Northwest Coast News | Northwest Coast Energy News

How Kitimat harbour will look if both Northern Gateway and KM LNG go ahead

Detail of a map filed by Enbridge Northern Gateway with the Joint Review Panel showing the foot print of the proposed bitumen terminal and the LNG terminal. The proposed BC LNG terminal would add a third terminal at North Cove (green text on this map)

A recent filing by the Enbridge Northern Gateway project with the Joint Review Panel shows just what Kitimat harbour and the service area will look like if the liquified natural gas projects go ahead and so does the Northern Gateway.

Three maps show areas where the two pipelines follow the same routes and where they diverge beginning just east of the service centre. (Larger versions of maps pop up if you click your mouse)

In this map, the Enbridge pipeline is yellow with a black outline, the LNG pipeline is red. Where there are yellow and red alternating squares, that means the two pipelines will follow the same route. Solid orange lines are paved roads,broken orange lines are unpaved roads and the green lines are power lines.

Just before the pipelines reach the service centre, they diverge, the yellow Enbridge pipeline following the road route around the periphery of the service centre, while the gas pipeline at first follows the route of the Pacific Trails Pipeline and then snakes off at the hydro substation. The two pipelines then run parallel just off Haisla Boulevard across from the Rio Tinto Alcan plant. The green line beside the two pipelines marks a hydro line that would be build to power the facilities.

The final map shows the Enbridge pipeline coming into the bitumen/condensate terminal with its large footprint, while the natural gas pipeline continues, crosses Bish Creek and then enters the Bish Cove KM LNG terminal. If the BC LNG terminal is built at North Cove, just west of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway facility, a branch pipeline would go from the main gas pipeline down to that facility. (There were indications at the June NEB hearings that negotiations were under way on “sharing” gas “molecules” between the two groups).

Footprint of the Enbridge Northern Gateway plant.

Enbridge photo maps showing Northern Gateway and LNG routes in pdf format

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 appears to endorse Northern Gateway in TV interview

Energy Politics

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper strongly endorsed the bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Texas, the controversial Keystone XL project and then went on to apparently push for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project by saying “there is all the more reason why Canada should look at trade diversification and particularly diversification of energy exports.”

In the interview with the business news service Harper said U.S. approval of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline is a

“no-brainer” because it will create jobs and add to America’s secure energy reserves.

“The need for energy in the U.S. is enormous, the alternatives for the U.S. are not good, on every level,”

Harper said he’s “confident” the pipeline will be built.

Keystone would link Canada’s oil sands to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast. The 2,673-kilometer pipeline would begin in Hardisty, Alberta, and cross Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.

The alternatives for the United States are not good. And, you know, on every level, not just economic (but) political, social, even environmental, the case is very strong for this…”The fact that there are these kinds of pressures to, you know, to potentially take decisions which would, in my judgment . . . to avoid a decision would be a complete no-brainer.”

Shawn McCarty of The Globe and Mail interprets Harper’s statement this way:

the federal government has broadly endorsed the oil industry’s efforts to build new pipelines to the West Coast to open up new markets in Asia.

The National Energy Board is reviewing plans for a natural gas pipeline to Kitimat, B.C., and a plant to liquefy the gas so it can be exported via tanker.

The NEB and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency are holding a joint review of Enbridge Inc.’s more controversial Northern Gateway oil pipeline to the coast. The Gateway project is opposed by environmental groups and first nations, whose traditional lands would be affected.

Harper has now added his voice to cabinet ministers Joe Oliver and James Moore in pushing for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which once again raises the question, why have the Joint Review Panel since it appears the decision to go ahead has already been made?

Related Link Vancouver Sun U.S. approval of Keystone a ‘no-brainer’: Harper

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.

Salmons’ extra large guts are a survival tactic

Image via Wikipedia

Environment Fishery Science

Salmon have extra large guts–up to three times larger than its body would suggest–that help it survive, scientists at the University of Washington say.

The study “Excess digestive capacity in predators reflects a life of feast and famine” is published in Nature.

A news release from the university calls the large gut a “previously unrecognized survival tactic.” Although fishers who gut a salmon may say that no one noticed how big the gut actually was as they threw it away, the same apparently applied to scientists as the article states: “Despite …basic principle of quantitative evolutionary design, estimates of digestive load capacity ratios in wild animals are virtually non-existent.”

The study is by PhD student Jonathan “Jonny” Armstrong, originally from Ashland, Ore, who says he has been fascinated by salmon ever since he saw a Chinook leap out of the water when he was ten.

The study says that when the “foraging opportunities for animals are unpredictable, which should favour animals that maintain a capacity for food-processing that exceeds average levels of consumption (loads), The study that piscine [fish] predators typically maintain the physiological capacity to feed at daily rates two to three times higher than what they experience on average…”

“This much excess capacity suggests predator-prey encounters are far patchier – or random – than assumed in biology and that binge-feeding enables predators to survive despite regular periods of famine,” Armstrong said. Co-author and supervisor on the paper is Daniel Schindler, University of Washington professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.

“Guts are really expensive organs in terms of metabolism,” Armstrong said. For instance, maintaining a gut can require 30 to 40 per cent of the blood pumped by an animal’s heart.

Some animals have some capacity to grow or shrink their guts in response to changing conditions. For example, according to previous studies, the digestive organs of birds that are about to migrate expand so they can eat more and fatten up. This is followed by a period when their guts atrophy and then, freed of the baggage of heavy guts, the birds take off. But this study shows that many fish species maintain a huge gut, which enables them to capitalize on unpredictable pulses of food.

Ravens and crows, for example, are known to cache food far from where they find it. Fish can’t do that. “Unlike some other animals, fish can’t just hoard their food behind a rock in the stream and eat it later. They need to binge during the good times so that they can grow and build energy reserves to survive the bad times,” Armstrong says.

Armstrong is part of the university’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences which has a field site at the Alaska Salmon Program’s Lake Aleknagik. Using a dry suit, Armstrong snorkeled the Aleknagik tributaries, swimming in waters as low as 5°C where he found out the Aleknagik streams exhibited tremendous variation in water temperature, which inspired him to study how those temperatures affected the ecology of the streams.

In his initial studies, he looked at the effect of water temperature on juvenile coho’s ability to consume sockeye eggs. He says, “In cold streams, juvenile coho salmon were too small to fit the abundant sockeye eggs in their mouths. In warmer streams, the coho grew large enough to consume eggs, gorged themselves, and achieved rapid growth, and this suggested that small changes in temperature can have disproportionate affects on coho salmon production.”

The “previously unrecognized survival tactic” might apply to other top predators, such as wolves, lions and bears, Armstrong says.

Kitimat takes halibut fight to BC municipal convention

Environment Fishery

District of Kitimat councillor Randy Halyk, seen here at the local Jack Layton memorial on August 27, 2011, will be defending Kitimat’s resolution on halibut quotas at the Union of BC Municipalities convention. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Kitimat is taking the fight over halibut allocation to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention to be held in Vancouver September 26 to September 30.

The resolution is one of two that the union will consider on the halibut controversry, the other comes from the Capital District on Vancouver Island,

Members of the District of Kitimat council will be at the convention to sponsor and defend the resolution.

The Kitimat resolution calls on the union to endorse:

Whereas the current federal allocation of the sustainable Pacific halibut resource is insufficient to provide reasonable catch and possession limits for the recreational and commercial sport fishery;

And whereas an increase in daily catch and possession limits would be of great benefit in attracting sports fishing tourists to coastal communities.

Therefore be it resolved that the UBCM support an increase in the allocation of the sustainable Pacific halibut resource to the sport fishing and requests that the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans increase the catch limits to two per day and four in possession.

The Kitimat resolution was endorsed by the North Central Local Government Association

The overall province wide resolutions committee gave no recommendation on the Kitimat resolution saying it wasn’t clear what impact the resolution would have on the sports fishing industry. The committee added a note to the agenda that in 2010 members of the UBCM did endorse a resolution that requested the provincial and federal governments support both the commercial fishing industry and the sports fishing industry equitably as they are both critical economic generators for residents within the province.

The resolutions committee notes that British Columbia did express “support for the sustainability of both commercial and recreational fisheries in tidal waters.” The province apparently “highlighted a number of its activities related to ensuring fisheries sustainability and maximizing the economic and social benefits.”

The somewhat stronger resolution from the Capital Region did not receive an endorsement from the Association of Vancouver and Coast Communities and a “no recommendation” from the province wide resolution committee. That resolution says, in part that the allocation between the recreational and commercial sectors in the Canadian halibut fishery during years of low abundance will destroy the economic viability of coastal communities and deny Canadian citizens access to the common property resource of halibut.

It calls for a “more fair and equitable approach that would allow the recreational and commercial fishing industries to survive during years of low annual quotas,” it calls for the federal government to purchase or lease halibut quota from the commercial sector (rather than having the recreational sector purchase individually as the current Department of Fisheries and Oceans “pilot project” calls for) so that the recreational sector has a “permanent base limit,” that the season be guaranteed from February 1 to December 1 each year and that the limit be one halibut per day, two in possession. (The Department of Fisheries and Oceans stopped the recreational halibut season as of midnight Sept. 15 while allowing the commercial season to continue).

Want a job? Come to Kitimat, Christy Clark aide tells Vancouver Island

Economy Link

Robert Matas of the Globe and Mail reports in Crosscheck: Looking for a job in B.C.? that Chilliwack MLA, John Les, parliamentary secretary to BC Premier Christy Clark told an audience in Nanaimo:

Everybody is looking for work around home, but [they] may not be aware that there are jobs available in Kitimat or in Terrace or Fort St. John. That’s not for everybody, but if you’re a young person looking for a job, maybe horizons need to be expanded a bit…

Matas adds in his article:

…up North, the cities are on the cusp of an economic boom, sparked by projects worth $11-billion. The developments are expected to create thousands of new jobs within the next five years.

The list of projects includes a new export terminal near Kitimat for natural gas; modernization of the Rio Tinto Alcan Kitimat smelter; construction of a new 344-kilometre Hydro transmission line that will open up prospects for several more mining properties; a 195-megawatt run-of-river hydroelectric project on Tahltan First Nation lands; and development of a copper and gold property.

The jobs could transform Terrace, a forest-dependent city that has been in a slump since its mills closed down. The mining town of Kitimat has been more stable than Terrace but will also feel the glow from the multibillion-dollar investments in the region…

Editor’s note: One has to wonder why the business media keeps referring to Kitimat as a mining town, since the only mine in the area, the Golden Crown copper and gold venture was abandoned in 1909, more than 100 years ago and Rio Tinto Alcan’s raw material comes from far, far away. (Unless, of course, Matas is referring to some previously unknown revival of the Golden Crown venture is his unnamed copper and gold property)

Japan seeking LNG from US: Reports

Energy Links

Japan wants to buy more liquified natural gas from the United States, according to reports in the business and energy media.

Bloomberg reported Japan to Boost LNG Imports From U.S. as Nuclear Power Declines

Japan, the world’s largest importer of liquefied natural gas, plans to seek more U.S. cargoes to ensure adequate power supplies after its use of nuclear reactors fell to an all-time low.

Japan’s senior vice minister of trade and industry, Seishu Makino, asked U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu at a meeting yesterday in San Francisco to increase LNG exports, Akinobu Yoshikawa, deputy manager for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Division, told reporters today in Tokyo.

Reuters reported Japan to start buying LNG from U.S. by 2015-Nikkei

Japan plans to start importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States as early as 2015 to secure a steady supply amid growing demand for the fuel, Nikkei business daily reported…

Japanese power and gas utilities would initially import 2-3 million tons of LNG a year, the daily said. Gas extracted from shale rock formations will be liquefied in Texas and Louisiana. The LNG will then be shipped to Japan via the Panama Canal, Nikkei said.

Liquified natural gas from fields in Alberta and British Columbia sold to Japan is a major reason for LNG developments at the port of Kitimat. Testimony at last June’s NEB hearings on the KM LNG export licence application warned of increasing competition from the US for Canadian LNG.