Northwest Coast News

Kitimat Rod and Gun concerns forgotten at KM LNG NEB hearings

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

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

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

As well, during  during the Thursday morning hearings, the lead lawyer for KM LNG, Gordon Nettleton, representing both the partnership and a major investor, Apache Corp., while reviewing the list told the board panel: “No further conditions were proposed
during the hearings,” despite Langegger`s testimony to the board while Nettleton and his staff were in the hearing room at Kitimat`s Riverlodge Recreation Centre.
 
The board has proposed that KM LNG file reports on the effect of the project and mitigation of problems on marine mammals, marine birds, fish, fish habitat and fisheries and “First Nations traditional use activities.”  The request for the condition from the Rod and Gun does over lap with the possible  parts of the report requested by the NEB and the traditional use of the region by the Haisla and other First Nations.

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

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

NEB proposed conditions 1 – 9

A33_-_Letter_to_All_Parties_Phase_II_Update_and_Possible_Licence_Conditions_-_A2A2V5.pdf

NEB proposed conditions 10 – 12

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

KM LNG final arguments set for Thursday in Calgary

The National Energy Board panel hearing KM LNG’s (also known as Kitimat LNG) application for an natural gas export licence will hear final arguments from the lawyers for the various parties at the NEB offices in Calgary beginning at 9:30 a.m. MT Thursday.

The hearings which began in Kitimat in June, resumed Wednesday in Calgary.  Most of the day was spent with testimony and discussion about how various regulations in a number of countries could affect the Kitimat project.   Some witnesses testified that the Asian countries which could be the prime market for any liquified natural gas exported through Kitimat are nervous about the reporting and disclosure requirements required by some Canadian regulations.  There could be conflicts between those regulations and the customers desire to keep some information proprietary and confidential or, in cases where the LNG is purchased by a national government that government’s national security practices may also prevent some disclosure.  Some witnesses worried that the Canadian requirements just might be a deal breaker for some Asian customers who want ease of access as well as security of supply and thus would not want to be tangled in red tape.

 There was also some discussion of the need to reconcile the Canadian reporting requirements with those the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Energy media turns its eyes on Kitimat, LNG and Enbridge

The prospect of Kitimat becoming a major port for export of Liquified Natural Gas was bound eventually to spark interest in the media covering the energy sector.

This week, photos of Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan turned up on as the lead on stories in Alberta Oil magazine and The Financial Post.
In Alberta Oil’s Export visions stoke deep divisons in a coastal town, the longest of the two articles,  feature writer Jeff Lewis, puts the history of Kitimat into some perspective for the Alberta oil patch. 

Alcan came to northern British Columbia in the early 1950s with plans to build the world’s biggest aluminum smelter…. 

Even by today’s standards of engineering, the $500-million “Kitimat Project” was ambitious…. They bored into a mountain to create the Kemano hydro plant. They blasted enough rock to dam and reverse the Nechako River. They strung high-wire transmission towers across a rugged valley. And they built Kitimat – complete with schools, pre-fabricated houses floated in on barges, roads and even a toastmasters club – from scratch. 

It is to this history that Mayor Joanne Monaghan refers when she dismisses fears about development in the region ruining a natural wilderness. “Kitimat is geared to be an industrial town,” she says over lunch at the local Chalet Restaurant. “That’s what it was built as.” Distinct neighborhoods and services were laid out for a population many thought would crest 50,000, with heavy industry built at a remove from the commercial and residential areas of town. 

 The vision never quite materialized…  Monaghan… insists job prospects in the town are poised for recovery. The unemployment rate was 9.5 per cent in 2006. “I think it can only get better from here,” the mayor says. “I really feel like we’re a sleeping giant, and the giant is waking up.” 

It is also true that the town remains partially stuck, very much groping in what is perhaps the darkest hour before the mayor’s dawn. Local divisions aren’t limited to the physical split between the town’s industrial park and its residential streets. While the Apache-sponsored gas terminal has progressed to the point where site preparation is underway, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway faces tremendous opposition – from the Haisla, but also from pockets of local residents. The multibillion-dollar pipeline has underscored deep-seated tensions in the region to such an extent that the local council refuses to talk about it. Some, including Monaghan, favor a referendum on the project. “It’s a contentious issue,” she says.

The Financial Post’s energy reporter Claudia Cattaneo focuses more on the issues on her beat in LNG Trying to Dock    Catteneo notes that the March earthquake in Japan which crippled the country’s nuclear energy raised interest in exports of liquified natural gas from Alberta through the port of Kitimat.

Her article also reflects the hints of skepticism that have arisen about natural gas exports in the past couple of weeks.  She points out that part of the price advantage that Alberta gas may have in Asia is not the “molecules” the term so beloved of  the experts in the energy industry but “arbitrage” the difference between the Asian price of natural gas which is a percentage of the price of oil (which is going up) and the North American price, which is based on supply and demand, North American gas  supply is up due to exploitation of the shale gas reserves and so the price of natural gas has dropped. (Kitimat residents of course haven’t noticed the drop in the price of natural gas due to the high transportation “bill” charged by the local monopoly Pacific Northern Gas).  The companies that want to build a port at Kitimat are basing part of their profit picture on that price difference.
Cattaneo quotes Chris Theal who works for a Calgary hedge fund who says that the Asian demand for natural gas will continue to increase in the coming years, but export could be strangled by limited capacity on the BC coast even if all the projected Kitimat projects go ahead and there is an expansion of the port of Prince Rupert to handle natural gas from pipeline or rail tanker. Theal says (ideas that also recently came out at the NEB hearings in Kitimat) that alternative export ports could exist in the United States at ports like Coos Bay and Clataskanie, Oregon and Astoria,Washington.

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal: Guardian

The Guardian


Serious spills of oil and gas from North Sea platforms are occurring at the rate of one a week, undermining oil companies’ claims to be doing everything possible to improve the safety of rigs.

Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee (OILC), a union representing North Sea workers, said Deepwater Horizon showed that “even the most up-to-date, cutting-edge safety technology can go wrong if it is not maintained properly and not operated by competent people….

Other major oil companies which are high in the spills league include the Danish conglomerate Maersk and Canadian firm Talisman, which both have a rig with five leaks. Four spills came from a rig known as Mungo Etap, which is owned by BP.

Kitimat LNG hearings to resume in Calgary July 13

The KM LNG (also known as Kitimat LNG) hearings for an export licence will resume before a National Energy Board panel in Calgary on Wednesday July 13, and run to Friday,  July 15, the NEB has announced on its website.

This phase of the hearing will consider “the potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects, including any such effects to aboriginal interests”, and “consultation with the public and aboriginal peoples.” 
 But it appears that the NEB is using its procedures to block consultation with some “aboriginal peoples,” the Coast First Nations. In a letter on its website, the NEB says that an early June submission from Art Sterritt,the Executive Director of the Coast First Nations came too late, since the deadline for submissions was April 26. That means the First Nations group must present a motion before the board panel asking to be heard.

Blog: Canada Day In The Petro-State: Common Dreams

Common Dreams blog

Just in time for Canada Day, Alberta Finance and Enterprise Minister Lloyd Snelgrove chose to exhibit why Canadian democracy is devolving into something akin to corporate rule (“Ottawa urged to get behind Enbridge pipeline,” Edmonton Journal, June 23). This particularly appears to be the case in the province of Alberta where, more often than not, it is government of the oil industry, by the oil industry, for the oil industry.

Douglas Channel Watch wins best float in Kitimat Canada Day parade

454-Rowland_Canada Day parade 019.jpg

(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
The environmental group Douglas Channel Watch won the award for the best overall float in the Kitimat Canada Day parade on July 1, 2011.
None of the energy companies involved in the region had a float in the parade.

US NTSB to pipeline companies: Call 911 in an emergency

It sounds obvious. In an emergency (in most of North America) dial 911.

Only according a US National Transportation Safety Board Report dated June 8 and released today, Pacific Gas and Electric didn’t call 911 in California at the time of a major pipeline breach and fire  on Sept. 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California that caused an explosion that killed eight people, injured many more and caused extensive property damage.
The NTSB report says that while the San Bruno Fire Department was aware of the local natural gas distribution system, the department had no maps and had no briefings on the larger, natural gas transmission pipelines that transversed San Bruno.
The NTSB report says
Because of the differences in operating characteristics, transmission pipelines have different safety risks and concerns for emergency response, including the pipeline company’s  ability to shutdown the pipeline rapidly.  

In a manner similar to the Enbridge situation in Michigan last year (the NTSB report on that incident is still pending), the PG&E data system showed a pressure drop within four minutes of the rupture. 

But it was two off-duty employees who alerted the company’s dispatchers three minutes later to a possible problem.

PG&E dispatched a single technician to the scene who was not authorized to shut off valves. 

In the meantime, public calls to 911 reported the rupture and fire and first responders got to the initial scene in three minutes.

It was not until a technician arrived at the scene and reported in some 16 minutes after the event began that PG&E control room put together the drop in pressure, alarms and dispatcher information and realized that they had a major problem. 

 The NTSB report says in the next paragraph after the incident summary

 

A pipeline operator’s prompt notification to the local emergency response agencies through a 911 emergency call center can be crucial to the success of the emergency response effort and protection of the public. Even in the case of a smaller, slower leak that does not immediately ignite, when the pipeline operator has immediately notified local emergency response authorities of a potential serious problem, can mobilize needed response resources and area better able to recognize quickly the symptoms of a potential serious gas leak threat

.

Apparently under current US regulations, there is no requirement for pipeline operators to call 911.

The report goes on to say

 

The NTSB is concerned that a pipeline operator that does not require control room operators to notify the applicable 911 emergency call center in the event of a possible pipeline rupture can adversely affect the timeliness and effectiveness of emergency response effort. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issue guidance to operators of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines regarding the importance of control room operators immediately and directly notifying the 911 emergency call center(s) for the communities and jurisdictions which those pipelines are located when a possible rupture of any pipeline is indicated.

Read the NTSB report on 911 response to the PG&E San Bruno pipeline disaster.

Editors’s Note:

It is clear that this brief NTSB report  (it is still investigating the actual cause of the rupture and explosion) confirms the fears of residents of northwestern British Columbia about pipeline ruptures in the wilderness, whether those pipelines carry bitumen or natural gas, are harder to detect and fix than problems in populated areas like California.
Also residents of northwestern BC are entitled to get more information from the National Energy Board, the BC Utilities Commission and the companies that are proposing large scale transmission of natural gas through this region about the special hazards related to transmission pipelines mentioned in the NTSB report.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Loss of Coast Guard cutters brings supertankers to the forefront: Courier-Islander

Courier-Islander

The imminent loss of the Coast Guard cutters Point Henry and Point Race is solidifying opposition to proposed super tanker traffic on the coast, says NDP MP Nathan Cullen and the Living Oceans Society.

 But Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan, who referred to the replacement boats as “less capable” in the past, continues to support replacement of the Point Race and Point Henry this week. 

 The 47-foot motor lifeboat CCGS Cape Palmerston is to be officially named and dedicated to service in Campbell River next Thursday, replacing the 70-foot Point Race. Ceremonies to replace Prince Rupert’s Point Henry with the CCGS Cape Dauphin are slated for July 26.

Enbridge to improve risk assessment on proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

Vancouver Sun 

Enbridge to improve risk assessment on proposed Northern Gateway pipeline 

 

Enbridge acknowledged Thursday it needs to improve its risk assessment of potential accidents along the route of a controversial proposed pipeline that would deliver crude oil to the west coast of British Columbia. 

A company spokesman made the comments in response to a new analysis to be submitted Friday to a government review panel that raises questions about potential impacts of the Northern Gateway project.

“There are major sources of uncertainty that are not adequately acknowledged and/or incorporated into the analysis,” said the review, prepared by Stella Swanson, a Calgarybased aquatic biologist.

The review analyzed the company’s public submissions to the government panel that is assessing the environmental impacts of the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project.