Northwest Coast News

NEB gets ready for BC LNG hearings, first step for second Kitimat project

Energy

The National Energy Board has announced it will hold hearings on the second proposed liquified natural gas project, saying, the hearings will “consider an application submitted by BC LNG Export Co-operative LLC (BC LNG) for a 20-year licence to export liquefied natural gas (LNG)
from Canada to Pacific Rim markets.”

Once again under the NEB’s rules of procedure, the hearings will be limited to granting the export licence, with or without conditions and will follow the so-called “market-based procedure” set up for the NEB after deregulation of the oil and gas industry in the late 1980s.

This application is based on projections that the demand for natural gas in Pacific Rim markets will continue to increase substantially over the next 20 years. In its application, BC LNG is requesting authorization to export up to 1.8 million tonnes of LNG annually.

The Board will consider, among other issues, the export markets and natural gas supply, the transportation arrangements, and the status of regulatory authorizations.

However in an apparent departure from the KM LNG hearings where energy lawyers challenged environmental and social issues as not included in the mandate for those hearings, these ground rules say they are now”

The Board will also consider the potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation, and any social effects directly related to those environmental effects.

The public has until Sept. 11, 2011 to register with the board for full intervenor status, request to make an oral statement or to submit a letter of comment.

Letter from NEB to BC LNG (pdf)

“Call the Americans.” Canadian Coast Guard cutbacks now an issue in the US Senate

The Coast

The controversy over the Harper government’s cutbacks to Canadian Coast Guard resources on both west and east coasts  has now become an issue in the United States Senate.

While most of the media attention last week was on Newfoundland, where there are fears not only of moving the search coordination centre from the island to Trenton, and the possible privatization of the entire search and rescue service, the cutbacks on the northern coast of British Columbia have yet to become a national story, even though the conservative government is increasing its promotion of tanker traffic from Pacific ports.

Now the issue has come to attention of  Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, who is raising alarm bells in the Senate about the dangers of tanker traffic, the possibility of a spill and  the probable inadequacy of the Canadian response to any major shipping accident along the coast.

 


Cantwell’s main concern is upgrading the ability of the United States Coast Guard to respond to such an accident, “This is a major threat to our region,” Cantwell said at hearing on July 20 of the Senate  Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee. “It seems that Canada’s oil spill response plan in the Pacific Northwest is to call the Americans.  …Obviously any such spill in the narrow and heavily populated waters of the Puget Sound or Strait of Juan de Fuca would cause tens of billions of dollars in damage and impact millions of my constituents. … I think it deserves a very robust oil spill response plan.”

Cantwell  says she secured a commitment  from  Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship for the United States Coast Guard, to have the U.S. Coast Guard perform an extensive analysis of cross-border readiness and ability to respond to potential spills given the potentially dramatic increase in oil tanker traffic along the U.S.-Canada maritime border off Washington state.

After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Cantwell pushed a bill through the U.S. Congress  that, strengthens oil spill protections for Puget Sound and other U.S. coastal waters. The bill, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 15, 2010, includes  provisions that significantly enhance oil spill response and prevention to protect valuable coastal communities and their economies.

Cantwell’s news release  says

The legislation expands the oil spill response safety net from Puget Sound out to the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, ensuring that Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca have spill response teams and equipment in place. The bill further reduces ship and tanker traffic in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary; enhances spill prevention efforts on vessels transporting oil; and establishes a stronger role for tribes.

Cantwell also fought to include a provision that requires tug escorts for double-hulled tankers in Prince William Sound. Approximately 600 oil tankers and 3,000 oil barges travel through Puget Sound’s fragile ecosystem annually, carrying about 15 billion gallons of oil to Washington’s five refineries. The Strait of Juan de Fuca also has significant outbound tanker traffic originating in Vancouver and carrying Canadian oil. Prior to the 2010 Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill, American industry only had to position oil spill response equipment in Puget Sound, leaving the busy shipping lane in the Strait of Juan de Fuca unprotected.

Cantwell’s provision extended the “high volume port area” designation west to Cape Flattery. As a result, oil spill response equipment, such as booms and barriers, are now prepositioned along the Strait, supplementing the response equipment already in place in Puget Sound.

An oil spill in waters in Washington state interior waterways could be devastating. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology, a major spill would have a significant impact on Washington state’s coastal economy, which employs 165,000 people and generates $10.8 billion. A spill would also severely hurt our export dependent economy because international shipping would likely be severely restricted. Washington state’s waters support a huge variety of animals and plants, including a number of endangered species, all which would be harmed by a spill.

Cantwell says she was successful in protecting a tanker ban in Puget Sound.  Former  Alaskan Repuiblican Senator Ted Stevens attempted to overturn the then 28-year-old protections authored by former Senator Warren Magnuson limiting oil tanker traffic in the Puget Sound. In 1977, Senator Warren Magnuson had the foresight to recognize the great risk that oil supertankers would have on the waters of Puget Sound. He put his findings into law and essentially banned supertankers in the Puget Sound by prohibiting the expansion of oil terminals in Puget Sound.

Enbridge, environmentalists agree

The inadequate Canadian Coast Guard resources in the Pacific region bring rare agreement between Enbridge which wants to build the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline and the project’s environmental opponents.

While Enbridge maintains that safety systems it plans would make a tanker accident a rare event, when officials were questioned at last September’s public meeting in Kitimat, they said Enbridge was worried about Coast Guard resources on the west coast.   They said that Enbridge’s emergency planning scenarios call for it to take 72 hours for the Canadian Coast Guard to respond with its meagre equipment from Victoria and Vancouver to a tanker accident in Douglas Channel.  The Enbridge team admitted under questioning from the audience that the company would urge to Canadian government to call on US Coast Guard resources from Alaska and as far away as California in the event of a major spill, confirming Sen. Cantwell’s statement to the subcommittee that Canada would “Call the Americans.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rex Murphy’s rant on search and rescue cutbacks: National Post

Link The Coast

Rex Murphy: A decision so dumb, only a government would make it

Rex Murphy, writing in The National Post is fully justified in his rant Saturday against more search and rescue cutbacks in Newfoundland by the Harper government. Since it involves his beloved “Rock,” my former colleague is at his rhetorical best (and as the northwest knows the BC coast faces equally dumb cutbacks here)

Scarcely had Mr. Harper captured the PM’s job again, this time as a
majority leader in the last election, when one of his ministers came out
with the equally ludicrous decision to move search-and-rescue
operations: Last week, it was announced that the co-ordination centre in
St. John’s (along with one in Quebec City) was slated for termination,
with services relocated to Halifax and Trenton, Ont.

And according to reports circulating this week, the Department of
National Defence’s search-and-rescue services might soon be privatized.
(Currently, the job is done in partnership between DND and the Coast
Guard, which is overseen by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans). If
that happens, there’s no telling where the services would be relocated.

What is in the air in Ottawa? How do such absurd notions take root in
the federal mind? Would they ever take similar steps in regard to, say,
the regulation of Lake Ontario shipping?

Search and Rescue is not some toy service. It concerns life and
death. And considering the tragedies that fret the history of the
province over the centuries, this would not only be a wrong decision,
but an offensive one, as well.

Rex is certainly right on this issue, but wrong about the weather, when he says about Newfoundland being special:

Newfoundland is unique. It stands alone, shrouded in impenetrable mists and answering to the rhythms of its own weather gods. Newfoundland weather is not a little like the world of subatomic physics; a buzz of random and paradoxical probabilities, a thing that may be observed but not measured or, contrariwise, measured but not observed, and not either, ever, from Halifax. It is a wonder and a despair.

The weather along the BC coast has been shrouded in impenetrable mists for most of this summer (if you can call it summer).

The decision by Coast Guard bureaucrats  to replace the (70 foot, 21 metre) Point Henry in Prince Rupert with a smaller, (47 foot, 14 metre) open motor life boat and the similar move in Campbell River replace the Point Race was protested up and down the coast, and almost cost Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan his seat in the May election. Duncan, of course, is  toeing the Conservative party line now that he is safely back in the Commons.

The decisions on both coasts are equally dumb. The ocean is as dangerous in Newfoundland as on the BC coast.

 But Rex spoils his rant with his own dumb ideological conclusion:

My only explanation is that it serves to illustrate this unshakeable
axiom: Some decisions are so dumb that only governments can make them.

Northwest BC has had been the victim of many really dumb decisions by the private, corporate sector over the years and those dumb decisions are responsible for the economic decline of the region (with no help from government). The difference should be that government decisions may be influenced and changed by the electorate.  There are no checks or balances on corporate decisions.

So if Rex is right and search and rescue is privatized, becomes some sort of  for-profit venture, what dumb decisions are we going to hear from the CEO of SARCAN LLC? Checking someone’s credit score before launching a rescue?

Enhanced by Zemanta

As Keystone decision nears, new interest in pipeline safety, especially Enbridge

Links: Energy Environment

The US State Department will announce its decision on the Keystone XL bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Texas as the Calgary Herald reported on July 22

The U.S. State Department said Friday that it will wrap up its
examination of environmental impacts of a proposed Canadian pipeline
expansion from the oilsands in less than a month in order to ensure a
final decision on the controversial project by the end of the year…

Daniel Clune, the principal deputy assistant secretary from the U.S.
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
said that the department would consider a variety of factors, including
recent developments such as a major pipeline spill on the Yellowstone
River, instability in Libya affecting global oil supplies, as well as
this week’s announcement by Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent
that Canada would increase its monitoring of the impact of oilsands
activity based on recommendations from scientists.

A couple of weeks before the State Department ruling, the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) will meet in Arlington, Virginia  on  August 2, 2011 to consider draft pipeline safety recommendations  for the United States called `The State of the National Pipeline Infrastructure–A Preliminary
Report.”   The public had until July 13, 2011, to make submissions to be considered
by the subcommittee members prior to submission of their draft
recommendations to the overall committees.

There is a web page from the PHMSA on the July, 2010, Marshall, Michigan, Enbridge pipeline break and spill.

The National Post updates the Marshall Enbridge spill with a report Aftermath of a Spill by Sheldon Alberts.

Now, one year later, local residents and U.S. authorities are taking
stock of the toll. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation
into what caused the two metre gash in the pipeline is ongoing, with its
conclusion perhaps months away.

The Kalamazoo, which in normal
summers would be flush with paddlers and recreational fishermen, is
still closed to the public as a massive effort to clean up the remaining
oil – most of it now submerged on the riverbed – continues.

Also
raging is the heated debate that the Enbridge spill ignited in the
United States and Canada over the safety of pipelines – some new, others
decades old – that carry oil sands bitumen to markets in America’s
heartland.

Editorial: Joe Oliver twice dangerous prejudgement

Editorial
Originally published July 22, 2011


Twice in as many days this week, the new Conservative Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, has  prejudged the outcome of  National Energy Board hearings on both pipeline projects that could be built to the port of Kitimat, the Enbridge Northern Gateway  which would carry oil sands bitumen and the KM LNG project which would carry natural gas for liquefaction at a Kitimat terminal.

So we have a minister of the Crown, who will have influence around a cabinet table, once the NEB conclusions are presented to the “Governor in Council,” making it clear that he has already made up his mind on the issues.

The National Energy Board hearings are “quasi-judicial,” that is they have a special legal status and as people who attended the hearings know, special legal procedures, so that the board can fulfill the mandate from Parliament that the board decide whether or not an energy project is in the Canadian “public interest.”

If NEB hearings were full legal proceedings before a court, no cabinet minister would dare to make a public prejudgement. (“It’s before the courts”)  But the NEB and oil and gas, of course, are different, the quasi in quasi-judicial opens the door to allow Joe Oliver to say what he thinks, likely before even being fully briefed.

Oliver has already as widely reported, said his government supports the project. “Gateway in our opinion is in the national interest,” he said.

National interest. Public interest.  Same thing. A clear message to the (supposedly independent)  National Energy Board.

Then today, as widely reported on energy industry tweets (but not so far in the mainstream media) Oliver was interviewed  the subscription only  Platts LNG Daily  and the tweets quote the Platt’s report as saying “Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said that he expects the National Energy Board to approve the 20-year LNG export license sought by Kitimat LNG this upcoming fall. Minister Oliver noted that this license would be the first for exporting natural gas to a market outside the United States.”

The NEB hearings on KM LNG just wrapped up last week.  Again we have the minister prejudging the issue.

Could this be a rookie MP and rookie cabinet minister making rookie mistakes (he hasn’t been briefed fully on how his ministry works?), after all according to his official profile on the Parliament of Canada website, Oliver has just  (as of this writing)  81 Days (2 months, 21 days) of federal service?

For a rookie, Oliver has had a very high profile in the past few weeks.  (In contrast, we’ve hardly heard a peep out of  another star Conservative rookie, former cop Julian Fantino, since he took his seat in the Commons).

Given Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tight control of the cabinet and what cabinet ministers have said during the minority years, it is clear that Oliver would not be making these statements without the approval of  the prime minister himself.

First came Oliver’s July 14 interview with Bloomberg,

Oliver, in a telephone interview with Bloomberg News, said he plans a global campaign to challenge “exaggerated rhetoric” about the environmental impact of Alberta’s oil sands. Canada also must build new markets for its oil, which is now shipped primarily to the U.S., he said.

A few days later,  Oliver made it clear he wants to streamline the regulatory process, cut out the red tape,  as reported in the Calgary Herald

Oliver said Thursday the country needs better regulation of proposed projects considered to be of national interest, including pipelines and natural gas liquefaction and export facilities for the West Coast.
He said he wants to reduce duplication between jurisdictions through a “one-project, one-review” process of projects to grow energy markets in North America and Asia, including Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would ship bitumen from the oilsands to B.C.’s West Coast, and TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oilsands production to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.
“You don’t undermine regulatory independence, necessarily, by putting time frames on decisions,” Oliver said. “There’s got to be checks and balances, but I think we can do more to avoid duplication and think about mechanisms to tighten up the time to do fulsome reviews.”

So much for the ordinary people who live along the pipeline routes, most of whom are not familiar and not always able to understand the procedures in hearings that have been the home for years of high-priced energy lawyers from Canada’s major law firms.

Then came the energy minister’s meeting in Alberta, where along with the idea that  Enbridge Northern Gateway is in the “national interest” (the spin that Enbridge has been using for the past several months)  Oliver agreed with Alberta Energy Minister Ron Lieper’s contention that Canada should become an “energy superpower” with Enbridge as a keystone, as reported in the Edmonton Journal (reprinted in the Vancouver Sun)

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert said Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway heavy crude pipeline between the Edmonton area and Kitimat, B.C., called a key export link to Asia, would benefit from a national policy.
Northern Gateway is going through National Energy Board hearings starting in January, Liepert said Tuesday at the conclusion of the two-day national energy summit held in Kananaskis Country.
“I would presume before September of next fall that we can work as governments to ensure that the federal cabinet can expedite that decision because, ultimately, it will be a federal cabinet decision.”
Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said the [ministers’ national energy] plan’s collaborative approach “implies agreement to exploit resources in a socially and environmentally responsible way for all Canadians.”
He said that “Asia is a growing market and China, in particular, is the biggest consumer of energy in the world, so we are supportive of the Gateway project because it will open up exports.”

British Columbia did not send a minister to the meeting but officials did sign the final agreement.

Let’s make it clear, the Harper government does have a majority and any government should be free to follow the policies that it believes it was elected to implement. Stephen Harper  has pushing the idea of an “energy superpower” for years.

What is not acceptable, however, is for Oliver and the  Harper government to treat the LNG hearings that just concluded and the upcoming Northern Gateway hearings as a something the government can ignore because Conservatives already know what the “national interest” is. That is for the NEB panel to discover.  Of course, the government is free to disagree, after the hearings and after the final report and recommendations.

Oliver’s prejudgement is not fair to the people of northern and northwestern British Columbia who have genuine concerns about the environmental  consequences of the pipelines and the tankers.

Nor is this prejudgement fair to the energy industry (and the stockholders of companies like Enbridge, Apache, Encana and EOG)  who have spent millions of dollars for environmental impact studies and millions more in planning to make the projects as safe as their engineers can make it (within the need of those companies to make a profit).

(It should be noted that there seems to be growing support in the northwest for the LNG projects but growing opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway)

Enbridge has identified environmental hazards on both the pipeline route and in the waters of   British Columbia and come up with what the company believes are solutions.  Those hazards and the proposed solutions were explained publicly at town meetings in Kitimat and documents are available on the Joint Review website.

Those who oppose the Northern Gateway project say those hazard studies and proposed solutions are inadequate.

It is doubtful that Oliver has even had a summary briefing of the problems that Enbridge has identified. Would Enbridge be willing to spend millions of dollars on tunnels and bridges across the mountains of British Columbia and install navigation aides along Douglas Channel and the Inside Passage if  the environmental concerns were just “exaggerated rhetoric?’

A lot of people in the northwest region already believe that the Joint Review hearings are a sham, that the Enbridge pipeline will be approved by the cabinet  no matter what testimony the board hears both in the community hearings in January and the formal hearings later in 2012 and no matter what recommendations the board panel may make to cabinet. Oliver’s statements this week tend to confirm this belief.

One has to wonder, whether  supporters or opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline, if all the money being budgeted for these hearings is being well spent in this time of restraint if the outcome is preordained: the  millions of dollars allocated by the government for the hearings, millions more from Enbridge’s treasury,  hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by intervenors and hundreds or even thousands of dollars scrimped and saved by those who make oral statements. Then there are the thousands of hours of research and study by Enbridge,  thousands of hours of research and legal work by the National Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment agency staff, tens of thousands of billable hours by all the lawyers, hours of work by individuals, whether they oppose or support the project,  who give up their time to craft an intervention or an oral statement.

It is entirely likely the Joint Review Panel will make every effort to come a to a fair and equitable decision.

The Joint Review Panel has to decide in the interests of all Canadians, which means the interests of northern British Columbia are only part of the decision. The current campaign by Enbridge that the pipeline is a new national challenge to join the country together like the nineteenth century railways, looks like it is aimed at the “all Canadians”  mandate of the NEB panel.

Here is where Oliver’s prejudgment of  the issues before NEB panels,  especially when he said the Enbridge project is in “the national interest”  is another blow to Canadian democratic  tradition.  This shouldn’t be ideological.  Once, not so long ago, Conservatism meant respecting traditions,  especially the hundreds of years of parliamentary and legal traditions we inherited from Great Britain. Canada then developed  a Canadian version of that tradition.  As Canadians have seen, Stephen Harper and the cabinet members around him have no respect for those traditions. The NEB hearings, decisions by other independent bodies,  appear to be an inconvenience, just as a sitting parliament was an inconvenience at the time of the two prorogations of  parliament.

That Joint Review decision, if it is against the pipeline,  is not binding on the Harper government, which clearly over the past years has shown a pro-Alberta, pro-oil sands and anti-environment bias.  The governor in council, the cabinet,  as is well known, is dominated by  Stephen Harper, who does not tolerate dissent.

Given the NEB mandate, there is a good chance that the pipeline will be approved, but likely with contingents and limitations that take into consideration the concerns of northern British Columbia.

In the final analysis, after all this, after millions of dollars, lifetimes of work, hours of hearings and deliberation, the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline and those inconvenient considerations will be made by  just one  man, Stephen Harper,  who is unlikely to attend a single hearing, read a transcript or study the millions of pages of evidence. Joe Oliver’s media blitz in the past two weeks has already shown how the prime minister and cabinet think, the Enbridge pipeline must go ahead despite all the potential dangers. The outcome has already been prejudged.  (As noted earlier there is much less opposition to the LNG projects across the northwest, but once again it is clear that the Harper government is prejudging the outcome and the NEB decision on the LNG terminal).

Before supporters cheer and the opponents lament, that very arbitrary nature of a cabinet decision by the current government, dominated by the current Prime Minister, the fact the NEB hearings could likely be seen as a worthless sham, will also likely mean court and possibly other challenges, challenges that could last for years.

Sham NEB hearings, prejudged by the Joe Oliver, Stephen Harper and the rest of  the cabinet, will  be just as disastrous for the energy companies as it will be for the environmental movement, especially in today’s polarized world where compromise is often impossible.

The energy companies probably do really believe these pipelines are a
new national dream, not a national nightmare and their environmental
safeguards will meet the test. But if the Joint Review hearings are seen as worthless, then statements and policies by the energy companies will also be seen as worthless far beyond the “activists” in the environmental movement.

The pipeline must cross the traditional territory of many First Nations, most of whom have not agreed to Enbridge’s terms and some who say they oppose the Enbridge pipeline.  The role of First Nations could also mean, at the very least,  many court challenges.

The first accident during the  construction process, and there will be accidents, or a tanker accident on the coast, and there will be tanker accidents on the coast, even if unrelated to Enbridge, will mean headlines,  demonstrations, questions in the Commons, more time in court.

It would have been better if Joe Oliver, Stephen Harper and their colleagues had kept an open mind on the issue until all the facts, opinions and options had been independently examined by the Joint Review Panel.  But as on other contentious issues, unfortunately, the Conservatives appear to have already decided the outcome.

So if events unfold as it appears they will unfold,  a decade or more from now, a  final decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline may end up in the hands of Canada’s judiciary, an arm that is, for the moment, independent of the government, with a decision coming perhaps  after Stephen Harper has retired as Prime Minister, and Joe Oliver has returned to Bay Street.

Then once the case is concluded,  all the work done for the Joint Review Panel hearings, will be shipped to Library and Archives Canada in Gatineau, to gather dust until,  in another decade  or two, someone can write their Phd dissertation on what went wrong.

US proposes handing Alaska halibut allocation dispute to international commission, have charters buy commercial quota

Environment

Editor’s note: With this entry, Northwest Coast Energy News launches its planned expansion of coverage from energy and energy related environment issues to include other environmental and related issues in the northwest, including fishery issues.

For the past year, anglers, guides and outfitters on the British Columbia coast have been concerned about the allocation problems with the halibut fishery, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sticking to the original quota system of 88 per cent of the total allowable catch going to the commercial fishery and 12 per cent to the recreational fishery, which includes both recreational anglers and the tourist industry.

There have been parallel problems in the state of Alaska, where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which governs the US fishery, began moves to take away the licences from many of the halibut charter operators on the lower end of the income scale. That move is currently being challenged in a federal court in Washington, DC.

On Thursday,  NOAA proposed solutions to Alaska halibut dispute,  in effect, handing the hot potato decision on halibut allocationover to the International Pacifc Halibut Commission, suggesting that the Commission decide the split for charter and commercial allocation when making the overall decision on total allowable catch.  NOAA has also proposed allowing Alaska halibut charter operators to buy commercial quota, similar to the Canadian proposal from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last winter.

The key phrase in the July 21 NOAA news release says

The International Pacific Halibut Commission, through which the United
States and Canada jointly manage the halibut resource from California to
the Bering Sea, would determine total commercial and charter catch
limits for southeast Alaska and the central Gulf of Alaska each year
before the fishing season….

Allocations to the charter and commercial sectors would vary with changes in the number of halibut available for harvest as determined by the best available science.

The actual details from the US Federal Register states:

The International Pacific Halibut Commission would
divide the annual combined catch limits into separate annual catch limits for the commercial and guided sport fisheries. The CSP (catch sharing plan) allocates a fixed percentage of the annual combined catch limit to the guided sport and commercial fisheries. The fixed percentage allocation to each sector varies with halibut abundance. The IPHC would multiply the CSP allocation percentages for each area by the annual combined catch limit to calculate the commercial and guided sport catch limits in net pounds. At moderate to low levels of halibut abundance, the CSP could provide the guided sport sector with a smaller poundage catch limit than it would have received under the GHL (guideline harvest levels) program. Conversely, at higher levels of abundance, the CSP could provide the guided sport sector with a larger poundage catch limit than it would have received under the GHL program.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council intended the CSP sector allocations to balance the needs of the guided sport and commercial sectors at all levels of halibut abundance.
Although the CSP allocation method is a significant change from the current allocation method under the GHL, National Marine Fisheries Service believes that the allocation under the CSP provides a more equitable management response

On the issue of buying commercial quota, the NOAA release says:

The catch sharing plan would authorize transfers of commercial halibut individual fishing quota to charter halibut permit holders for harvest by anglers in the charter halibut fishery.
Those transfers would offer charter vessel anglers in southeastern Alaska and the central Gulf of Alaska an opportunity to catch additional halibut, up to specified limits.

The news release goes on to say:

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended the rule to
establish a clear allocation between the commercial and charter sectors
that fish in these areas.

Currently, the commercial and charter halibut fisheries are managed
under different programs. The commercial halibut fishery has been
managed under a catch limit program since 1995. The charter halibut
sector has been managed under a different harvest guideline since 2003,
which gives charter fishermen a number of fish they can catch per guided
angler per day, but does not ensure the overall catch stays within a
definitive catch limit.

The proposed catch sharing plan, which is scheduled to be in place by
2012, is designed to foster a sustainable fishery by preventing
overharvesting of halibut and would introduce provisions that provide
flexibility for charter and commercial fishermen.

Those who wish to comment on the draft policy must respond before September 6.

Link to NOAA news release

NOAA draft rule in US Federal Register

Enhanced by Zemanta

Editorial: Joe Oliver’s twice dangerous prejudgement

Energy
Link to Editorial

Joe Oliver’s twice dangerous prejudgement

 Twice in as many days this week, the new Conservative Minister of
Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, has  prejudged the outcome of  National
Energy Board hearings on both pipeline projects that could be built to
the port of Kitimat, the Enbridge Northern Gateway  which would carry
oil sands bitumen and the KM LNG project which would carry natural gas
for liquefaction at a Kitimat terminal.

Louisiana governor announces LNG project; size, cost would rival Kitimat

Energy

The governor of Louisiana,  Bobby Jindal today announced that the state could be the site of what he calls the “one of the first natural gas liquefaction
facilities in North America.”  

The facility will be built by Cheniere Energy which already has a terminal at Sabine Pass in Cameron Parish in the state.

Cheniere says it will spend $6 billion to
expand its existing facility, which will be one of the largest capital
investments in Louisiana history.

That means the Louisiana terminal could rival Kitimat in size and potential.  The projected timeline for both shows construction and operational startup would happen at the same time.

A news release from the governor’s office says

The new project will create 148 new jobs and retain 77 existing jobs,
with a total compensation and benefits package that will exceed an
average of $100,000 a year. The new jobs will support another 589
indirect jobs in the area and 3,000 construction jobs will be created by
the project at the peak of construction activity. Cheniere will build
its new facility near the Louisiana-Texas border in Cameron Parish to
handle the shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the company’s
international LNG terminal.

Gov. Jindal said, “Cheniere Energy’s
construction of one the country’s first liquefaction facilities at the
Sabine Pass terminal in Cameron Parish is a huge win for our state. This
multi-billion dollar investment will be one of the largest capital
investments in the history of Louisiana, and build on our incredible
record of job creation projects all across the state. Cheniere’s
facility will grow our economy, increase natural gas production and
become a major exchange in continuing to meet the demand for energy
around the world.”

“The construction of Cheniere’s Liquefaction
Project in Cameron Parish will provide key support to Louisiana’s
economy and natural gas industry, which has been transformed by the
development of the Haynesville Shale,” said Charif Souki, Chairman and
CEO of Cheniere. “In only two years, Louisiana’s natural gas production
has doubled as the Haynesville has grown into one of the most prolific
shale plays in the world. Our Liquefaction Project will provide
thousands of jobs in Southwest Louisiana while connecting the state’s
natural gas industry to global markets, making Louisiana the world’s
first dual importer and supplier of LNG. We greatly appreciate the
support that Cheniere has received from the State of Louisiana and the
people of Cameron Parish, who have demonstrated a strong commitment to
our Sabine Pass LNG terminal.”

Cheniere Energy anticipates beginning
construction of the facility in early 2012. Hiring of the new permanent
jobs will begin in 2014 and the facility will commence operations in
2015. The final phase of the project is expected by the end of
2018.Adding liquefaction capabilities will transform the Sabine Pass
terminal into a bi-directional facility capable of exporting LNG in
addition to receiving LNG for regasification.

The Louisiana facility would use gas from the Haynesville Shale which is a Jurassic formation on the Texas-Louisiana border. Shale gas that would come through Kitimat comes largely from northeast British Columbia, especially the Horn River Basin. 

Both the Kitimat and Louisiana projects are scheduled to begin main construction in 2012 with operations starting in 2015.

The KM LNG  facility would have an initial plant capacity of 5 million metric tons per annum (mmtpa) with potential to expand to 10 mmtpa or more.  The Louisiana release does not give a figure for the capacity of the plant.

During the recent National Energy Board hearings on KM LNG’s application for an export licence, witnesses repeatedly stressed there could be potential rival export ports for northeast BC shale gas in the United States, mainly in Oregon or Washington states, if the licence was not approved or the conditions were too restrictive. The Louisiana terminal would not likely be a rival for Kitimat for northern shale gas, although as the witnesses at the NEB hearings always stressed there is no way of tracking the origin of the “molecules” in the integrated North American pipeline network.

 Governor Bobby Jindal’s news release

KM LNG hearings wrap with concerns over conditions

Energy

The National Energy Board hearings into the application from KM LNG for an export licence to ship liquified natural gas to Asia through Kitimat wrapped up in Calgary Thursday, with the main participants expressing concerns over conditions on the licence proposed by the NEB.

The board panel reserved its decision. No date was given for a possible decision. Unlike the earlier hearings  in June which were held in Kitimat, the Phase 2 hearings were held in Calgary and only available to residents of Kitimat by audio webcast

On July 6 and July 8, the board panel issued a list of 12 proposed conditions on the export licence.  (The concerns of the Kitimat Rod and Gun were not among the 12. See story here)

Among the conditions the NEB wants to impose are a detailed reporting requirement that would include the name of  the LNG tankers loading the natural gas, the quantity of gas and the revenue in Canadian dollars as well as the sales contracts KM LNG may sign with its Asian customers.

Those proposed conditions brought strenuous objections from the proponents of the project, voiced by lead counsel Gordon Nettleton and echoed by other lawyers, saying that the conditions could actually scuttle the entire project. That is because Asian buyers, whether private companies or sovereign (government) agencies, place much stricter emphasis on confidentiality of the agreements than in North America. The lawyers warned that the potential Asian customers could walk away from any deals in favour of less regulated vendors in other countries if the NEB insists on full disclosure, especially if the details could be made public either through the Access to Information Act or by NEB procedures and policies.

Nettleton and the other lawyers recommended a compromise where  KM LNG would disclose to the board the total exports each quarter, the aggregate value in Canadian dollars for each quarter,  the “heating value” of the aggregate and export totals by destination country.

The lawyers also objected strenuously to conditions proposed to cover environmental and social effects of building the Kitimat LNG terminal  and the associated Pacific Trails pipeline.

These include filing a Marine Mammal Protection Plan and answer how KM LNG  would react to any potential effects on marine mammals of the ships passing up and down Douglas Channel and the BC Coast. 

One of the lawyers for the energy companies wondered why the board panel was interested in the shipping issues.”That’s what shps do, they use
existing shipping lanes,” he said. “Ships do not need permisson [now] to go up
Douglas Channel.  [This issue] has been examined bythe appropraite
authorites arnd should be accepted by the board without conditions.”

Other conditions wanted reports on potential effects and probable mitigation efforts for marine mammals, birds, fish and fish habitat, “listed fish and wildlife species,” vessel wake, ballast and bilge water management, fisheries and “First Nations traditional use activities.”

The lawyers mainly objected on legal grounds, since under the hearings for an export licence, (unlike a facility hearing like the Enbridge Joint Review panel)  the board is not supposed to be concerned about environmental issues.  There were also long, legal arguments whether the pipelines from the shale gas fields to Kitimat where “directly connected” under the legal definition used in the Canadian energy industry. The lawyers also argued that the environmental and social issues addressed in the NEB’s proposed conditions would be covered in parallel investigations by other government agencies, such as a Transport Canada review of the shipping plans for Douglas Channel,

At the same time, all parties pledged that they would be “good corporate citizens” in their undertakings to work with the Haisla First Nation and other residents of the Kitimat region and to respect the local environment.

NEB proposed conditions 1 – 9

A33_-_Letter_to_All_Parties_Phase_II_Update_and_Possible_Licence_Conditions_-_A2A2V5.pdf

NEB proposed conditions 10 – 12

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

KM LNG to buy Eurocan site

460-eurocanplant1w.jpgThe closed Eurocan plant in Kitimat, the day it was sold, July 14, 2011.  (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

KM LNG Operating General Partnership
(Kitimat LNG) has announced that it has entered into an agreement to
purchase the former Eurocan linerboard mill site in Kitimat from West
Fraser Timber Co Ltd.

KM LNG said in a news release that the sale is subject to obtaining government approvals for the
transfer of related permits and licenses. Financial details of the
transaction have not been disclosed:

“The Kitimat LNG partners are very pleased we have reached this
agreement with West Fraser,” said KM LNG President Janine McArdle. “The
purchase of the site marks another significant local investment in
Kitimat and is a great step forward for the Kitimat LNG project.”

The site provides the Kitimat LNG project with a suitable area for a
work camp, lay-down and storage area as the project continues to move
forward with clearing and grading at the LNG export facility site.

The Kitimat LNG export facility is planned to be built on First Nations
land under a unique partnership with the Haisla First Nation.

Kitimat LNG partners Apache Canada Ltd., EOG Resources Canada Inc. and
Encana Corporation are currently in marketing discussions with
potential Asia-Pacific LNG customers.

The partners expect to have firm sales commitments in place by the time
a final investment decision is made.  Initial shipments of LNG are
expected to begin by the end of 2015.

West Fraser closed the Eurocan mill at the end of January 2010, throwing about 500 people in Kitimat out of work. Most of the machinery in the plant has been sold and dismantling of equipment and demolition of some parts of the mill are wrapping up.

KM LNG plans to use the site as a work camp and storage area for the construction of the LNG terminal at Bish Cove on Douglas Channel south of the shuttered mill.