BC | Northwest Coast Energy News

Coons says Enbridge is trying to “silence voices of the north coast”

Gary Coons, the NDP member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly for North Coast, has told the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel that Enbridge is “attempting to silence voices from the North Coast” by asking to limit the time of non-aboriginal intervenors before the panel.

Earlier Monday, Enbridge filed a motion with the Joint Review Panel asking that it limit non-aboriginal intervenors appearing before the panel in Prince Rupert this weekend to just 10 minutes. As well as Coons, Enbridge singled out the Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen, also a candidate for the NDP leadership, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation and the United Food and Commercial Workers union.

Enbridge says that the presentations will be a violation of a panel ruling that in this phase presentations must limited to personal knowledge.

Monday afternoon, Coons responded by filing a letter with the JRP that says:

I am disappointed and concerned that Enbridge is attempting to silence voices from the North Coast riding by limiting the time for oral evidence that is allocated to non-aboriginal participants to 10 minutes.

I can assure those concerned with my oral evidence that I have done my due diligence, I’ve studied the Procedural Direction for giving evidence (Procedural Direction #4), and will fall within the parameters of such. I believe I have a responsibility, and a right, as a resident of Prince Rupert for 35 years, to share my “personal knowledge, my experiences and the potential effects of the project on me and my community” and I will, as requested, “briefly share my point of view regarding the decision the Panel should make on the Project.”

More importantly, I have an obligation as MLA to submit oral evidence on behalf my constituents and of all communities that I have been entrusted to represent. As MLA, my “community” covers the North Coast riding. I have spent the last 6 months preparing for my presentation, knowing that there is criteria set out by the panel.

It does a great disservice to me and many others for Enbridge to attempt to change the rules at this point in the process and seek to limit the participation of those of us who are non-aboriginal to ten minutes. On July 30, 2011, I applied for and received from the panel 60 minutes to present oral evidence. Is Enbridge suggesting that the panel is not experienced enough to determine who may give oral evidence and how much time should be allocated to each participant? Surely these are decisions that should be made by the independent members of the panel, rather than lobbied for by those who stand to benefit by silencing the voices of those who would be most affected by this project.

The Joint Review Panel has done their due diligence by informing all interveners through written directions and in their opening remarks at each community hearing about the nature of their role as participants in the oral hearing and the directions they need to follow. The Panel is more than able to ensure that participants abide by these directions, and have been freely doing so throughout the process thus far. There are mechanisms in place which would allow Enbridge to object to testimony that they don’t believe meets the requirements of the Panel, and the Panel themselves should be responsible for ruling on objections as they arise.

Please take this response as a request to refuse the proposal put forward by Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited.

The No To Tankers Rally, Prince Rupert, BC, Feb. 4, 2012

Click on this link to launch audio slideshow

A crowd estimated by the media at high of more than 2,000 to a low of about 600, marched through the streets of Prince Rupert on Saturday, February 4, to protest against Enbridge’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline and the associated super tanker traffic.

The protest was organized by the Gitga’at First Nation, of Hartley Bay, at the mouth of Douglas Channel . Nearby Wright Sound, known for its tricky currents and winds in bad weather would be the passageway for most of the tanker.

The Tsimshian First Nation, the hosts, welcomed the Gitga’at and protestors from other First Nations and reisdents of northwestern BC, before the the march began at Pacific Marinter’s Memorial Park.

It ended at the Jim Ciccone Civic Centre, where, iin the afternoon, speakers spoke about environmental concerns, followed by a dancing and concert in the evening.

Gitga’at boats from Hartley Bay rescued passengers after the sinking of the ferry Queen of the North in 2006.

The Gitga’at say oil still leaks from the Queen of the North, affecting some shellfish beds in the area.

CAW urges public to sign petition against Coast Guard radio cutbacks

The Canadian Autoworkers Union, which represents Canadian Coast Guard radio and traffic communications staff, is urging Canadians to sign an online petition against a government decision to cut service hours at 11 of 22 Marine Communications and Traffic Services centres, and close another by the end of 2012.

One of the stations affected by the service cuts, which began on February 1, is Prince Rupert Coast Guard radio.

CAW Local 2182

CAW President Ken Lewenza held a news conference in Ottawa today which included CAW Local 2182 President Martin Grégoire and CAW Local 2182 Pacific Region Director Allan Hughes alongside NDP Opposition Critic for Fisheries and Oceans Fin Donnelly and Deputy Critic for Fisheries and Oceans Phillip Toone.

“This government has to wake up to the fact that it’s simply not worth putting Canadian lives at risk to save a few bucks,” Lewenza was quoted in a CAW news release.

“These marine communications officers are the eyes and ears of our coastal waters and play an integral part in rescue support efforts during times of crisis. Cutting these hours only creates conditions for failure.

“The federal government’s relentless push for cost savings under its national austerity program is proving reckless, especially when it directly interferes with the ability of workers to ensure the public is safe,” Lewenza said. “We cannot support these efforts and must speak out against them.”

According to the CAW, other stations affected by the service cuts are Vancouver, Victoria, Tofino, and Comox, British Columbia; Sarnia, Ontario; Quebec City and Les Escoumins, Quebec; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and St. John’s, Newfoundland.

The CAW represents 350 marine communications and traffic services officers across Canada.

On February 1, the day the service cuts took effect, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield issued his own news release, saying the union statements until that time were “misleading.”

Ashfield said:

“The safety of Mariners is our top priority and we would not implement any policies that would put lives at risk.

“As a result of a risk assessment and workload study, in which the CAW participated, the Coast Guard is reducing the number of overtime hours for employees at Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre to reflect the actual workload at any given time.

“While the union tries to portray this as shortsighted, the fact is that this approach has already been in use successfully in Victoria and Quebec for about 5 and 10 years respectively and the Coast Guard is simply now expanding this approach on a national level.

“There will be no jobs lost as a result of the implementation and mariners will continue to receive the same level of service they currently receive.

“Like any responsible organization, we must ensure that we use our resources wisely. Canadians do not want to be paying for unnecessary or unproductive overtime.”

Enbridge won’t offer better deal to First Nations, may be considering alternate Gateway routes: Reuters

David Ljungren of Reuters, with the Canadian delegation now in Beijing, reports in Enbridge CEO says company won’t offer natives better terms on pipeline (as published in the Globe and Mail) that:

Enbridge Inc. will not offer better financial terms to aboriginal bands standing in the way of a major oil pipeline from energy-rich Alberta to the Pacific Coast, the firm’s chief executive officer said on Thursday.

Pat Daniel also told Reuters that while he was prepared to look at alternate routes for the Northern Gateway pipeline – which is crucial to Canadian plans to export oil to China – he felt the current routing plan [to Kitimat] was the best.

Three new powerful players said to join the BC West Coast LNG export rush

The race to ship liquified natural gas to Asia is getting hotter with three new powerhouses joining the scramble for west coast export terminals.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority announced Tuesday, Feb. 7, that it is working with an energy powerhouse BG Group, on a feasibiity study for an LNG terminal at Ridley Island.

At the same time The Globe and Mail reports that there are rumours that Exxon Mobile is “examining LNG options” in the northwest. The paper also quotes sources as saying the Japanese firm Itochu is looking to export gas via Kitsault, where there is an abandoned molybdenum mine, town and port.

British Gas was once the retail domestic supplier of natural gas to the UK market. The company split in two in 1997, with BG Group becoming an international exploration and energy production company.

Itochu is a 150-year old Japanese company which began as Chibou Itoh’s one man linen trading company, later adding drapery shops and over more than a century expanding operations to become a major international conglomerate with strong interests in the energy sector. According to the company website, Itochu is also a player in the solar energy and bio-ethanol fields.

“The Prince Rupert Port Authority has engaged with the BG Group to consider Prince Rupert for a potential LNG export facility. The BG Group is number two in the world in LNG, next to Shell and they are number two depending on what measurements you look at, so they are already a big player in that industry” according to Shaun Stevenson, vice-president of Marketing and Business Development for the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

“We have an agreement signed to provide them a site and to secure that site to examine the suitability of it and the feasibility of the facility…We have given them a period of time to conduct the feasibility and suitability study, and if it is determined to be viable from the preliminary work that is done then we will look at further development,” he said.

David Byford, spokesman for the BG Group in Houston, confirmed the deal has been signed but cautioned “Prince Rupert is one of the areas we are looking at, and we are in the very early feasibility study stage.”

“The west coast of Canada is certainly advantageous for LNG export, and there is a lot of natural gas in BC as well.”

Prince Rupert port spokesperson Michael Gurney says it will be 12 to 24 months before there’s a clear commitment on the project.

A spokesman with Itochu declined comment when contacted by The Globe and Mail. Kitsault, near Alice Arm, in the traditional territory of the Nisga’a nation, was the site of a short lived molybedenum venture by the Phelps Dodge company. After the mine was abandoned, the town was bought by Indo-American businessman Krishnan Suthanthiran and is now promoted as a nature and wilderness retreat, called Heaven on Earth.

The Globe and Mail also quotes sources as saying that Exxon Mobil Corp., which has substantial natural gas reserves in northeastern B.C., has also been examining LNG options. Pius Rolheiser, a spokesman with Canada’s Imperial Oil Ltd., which is majority-owned by Exxon, said in a statement to the Globe and Mail: “Imperial continuously reviews a variety of opportunities to increase value to our shareholders. As a matter of practice, and for competitive reasons, we do not discuss specific strategies.”

CIBC analyst speculates on one big natural gas pipeline to Kitimat as rumours persist that Apache decision on KM LNG will come next week

There is increasing speculation in the financial and energy markets that Apache Corporation, the lead investor in KM LNG partners, who propose to build the Kitimat LNG project will announce the investment decision next week. If the decision is positive, and it is expected to be positive, that means the work underway at the Bish Cove site will ramp up to full construction.

The speculation is heightened by the fact that the two other partners in KM LNG, Encana and EOG, report the following morning. Rumours on the Kitimat announcement began after Encana delayed its announcement by a week from its normal time in early February. (At that time one energy market analyst who follows NWCEN on Twitter contacted this site to ask if there were rumours here. At that time, there were none)

Apache has scheduled a fourth quarter report conference call and webcast from its headquarters in Houston, Texas, Feb. 16, 2012, at 1 pm Central Time.

Apache has always said that the go/no-go decision on the Kitimat project would come in the first quarter of 2012.

The market speculation, however, may not be entirely good news. That’s because this morning, Andrew Potter, of CIBC World Markets, told a conference call that the rush to export liquified natural gas from northeastern BC and Alberta to Kitimat would mean building one or two large natural gas pipelines, instead of several small ones, to reach the terminal projects.

Reuters quoted Potter as saying: “There is no logic at all to seeing three to five facilities built with three to five independent pipelines,” he said.

At the moment, the just approved BC LNG project, a cooperative of 13 energy companies, plans to utilize the existing Pacific Northern Gas facilities which already serve northwestern British Columbia. The PNG pipeline roughly follows the communities it serves along Highway 16. KM LNG is in partnership with the Pacific Trails Pipeline project, which would take that pipeline across country.

The third LNG project, by Shell, is still in the planning stages, but it, too, would need pipeline capacity.

Although there is general support for the LNG projects in northwestern BC, and less controversy over natural gas pipelines, last fall, members of one Wet’suwet’en First Nation house blocked a survey crew for Apache and Pacific Trail Pipelines who were working near Smithers on that house’s traditional territory. The survey project was then stood down for the winter.

The fear among some First Nations leaders and environmentalists is that the Pacific Trails Pipeline could, intentionally or unintentionally, open the door to much more controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline, since the PTP and Northern Gateway could follow the same cross country route.

Whether or not Potter intended to stir up a hornet’s nest, he likely has. What appears to be logical and economic for a CIBC analyst in a glass and steel tower, one or two giant natural gas pipelines, is now likely going to be fed in to, so to speak, and amplify the controversy over the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Potter also told the conference call that together the natural gas projects do not have enough gas in the ground to support the export plans. That means, Potter said, more acquisitions and joint venture deals in the natural gas export sector. Bob Brackett of Bernstein Research, quoted by Alberta Oil magazine, also says there will likely be consolidation of Kitimat LNG projects, since there was similar consolidation in Australia.

Apache Corp. Fourth quarter reporter webcast page.

PNG System map — The existing Pacific Northern Gas Pipeline follows Highway 16 (PNG)

The Pacific Trails Pipeline (yellow and black) would go cross country to Kitimat. The existing PNG pipeline, seen in the above map, is marked in red on this map. (PTP)

The Northern Gateway Pipeline also goes cross country, on a similar route to the proposed Pacific Trails Pipeline. (Enbridge)

PetroChina looks to Kitimat as it spends $1 billion for Shell shale gas in northeastern BC

PetroChina has bought a 20 per cent stake in Shell Canada’s Groundbirch shale-gas project in north eastern BC, leading to media reports that PetroChina is also investing in Shell’s planned Kitimat liquified natural gas export terminal in Kitimat.

The Groundbirch “play” in the northeastern BC shale gas fields produces 180 million cubic feet of gas a day form 250 wells.

A Hong Kong website, FinanceAsia, reported that PetroChina is paying $1 billion for the stake in the northeast BC shale gas operation.

China Daily confirmed the story, quoting Mao Zefeng, the Beijing-based spokesman of PetroChina, who declined to give the value of the transaction.

China Daily said Shell and PetroChina’s parent agreed in June to increase cooperation in energy exploration in China, estimated to hold the world’s largest reserves of shale gas. The semi-official newspaper says Petro China is looking to Canada to obtain drilling technology and expertise.

“It’s a continuation of our cooperation in China, and we can learn about shale-gas exploration and production by being a partner in the Canadian shale-gas project,” Mao said. “The project will also bring us good investment returns.”

Barron’s also reported that China is looking to get more experience shale gas, quoting Benchmark analyst Mark Gilman who told Dow Jones Newswires. “They are trying to learn about this business, on the basis of their belief that it will better position them to assess and develop similar resources within China,” he said. In fact, Shell and PetroChina are exploring for shale together in China, so the Canadian deal may be a “quid pro quo” gesture to Shell, he added.

Shell executives said at a meeting in London on Thursday that the company has invested $400 million in shale gas exploration in China, funding 15 wells with more in the future.

Last fall, Shell purchased the old Methanex site and the Methanex marine terminal in Kitimat.

Both The Globe and Mail and Postmedia News are tying the investment directly to Shell’s Kitimat LNG export project.

The Globe and Mail says that PetroChina as well as Japan’s Mitsubishi and Korean Gas are stakeholders in the Shell Kitimat LNG project.

PetroChina’s had agreed with Encana, a partner in the KM LNG project to invest $5.4-billion in the company’s shale gas operations in British Columbia. That deal collapsed last fall after the two companies could not agree on finances.

PetroChina is also a heavy investor in the Alberta bitumen sands.

The deal between PetroChina and Shell came on the same day that National Energy Board approved the BC LNG project, the second one to be proposed for Kitimat. The first, approved in October, is the Kitimat LNG project owned by the KM LNG partnership.

It also comes a few days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper begins an official visit to China.

NEB approves BC LNG, second Kitimat LNG project

The National Energy Board has approved a 20-year-export licence for Kitimat’s second LNG project, known as BC LNG. A NEB news release says:

The export licence authorizes BC LNG to export 36 million tonnes of LNG, which is equivalent to approximately 47.9 billion m³ of natural gas, over a 20 year period.

The maximum annual quantity allowed for export will be 1.8 million tonnes of LNG, which amounts to approximately 2.4 billion m³of natural gas.

A co-operative comprised of natural gas producers, marketers and LNG buyers is a central feature of BC LNG’s export proposal, where members of the co-operative will submit bids to provide natural gas to be liquefied or purchase LNG.

A committee will review the bids and choose those that will yield the greatest margin to the co-operative. Membership in the co-operative is currently comprised of thirteen parties, and additional members may join upon request.

BC LNG’s export model permits smaller natural gas market participants in Canada to play a part in exporting LNG. In approving BC LNG’s application, the Board satisfied itself that the quantity of gas to be exported is in excess of the requirements to meet the foreseeable Canadian demand.

The Board also determined that the volumes of natural gas proposed to be exported are not likely to cause Canadians difficulty in meeting their energy requirements at fair market prices.

The Board acknowledged the potential economic benefits associated with BC LNG’s project. In particular, the Board noted the benefits for the Haisla Nation, including an interest in BC LNG, and employment opportunities resulting from the development and operation of the liquefaction facility.

BC LNG Map — Map showing the BC LNG site in Kitimat harbour (NEB)

The Haisla Nation has a 50 per cent stake in the project through the Hasila Nation Douglas Channel Limited Partnership.
The NEB says the Haisla say the new revenue source would allow the First Nation to support health, education, community development and the many other needs of the First Nation and its members. The Haisla say that business and
employment opportunities associated with the development of the LNG terminal and associated
facilities would be available for Haisla members and businesses.

The NEB also says that the Haisla indicated
that a number of other Aboriginal persons, businesses and nations would see economic spinoff benefits from the development.

The NEB decision says there will be two “liquefaction trains” on barges in Kitimat harbour. The
first train is scheduled to commence in 2013-14 and the second train in 2016-18. Each train will
have a daily volume requirement of 3.5 million cubic metres a day (125 MMcf/d) of natural gas. After completion of both trains, the terminal will have an annual liquefaction capacity of 1.8 million tonnes of LNG.

LNG from the Terminal will be pumped directly into an LNG tanker berthed adjacent to the barge. It will take about 30 days to fill a typical LNG tanker and approximately 25 days to make the roundtrip between Kitimat and markets in Asia.

Talisman Energy Inc. and Tenaska Marketing Canada both have a stake in the project.

The NEB approved the first project, known as Kitimat LNG, operated by the KM LNG partnership on October 13, 2011.

That export licence authorized KM LNG to export 200 million tonnes of LNG (equivalent to

BC LNG pipeline map — Map of pipelines that will feed the BC LNG project (NEB)

approximately 265 million 10³m³ or 9,360 Bcf of natural gas) over a 20 year period. The maximum annual quantity allowed for export will be 10 million tonnes of LNG (equivalent to approximately 13 million 10³m³ or 468 Bcf of natural gas). The supply of gas will come from producers located in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Once the natural gas has reached Kitimat by way of the Pacific Trail Pipeline, the gas would then be liquefied at a terminal to be built in Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat.

A third LNG project by Shell Canada, which will use the old Methanex site in Kitimat and the old Methanex marine terminal in Kitimat harbour is currently in the preliminary planning stages.

The NEB hearings on the LNG projects are different from the current Joint Review Panel hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The JRP hearings are a “facility hearing” and cover the entire project, including environmental impacts. Since neither LNG project actually crosses a provincial boundary, the NEB’s jurisdiction is limited to granting the export licence.

Northern Gateway Joint Review moves major hearings to Kitkatla, other coastal towns

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has made major changes to the hearing schedule.

Originally the schedule called for ten days of hearings in Prince Rupert. There are now seven days of hearings at Kitkatla, but not on consecutive dates.

A new schedule released this morning shows new emphasis on the towns along the coast. Prince Rupert is now down to two days.

Second update Feb. 1, 2012 The hearings at Bella Bella Feb. 3 and on Feb. 4, have been rescheduled to April 2 and 3, 2012. The Heiltsuk say the request to reschedule the hearings was made because key individuals important to the oral evidence were out of town on other commitments on the original February dates.

The hearings at Hartley Bay will take place on March 3 and 4 at a location to be confirmed.

At Kitkala, the hearings will be held on March 9. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 at Lach Klan School William Shaw Memorial Gymnasium.

BC 2012 halibut quota drops 8 per cent, as Canada protests devastation caused by pollock trawl in Gulf of Alaska “nursery”

The International Pacific Halibut Commission has recommended a Canadian harvest quota for the 2012 season of 7.038 million pounds of halibut, a decrease of eight per cent from the 2011 quota of 7.650 million pounds.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has yet to confirm the quota but it routinely follows the IPHC recommendation.

The reduction was not as bad as first feared. The commission staff were recommending a B.C coast quota of 6.633 million pounds, a decrease of 16 per cent.

The overall harvest quota decrease for the Pacific coast is 18.3 per cent, due to continuing concerns about the state of the halibut biomass.

The 2012 halibut season is much narrower, opening on March 17 and closing on November 7. The commission says the March 17 opening day was chosen because it is a Saturday and will help the marketing by both commercial and recreational fishers. The earlier November date will allow better assessment of the halibut stock after the 2012 season, according to an IPHC news release. (In Canada, DFO closed the recreational season much earlier than the date recommended by the IPHC, in September, while allowing the commercial harvest to continue.)

In the release following the annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, last week, the IPHC said

The Commission has expressed concern over continued declining catch rates in several areas and has taken aggressive action to reduce harvests. In addition, the staff has noted a continuing problem of reductions in previous estimates of biomass as additional data are obtained, which has the effect of increasing the realized historical harvest rates on the stock. Commission scientists will be conducting additional research on this matter in 2012….

The Commission faced very difficult decisions on the appropriate harvest from the stock and recognized the economic impact of the reduced catch limits recommended by its scientific staff. However, the Commission believes that conservation of the halibut resource is the most important management objective and will serve the best economic interests of the industry over the long term. Accordingly, catch limits adopted for 2012 were lower in all regions of the stock except Areas 2A (California, Oregon and Washington) and 2C (southeastern Alaska)

Pollock trawl bycatch crisis costs Canada $7 million a year

In the bureaucratic language of the IPHC, “The Commission expressed its continued concern about the yield and spawning biomass losses to the halibut stock from mortality of halibut in non-directed fisheries.”

The IPHC says that British Columbia has made “significant progress” in reducing bycatch mortality and that quotas for vessels for other fish are being monitored, in California, Oregon and Washington have also had some success in reducing bycatch mortality.

It says that “Reductions have also occurred in Alaska, and new measures aimed at improving bycatch estimation, scheduled to begin in 2013, will help to refine these estimates.”

That phrase apparently masks a major problem of bycatch in the halibut nurseries off Alaska.

Craig Medred writing in the Alaska Dispatch in Should Alaska have protected halibut nursery waters noted that the Canadian delegation took a strong stand at the meetings:

Canada has protested that something needs to be done about the trawl industry [mostly for pollock] killing and dumping 10 million pounds of halibut off Alaska’s coast, but the International Pacific Halibut Commission proved powerless to do anything about it.
Meeting [last] week in Anchorage, the commission recognized the trawl catch as a potential problem, but then placed the burden of conservation squarely on the shoulders of commercial longliners along the Pacific Coast from Alaska south to California. The Commission again endorsed staff recommendations to shrink the catches of those fishermen in an effort to avoid an ever-shrinking population of adult halibut.

(This wasn’t reported in the Canadian media despite the importance of halibut both commercial and recreational to the economy of British Columbia. No Canadian media covered the IPHC conference in Alaska, despite the fact that halibut was a major issue in BC in the last federal election)

Medred’s report in the Alaska Dispatch goes on to say that the scientists say the Pacific Ocean is full of juvenile halibut, but that the juveniles seem to be disappearing before they reach spawning age (when the halibut reaches about the 32 inch catch minimum). “How much of this is due to immature fish being caught, killed and wasted by the billion-dollar pollock trawl fishery — which is in essence strip mining the Gulf of Alaska — is unknown.”

Medred says, “Scientists, commercial halibut fishermen and anglers all believe the catch is under-reported. Advisers to the commission — a U.S.-Canada treaty organization — indicated they are beyond frustrated with the bycatch issue.”

The official IPHC Bluebook report to the annual meeting said: “Not all fisheries are observed, therefore bycatch rates and discard mortality rates from similar fisheries are used to calculate bycatch mortality in unobserved fisheries.”

The official report to the IPHC gives one reason that the bycatch in Canadian waters is not as big a problem, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ongoing monitoring of almost all commercial fisheries for bycatch.

But Canada is not satisfied with that and has submitted a formal proposal to the Commission to designate the Gulf of Alaska, “‘an area of special concern.” because the halibut that spawn in the Gulf of Alaska migrate to coastal British Columbia.

The Alaska Dispatch report says that the Canadian delegation told the IPHC: “Canada should not and must not be penalized for uncontrolled bycatch in other regulatory (areas), which IPHC staff have indicated could be costing (Canada) approximately 1 million pounds of lost yield in each year based on current, and what Canada believes may be questionable, estimates of bycatch.”

Medred says that one million pounds of halibut equals a loss of $7 million to Canadian fishermen alone.

IPHC news release, Jan. 31, 2012 (pdf)