channels” have caused a rapid decrease in the energy of the waves with distance south and north of the slide area.

The study also points out a crucial difference between the ancient slides and the two that occurred near Kitimat in 1974 and 1975, while the land near the head of the Kitimat arm were largely composed of material laid down by the glaciers, the large slope failures on Hawkesbury Island were blocks of an extremely hard igneous rock called diorite. Each of the prehistoric slides would have consisted of about 65 million cubic metres of rock.

The DFO report says

Coastal British Columbia is an area of steep slopes, extreme seasonal variations in soil moisture, large tidal ranges, and the highest seismicity in Canada. Hazards of this form have been well documented for the coastal region of British Columbia, and other fjord regions of the world’s oceans, including Alaska and Norway. These factors increase the potential for both submarine and subaerial slope failures in the region. Such events generally take place in relatively shallow and confined inner coastal waterways, and can present hazards in terms of tsunami wave generation.

The two prehistoric submarine slides are located about 10 kilometres apart on the
slope of southern Douglas Channel, near the southern end of Hawkesbury Island

The report says:

The failures are defined by scallop-shaped hollows located along the edge of the fiord wall and appear to be associated with detached blocks that extend out several hundred metres into the channel. The two block slides identified in Douglas Channel are characteristic of rigid-body submarine landslides, which differ considerably from the well-documented viscous submarine landslides with a lower specific gravity (density relative to water) of about 1.5 that occurred to the north of Douglas Channel along the inner slope of Kitimat Arm in 1974 and 1975.

The report’s modelling is “considered minimum values” because the do not include debris that would have spread into the fiord after initial slide. That debris is now buried by a thick layer of post-slide sediment.

The reconstruction model shows that the head of the more northern slide began at a depth of around 60 to 100 metre, while that of the more southern slide began at a depth of 75 to 120 metres.

The slides would have moved down slope at about 25 metres per second, coming to rest after about 30 seconds, 250 to 350 metres from the slope at a depth of 400 metres.

The northern slide, called by the scientists Slide A:

would have generated extremely large waves in the immediate vicinity of the failure
region within a minute of the submarine landslide. Waves in the numerical simulations reach amplitudes of 30 to 40 metres at the coast near the slide area

Submarine landslides cause delays between the arrival of the first waves and the arrival of subsequent higher waves, increasing in distance from the slide, because of “reflections and non-linear interaction” along the shoreline. For Slide A, the maximum wave amplitudes at Hartley Bay would have been six metres (meaning three metre waves) “Large amplitude waves with typical periods of around 50 seconds would continue for several tens of minutes.”

The leading tsunami waves generated by Slide A reach Kitimat Arm in roughly 20 min and have small amplitudes of only a few centimetres. Although later waves have higher amplitudes, the maximum wave amplitudes (which occur 50-55 minnutes after the failure event) are still only around 0.09 to 0.12 metres.

The southern slide on Hawkesbury, called Slide B by the scientists, would have moved 400 metres before stopping. It stared at a greater depth than Slide A, with not as much vertical displacement than Slide A. That means Slide B was slower than Slide A.

Slide B:

would have generated large waves in the vicinity of the failure region. Simulated waves reach the coast adjacent to the slide region within a minute of the failure event, with wave amplitudes of up to 10 metres. The waves also hit the opposite site of the channel within a minute of the failure event and then take an additional minute to reach Hartley Bay where waves reach amplitudes of 15 metres/ Powerful oscillations in the bay last for tens of minutes.
Waves with high amplitudes (more than 2 metres) also occur in the southern part of Douglas Channel, and in certain locations of Verney Passage.

According to the models, the leading tsunami waves would have reached the Kitimat Arm 22 minutes after the start of the slide. The maximum waves would have had amplitudes of 0.08 metres to 0.3 metres (6 inches), reach the Kitimat Arm 45 to 60 minutes after the start of the failure event.

The the tsunami waves generated by Slide B that impact Kitimat Arm, although still of low amplitude, were somewhat higher than those generated by Slide A, despite the fact that Slide B was located further to the south and generated less energetic waves in the source region than Slide A.

This seeming paradox is explained by the slower motion of Slide B, which causes it to generate more wave energy in the low frequency band…Due to their reduced scattering and reflection, the relatively long and lower frequency waves generated by Slide B propagate more readily through the complex fjord system than the relatively short and higher frequency waves generated by Slide A.

Specifically addressing the proposed site of the Enbridge bitumen terminal, as well as potential tanker traffic in Douglas Channel, the detailed explanation of the modelling accompanying the DFO report says:

If similar submarine slides were to occur again somewhere in the same general area, they could present a significant risk to navigation and to nearby shore installations and coastal communities….

As with the tsunami generation regions, the highest waves and strongest currents in any particular region of the coastal waterway would occur near the shoreline. Based on the numerical findings, tsunamis generated by submarine landslides of the form identified for the southern end of Douglas Channel would have heights and currents that could have major impacts on the coastline and vessel traffic at the time of the event throughout much of Douglas Channel, but a minor impact on water levels, currents and hence vessel traffic in Kitimat Arm. Hartley Bay, at the southern end of Douglas Channel, would be impacted by high waves and strong currents, whereas Kitimat, at the northern end of Kitimat Arm, would experience negligible wave effects. Additional modelling would be required to assess the characteristics of possible tsunamis originating beyond the area of the two identified slope failures.

At the estimated propagation speeds of about 65 metres per second, the detailed model says it takes roughly 10 to 15 minutes for the simulated waves to propagate approximately 40 to 45 kilometres to the intersection of Douglas Channel and Kitimat Arm, where peak wave amplitudes would be diminished to less than one metre. It takes another 15 minutes for the waves to reach sites near the proposed Enbridge facilities in Kitimat Arm where wave amplitudes would be reduced to a few tens of centimetres and associated currents to speeds less than a few tens of centimetres per second.

Slide tsunami area map — Slide tsunami area study map (DFO)

Fisheries and Oceans-Modelling Tsunamis Associated with Recently Identified Slope Failures in Douglas Channel (pdf)

Numerical data for DFO tsunami study (link to JRP)

Northern Gateway JRP increases time for maritime hearings in Prince Rupert

The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel has released an updated schedule for the “Questioning Hearings” in Prince Rupert,which will cover maritime issues and for the public comment sessions in Vancouver, Victoria and Kelowna.

The comment hearings in Victoria will take place from January 3 to January 12, 2013, in Vancouver from January 14 to January 18 and January 30 to February 1, with a hearing in Kelowna on January 28.

The questioning hearings in Prince Rupert have been expanded due to demand, according to the JRP, opening on February 4, 2013, going to February 9, then from February 18 to 23, February 25 to March 5; March 11 to March 16; March 18 to March 22; April 2 to April 6; April 8 to April 12; April 22 to April 27; April 29 to May 3; May 13 to May 18.

Final arguments will begin on May 20 and continue to late June. The Joint Review Panel has not yet announced the location for final arguments. The JRP refused to hold the questioning hearings in Kitimat, but some supporters of hearings in the larger locations did support that the idea that the final arguments be held, at least in part, in Kitimat. The final arguments just be completed by June 29, according to the JRP.

The JRP will begin its deliberations in July with the final report due on December 29, 2013.

Panel Commission Updated Hearing Schedule for 2013 (pdf)

New Joint Review Panel possible for Coastal GasLink pipeline project to Kitimat

The federal Environment Assessment Agency is asking northwestern British Columbia to comment on whether or not a federal assessment is needed for the TransCanada Coastal GasLink pipeline project that would feed natural gas to the proposed Shell facility in Kitimat.

In a news release from Ottawa, the CEAA said:

As part of the strengthened and modernized Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) put in place to support the government’s responsible resource development initiative, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency must determine whether a federal environmental assessment is required pursuant to the CEAA 2012 for the proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project in British Columbia (B.C.). To assist it in making its decision, the Agency is seeking comments from the public on the project and its potential effects on the environment.

Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. is proposing the construction and operation of an approximately 650-km pipeline to deliver natural gas from the area near the community of Groundbirch, B.C. (40 km west of Dawson Creek) to a proposed liquefied natural gas facility near Kitimat, B.C. The project will initially have the capacity to flow approximately 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and could deliver up to approximately 5.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas after further expansion.

Written comments must be submitted by December 3, 2012.

Like the current Enbridge Northern Gateway project Joint Review Panel and the National Energy Board hearings in June 2011 on the Kitimat LNG project all comments received will be considered public.

The CEAA says after it has received the comments whether or not there should be an assessmet, it will post a decision on its website stating whether a federal environmental assessment is required.

The CEAA goes on to say:

If it is determined that a federal environmental assessment is required, the public will have three more opportunities to comment on this project, consistent with the transparency and public engagement elements of CEAA 2012.

Projects subject to CEAA 2012 are assessed using a science-based approach. If the project is permitted to proceed to the next phase, it will continue to be subject to Canada’s strong environmental laws, rigorous enforcement and follow-up, and increased fines.

If there is a federal assessment, the most likely course would be to create a new Joint Review Panel. However, this will not be a JRP with the National Energy Board, because the Coastal GasLink project does not cross a provincial boundary, thus it would not make it subject to scrutiny by the NEB.

Instead, if current practice is followed (and that is uncertain given the evolving role of the Harper government in environmental decisions) the new JRP would be in partnership with the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission, which has jurisdiction over energy projects that are entirely within the province of BC.

However. Shell will have to apply to the NEB for an export licence for the natural gas as both the KM LNG and BC LNG projects did last year. That could result in parallel hearings, one for the export licence, and a second on the environmental issues, which, of course, is the direct opposite of what the Harper government intended when it said it would speed up the reviews with its “one project, one review” policy.

Confusion at Alberta Jackpine JRP

At present, there is a CAEE-Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board Joint Review Process underway in northern Alberta for the controversial Shell Canada Jackpine project. Shell has proposed expanding the Jackpine Mine about 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray on the east side of the Athabasca River. The expansion project would increase bitumen production by 100,000 barrels per day, bringing production at the mine to 300,000 barrels per day.

The Jackpine Joint Review Panel is the first to held under the new rules from Bill C-38 that limit environmental assessment.

The lead up to the Alberta Jackpine Joint Review Panel hearings was mired in confusion, partly because of the restrictions imposed by the Harper government in Bill C-38 which limited the scope of environmental assessments.

The local Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation is opposed to the project and, in October, argued that it should be allowed to issue a legal challenge against Shell’s proposed expansion of the Jackpine project.

According to initial media reports in The Financial Post, the Joint Review Panel excluded First Nations further downstream from the Jackpine project ruling and individual members of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation that they were not “interested parties.” The Post cited rules on who can participate were tightened up when the Harper government changed the criterion for environmental assessment under Bill C-38. The Financial Post reported a French-owned oil company was permitted to participate.

On October 26, the Jackpine JRP ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to consider questions of constitutional law, but told the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Alberta Metis that it would “consider the evidence and argument relating to the potential effects of the project brought forward by Aboriginal groups and individuals during the course of the hearing.”

A few days after the Financial Post report, Gary Perkins, counsel for the Jackpine Joint Review Panel released a letter to participants including Bill Erasmus, Dene National chief and Assembly of First Nations regional chief, who said he was denied standing. There appears to have been confusion over how people could register as intervenors for the Jackpine hearings, since according to the Perkins letter they apparently did so on a company website that no relation to the Jackpine JRP. Perkins also attempted to clarify its constitutional role with First Nations, saying it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether or not the Crown was consulting properly. (PDF copy below)

The Perkins letter also said that the Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McMurray First Nation #468, the Athabasca Cree First Nation, Fort McKay Metis Community Association and the Metis Association of Alberta Region 1 plus some individual members of First Nations are allowed to participate in the hearings.

Controversy continued as the hearings opened, as reported in Fort McMurray Today, that there was poor consultation between Shell and the local First Nations and Metis communities.

On November 8, ACFN spokesperson Eriel Deranger and Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam said the project was a threat to the traditional life of Alberta First Nations: “Our land … have shrunk and continue to shrink because of the development,” Adam told the newspaper.

Hot potato for the District of Kitimat

The arcane rules of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel has caused months of confusion and frustration for many of those who participated, whether they from the BC provincial Department of Justice or other government participants, intervenors or those making ten minute comments.

Although most people in northwestern British Columbia support the liquified natural gas projects, the prospect of a new Joint Review Panel could likely quickly become controversial in this region. A Coastal GasLink JRP will be the first real test of the restrictions on environmental review imposed on Canada by the Harper government. Environmental groups, especially the few groups that oppose any pipeline projects, will be wary of precedents and likely to test the limits from Bill C-38. Both environmental groups and First Nations will be on alert for any limitations on who can participate in a review. First Nations, even if they support the LNG projects, as most do, will be wary of any attempt by the federal government to limit consultation, rights and title.

A Coastal Gaslink JRP will be a big hot potato for District of Kitimat Council, which has taken a controversial strictly neutral position on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project until after that Joint Review Panel reports sometime in 2014. Can the District Council now take a positive position on a natural gas pipeline, which from all appearances council supports, long before a Coastal GasLink JRP report (if there is a panel) without facing charges of hypocrisy?

The northwest is in for interesting times.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Page for Coastal GasLink Project

CEAA Coastal GasLink project description (pdf)

Letter about participation in the Jackpine JRP

Rio Tinto Alcan reopens access to Kitimat waterfront

Rio Tinto Alcan has reopened Hospital Beach, the nearby boat ramp and Moore Creek and the Moore Creek falls for public use.

RTA took out an ad in a local newspaper Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2012, to make the announcement which came after a meeting members of the District of Kitimat Council on Oct. 4.

The RTA statement reads, in part:

Both Rio Tinto Alcan and the District of Kitimat understand the value and importance of ocean access to residents of the area while at the same time, continuing to respect and ensure that safety is the number one priority.

Over the last few months, while hearing the disappointment and concern about Hospital Beach, the KMP [Kitimat Modernization Project] Construction Team took action to mitigate the public safety risk. The massive rock trucks hauling heavy loads will be re-routed; a new bridge over Anderson Creek has been installed; new traffic lights will be installed near the Construction Village; and an extra construction road has been built from the former Eurocan Haul Road. All these measures have enabled the decision to accommodate the wishes of the community to access Hospital Beach, the boat ramp and Moore Creek safely.

It is important to remind residents however, Rio Tinto Alcan is in the middle of constructing a mega project to modernize and sustain the aluminium smelter business in Kitimat for the benefit of us all. This is the highest priority with many demands and intense focus. To that end, Rio Tinto Alcan will continue to assess traffic patterns and will likely need to make short term closures again as construction dictates. It is imperative that residents respect the company’s right to manage activities on its private property as it deems in the best interest of its business, including the KMP and public safety.

Rio Tinto Alcan and the District of Kitimat have committed together to work toward finding long term solution to ocean access. Thank you all for your patience, support and cooperation.

As the members of District council were meeting in Kitimat, in Prince Rupert, the Northern View reported that CN was cutting off access to part of the town’s waterfront, again for safety issues: CN erects barriers, no trespassing signs along Prince Rupert waterfront

Prince Rupert residents wanting to walk along the road adjoining the ocean past Rotary Waterfront Park will notice new barriers and signs alerting them that they would be trespassing should they do so.
The barricades and signs were put up yesterday, and CN regional manager of public affairs Emily Hamer says it is due to safety concerns with the public on the railway’s property.

Prince Rupert acting mayor Anna Ashley told the Northern View the city expected some restrictions during construction and said the city planned to talk to CN about the issue.

In an e-mail to Northwest Coast Energy News after the October 4 meetingm Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan, while hinting then that a solution to the restrictions was coming, said that industry has been faced with so many lawsuits that safety is becoming a bigger issue.

Councillor Corinne Scott also said that the meeting with RTA stressed that “Large businesses are putting safety as a higher priority.” (She also noted that council agreed to have regular meetings with RTA “.communication lines are open and we look forward to a continued good working relationship between the District of Kitimat and RTA. “)

In both cases, it appears that waterfront access is a legacy issue, left over from an earlier era of industrial development that gave little thought to either the environment or community.
Now it is also apparent that liability lawyers, who probably live thousands of kilometres away from the northwest, have, so far, been driving this issue, with little regard for the needs of local residents.

Make no mistake, safety should be a high priority, but arbitrary restrictions that may look good on legal brief, could actually mean that people would simply try to get around the restrictions, to the determent of safety. It is well known that RTA Plant Protection was finding people at Hospital Beach during the summer, especially at night, despite the publicized restrictions, barriers and warning signs.

Today with a strong need for jobs in northwestern British Columbia, future community needs for access to waterfront and green space (even in such a wide green area as northern BC) must be taken into consideration in municipal and corporate planning. If that planning isn’t done, that will mean that while there could be jobs, the northwest could be in a situation as it was this summer, with no way to enjoy the advantages of waterfront life in northern BC.

Avian malaria found in Alaskan birds, another indication of climate change

A form of malaria that infects birds has been found in parts of Alaska, and scientists say the discovery is another indication of climate change in the north.

The spread could prove devastating to arctic bird species that have never encountered the disease and thus have no resistance to it, said San Francisco State University Associate Professor of Biology Ravinder Sehgal, one of the study’s co-authors. The study was published Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012 in the journal PloS One.

The avian malaria parasite is related to the human form and so the bird study could help scientists track how climate change is affecting human malaria.

Researchers examined blood samples from both resident and migratory birds collected at four sites from 61°N to 67°N, with Anchorage as a southern point, Denali and Fairbanks as middle points. Coldfoot was the northern point, roughly 960 kilometres north of Anchorage. They found infected birds in Anchorage and Fairbanks as far north as 64°N, but not in Coldfoot

In migratory birds, samples were taken from both adults and hatchlings to see if the infection had occurred locally or during migration.

The study notes that the infected birds at 64°N were above the Arctic Circle commonly known to people across the region as “north of 60”)

Using satellite imagery and other data, researchers were able to predict how environments will change due to global warming — and where malaria parasites will be able to survive in the future. They found that by 2080, the disease will have spread north to Coldfoot and beyond.

“Right now, there’s no avian malaria above latitude 64 degrees, but in the future, with global warming, that will certainly change,” Sehgal said. The northerly spread is alarming, he added, because there are species in the North American arctic that have never been exposed to the disease and may be highly susceptible to it.

“For example, penguins in zoos die when they get malaria, because far southern birds have not been exposed to malaria and thus have not developed any resistance to it,” he said. “There are birds in the north, such as snowy owls or gyrfalcons, that could experience the same thing.”

Researchers are still unsure how the disease is being spread in Alaska and are currently collecting additional data to determine which mosquito species are transmitting the Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria.

The data may also indicate if and how malaria in humans will spread northward.

Modern medicine makes it difficult to track the natural spread of the disease, Sehgal said, but monitoring birds may provide clues as to how global climate change may effect the spread of human malaria.

The study is the fact that the malaria parasites were able to complete their transmission cycle in the North American Arctic” provides “empirical evidence that local hosts in the north of Alaska may be exposed to new parasites with impending global warming,” especially if there is increased variation of both day/night and season temperature changes. Rainfall is also a factor.

Both Anchorage and Fairbanks are likely to have suitable conditions for the avian malaria parasite “completion, other areas with high annual precipitation but mild precipitation and temperature seasonality would be predicted to also be suitable” for the parasite.

One form of the avian malaria parasite has been previously in four bird species: the Common Rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus) in South Korea, the Greater Scaup (Aythya marila), the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) and the Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) in the United States, and in six migratory species, meaning that form can tolerate cold temperatures.

The book Birds of British Columbia says the Greater Scaup is a common migrant on the BC coast and may winter in BC, and an abundant migrant in the BC interior in both spring and fall, and often winters in the Okanagan. The Pacific Golden Plover is rare in BC, because its migration route takes it toward the east coast. It is usually spotted in the Peace River region but has been seen occasionally near Massett and Boundary Bay. The Common Yellowthroat can be found through the BC mainland in the summer but is rare on Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii.

A study in New Brunswick has shown that one form of mosquito that tolerates cold infects birds in that province. Although that mosquito is “rare” in Alaska, a close relative is common in the state and although the scientists were unable to find the source of the infection, that Alaskan mosquito could be a prime suspect.

US calls for study that could relax double-hulled oil tanker regulations, citing costs to build, energy consumption

The United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration has issued a call for a study that is calling into question the future of double-hulled oil tankers.

On August 6, 2012 the Maritime Administration, also known as MARAD, issued a “solicitation” for a study on the Safety, Economic and, Environmental Issues of Double Hulls.

In the call for the study, MARAD says:

Following the Exxon Valdez disaster, the passing of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) led to the requirement to replace single hull petroleum tankers with double hull tank vessels sailing in U.S. waters. This requirement was soon adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and became a worldwide regulation. This means that, today, tank vessels worldwide are carrying thousands of extra tons of steel in order to meet the double hull requirements.

Though these double hulls reduce the threat of oil pollution as a result of grounding, they significantly increase the amount of energy needed to propel a vessel and increase the amount of air pollution into the atmosphere. As a result, the maritime industry’s carbon footprint and criteria pollutant emissions are increased.
In addition to the need to burn more fuel, it is acknowledged that double hulls can cause several other problems which will be detailed in this study.

Here in Canada, Enbridge Northern Gateway and its supporters, in briefings on maritime and tanker safety on the west coast of British Columbia, have always said that the changes following the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound and the subsequent US Oil Pollution Act as almost guaranteeing that such a disaster could not happen again.

Now it appears that some people in the U.S. Department of Transportation may be worried that increased use of double-hulled tankers will cost too much. There’s also the apparent question of balancing the carbon footprint of increased emissions from tankers with the danger from a hydrocarbon spill.

The request for the study was covered by tanker industry sites such as Marine Link but only surfaced in major media on Sunday, when The National, an English-language newspaper in Abu Dhabi broke the story, “US maritime agency considers overhaul of oil-spill regulation”

Reporter David Black notes:

In July last year, the IMO adopted binding regulations to limit the expected gas emissions increase by reducing fuel consumption of ships by as much as 15 million tonnes in 2020, a 14 per cent reduction, and by 2050, by as much as 1,013 million tonnes. This will lead to savings in fuel costs for the shipping industry of up to US$200 billion a year, says the IMO.

Black says that the US agency seems “to suggest by abandoning the additional weight of double hulls the savings would increase and pollution be cut further, adding “On the other hand, since the introduction of double hulls, pollution from major oil spills has been reduced to practically zero.”

The National story says even the tanker industry itself is worried about the move, quoting the the international tanker owners’ organization.

“We have noted reports about Marad’s intended study on tanker double hulls but, except for what we gather from press articles, we have little knowledge on the reasoning behind this,” said Bill Box, Intertanko’s senior manager for external relations.
“From our members’ experience, double-hull designs have evolved into safe and reliable ships with an excellent safety and pollution prevention record. We might provide comments when such a study would be released by Marad.”

The requirements for the double-hull study, as posted by the US government are:

1. The Contractor shall conduct an assessment of the history in the evolvement of “The Double Hull Rules”.

2. The Contractor shall conduct the assessment of any rules that are being proposed in bodies such as the IMO, U.S. Congress and other such bodies’ worldwide as they relate to additional hulls for environmental reasons.

3. The Contractor shall assess all the relevant safety issues related to double hulls for each class of vessel. E.g. Double bottoms are difficult and expensive to maintain and can result in corrosion problems. Unchecked corrosion in older double hull vessels can lead to cargo leakage into a double bottom and the buildup of dangerous vapor which could cause an explosion under certain conditions. The Contractor will obtain data from appropriate organizations which details the issues in double bottoms on older vessels including cracking, leakage, and the potential for vapor buildup.

4. The contractor shall conduct a complete economic study of the consequences of Double Hulls. E.g. they significantly add to the construction cost of vessels. They result in the loss of cargo space which also adds to the carbon footprint since an additional vessel(s) is needed to carry the same cargo tonnage.

5. The contractor shall assess the complete consequences of the carbon footprint of designing, constructing, maintaining and operating vessels with double hulls. E.g. Apart from the extra propulsive forces and fuel needed, the carbon footprint of double hull maintenance is substantially increased.

6. The Contractor shall prepare a report on the results of the project. The report shall be grammatically correct and must be professionally written to a high level of competence in the English language. The report must clearly specify the safety, economic and environmental issues details above.