Environmental groups re-issue poll, showing BC worried about US, Chinese control of natural resources

A coalition of BC  environmental groups have re-released a poll from last spring showing that almost 75 per cent of British Columbians are worried about foreign investment in Canadian natural resources. The poll also shows that only a small minority of British Columbians (15%) are concerned about charitable funding provided by US philanthropic foundations to Canadian environmental groups.

The poll was conducted by Strategic Communications in April 2011 and commissioned by the following groups: BC Sustainable Energy Association; Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society – BC Chapter; Conservation Northwest; Dogwood Initiative; Ecojustice; ForestEthics; Georgia Strait Alliance; Greenpeace; Pembina Institute; Sierra Club BC; West Coast Environmental Law; Wildsight.

The re-release of this poll is aimed at countering a poll last week, commissioned by Enbridge showing wide spread support in BC for the pipeline and an attack ad campaign by the pro-bitumen sands group Ethical Oil, which has been saying that there is too much foreign interference in the Canadian energy regulatory process.

Based on a random online sample of 830 adult British Columbians, the results are considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.4 percent 19 times out of 20.

This poll shows that 47.1% of respondents were very worried and 32.1% somewhat worried about “Americans controlling our natural resources.” Asking if people were worried about China, 39.0 % were very worried and 33.8% were somewhat worried about “China investing in our natural resources.” It shows that 38.3% were “very worried” and 34.2% “somewhat worried” about “China taking or controlling our natural resources.”

The news release from the groups says

“These poll results suggest that the oil lobby’s attacks against environmental groups are out of touch with the true values of British Columbians. The real issue is the unacceptable risk of a foreign-funded pipeline-oil tanker project that would ram pipe through unceded First Nations lands to ship some of the world’s dirtiest oil across thousands of fragile salmon-bearing rivers and streams,” said Will Horter, Executive Director of the Dogwood Initiative. “225 Supertankers a year, many larger than the Exxon Valdez, would need to transit the treacherous fjords of the Great Bear Rainforest, on route to China. This pipeline is all risk and no reward for British Columbians.”

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), over the three-year period from 2007-2010 alone, foreign companies poured nearly $20 billion dollars into the tar sands. In contrast, according to blogger Vivian Krause, US charitable foundations have given Canadian environmental groups less than 1.5% of that amount over a ten year period, accounting for all charitable funding on Canadian environmental issues ranging from forest protection to fisheries conservation.

“Funding for environmental charities helps to right the imbalance between ordinary citizens and the financial and political influence of multinational companies in Canada,” said Jessica Clogg of West Coast Environmental Law. “Since 1974, our environmental legal aid services have enabled citizens and community groups throughout BC to participate in resource decisions – like the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – that would profoundly affect their lives.”

“Canadians value the importance of environmental advocates speaking up for economic development that sustains our communities without destroying the ecology that supports us,” said Sierra Club BC Executive Director George Heyman. “We represent a legitimate Canadian viewpoint that is critical to sound policy-making, particularly when facing the influential, China-backed Enbridge pipeline lobby.”

As with many polls in a polarized situation, there are problems.  As Northwest Coast Energy News showed last week, the numbers in the Enbridge-sponsored poll are unreliable for northern British Columbia.  The environmental groups’ poll could also be considered suspect by the way the questions were phrased and the order in which they were asked.

Foreign Funding Poll Backgrounder  (Data figures from the groups who commissioned the poll)

 

Editorial: Just asking: why didn’t anyone object to the Americans at the NEB LNG hearings in Kitimat?

The Joint Review Panel hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline are less than 48 hours from now. The media are packing their bags and coming to Kitimat (or perhaps Terrace since this town is booked solid).

The propaganda war, and it can only be called a propaganda war, is in full force, driven mostly by right wing columnist Ezra Levant and his Ethical Oil organization, objecting to “foreign intervenors in the pipeline hearings at another site OurDecision.ca

This now seems to have widespread support, in a Twitter debate last night, many even moderate conservatives and even moderate Albertans were saying there is too much foreign influence in the JRP hearings.

I have one question for these people. Where were you in June? On a beach?

It was in June that the National Energy Board held hearings on the first of the three proposed Liquified Natural Gas projects in Kitimat. No media hordes descended on Kitimat. At those hearings only local reporters showed up and I was the only one that stuck through the entire proceedings. (The NEB did approve the export application)

So when the media quote Levant and his spokesperson Kathryn Marshall, the widespread stories about this malevolent foreign influence are inaccurate because they weren’t in Kitimat in June so they didn’t hear all those deep Texas drawls in the hearing room at the Riverlodge Recreation Centre.

Although a lot of good reporters are coming into town this week, they’ll all be gone by Thursday morning when the JRP hearings move on to Terrace.

So in today’s Sun Media papers Levant says:

Who should decide whether Canada should build an oil pipeline to our west coast — Canadian citizens or foreign interests?
That’s what the fight over the Northern Gateway pipeline is about. Sure, it’s also about $20 billion a year for the Canadian economy and thousands of jobs. It’s about opening up export markets in Asia. It’s about enough new tax dollars to pay for countless hospitals and schools.
But it’s really about Canadian sovereignty. Do we get to make our own national decisions, or will we let foreign interests interfere?
The answer should be obvious to any self-respecting Canadian: This is a Canadian matter, and Canadians should decide it.

Why weren’t Levant and the rest of the blue-eyed sheikh crowd (OK they don’t all have blue yes but you know what I mean) across the Rockies here in June objecting to those Americans interfering in Canadian affairs with their plans to export liquefied natural gas to Asia?

Who is behind the Kitimat LNG project? Well, the KMLNG partners are Houston, Texas based Apache Corporation, Houston, Texas based EOG Resources and Encana, a company that originated in Canada but now has extensive operations in the United States and around the world.

The second LNG project, which is now before the National Energy Board, is BC LNG, a partnership between a Houston, Texas-based energy company and the Haisla First Nation here in Kitimat.

The third LNG project is coming from energy giant Royal Dutch Shell.

When are we going to see Ethical Oil and all those conservative columnists objecting to American participation when the NEB holds hearings on the second and third LNG projects?

This goes all the way to the centre of power. Stephen Harper objects to the Northern Gateway hearings being “hijacked by foreign money.” I notice the Prime Minister didn’t object to the hearings in June with American companies Apache and EOG investing in a natural gas pipeline. Cabinet ministers Joe Oliver and Peter Kent are also concerned about foreign influence on pipeline projects. That is they are only worried about possible foreign influence when it comes to the environment. Foreign influences that are building natural gas pipelines and LNG terminal facilities are perfectly fine, thank you.

Blaming “foreign influence”, of course, is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the political playbook. In recent days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has blamed foreign influence for the demonstrations against the rigged election in that country. In Syria, Bashir al-Assad is still blaming “foreign agitators” for the revolt against his regime. Before they were ousted, both Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Mohamar Gaddafi of Libya blamed “foreign agitators” for the Arab Spring. Go to Google News and type in “foreign influence” or “foreign agitators” and now that Google News also searches news archives, you can find stories of politicians all over the world blaming foreigners for their troubles going back to the turn of the last century.

It’s just sad to see Canada’s leading politicians and the major media joining that sorry tradition.

Note Natural Gas is not bitumen

Some in the media seems to be puzzled that most of the people in northern British Columbia are not objecting to the liquified natural gas projects. The media seem puzzled that KM LNG has been able to reach agreements with First Nations along the natural gas pipeline routes when Enbridge can’t.

(One factor is that Enbridge got off on the wrong foot with First Nations and things have generally gone downhill from there, leading people in northwest BC to question the general competence of Enbridge management.)

The answer is that natural gas is not bitumen. Natural gas is known factor. Bitumen, despite the thousands of pages of documents field by Enbridge with the JRP, is an unknown factor since there has never been a major bitumen disaster.

The worst case scenario, a catastrophic LNG ship explosion, could cause a huge forest fire. A natural gas pipeline breach under the right conditions could start a big forest fire. The environment of northwestern British Columbia has evolved to deal with fires. After such an incident, nature would take over and the forest would eventually come back. It is likely that the forest would take longer to recover than it would from a lightning strike fire, but the forest would recover. Bitumen leaking into salmon spawning rivers would kill the rivers. Bitumen stuck at the deep and rocky bottom of Douglas Channel would contaminate the region, probably for centuries.

It’s that simple.

 


Related Terrace Daily  No Apology Forthcoming by Gerald Amos

Links January 8, 2012

Links January 7, 2012 | Updated Container ship Rena breaks up in heavy seas off New Zealand

Harper concerned Joint Review hearings being “hijacked by foreign money”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at a photo op in Edmonton on Friday, January 6, 2012, that he is concerned about the possibility that the Joint Review hearings on Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would be “hijacked” by “foreign money, to really overload the public consultation of regulatory hearings for the purpose of slowing down the process.”

Harper said what he called the slow process of the hearings “was not good” for the Canadian economy, he said. “We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said. “The government of Canada will be taking a close look at how we can ensure our regulatory processes are effective and deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time.”

Harper added that his government would be watching the Joint Review hearings closely and added his  government may  review the public consultation procedure to make sure they are not overloaded solely for the purpose of slowing down the process.

Harper’s comments did not identify the “foreign money,” but he was clearly referring to criticism from blogger Vivian Krause, the pro-bitumen sands group Ethical Oil and right wing columnists who are crusading against Canadian environmental groups for accepting money from U.S. sources. Harper, apparently, made no mention of foreign investment in the bitumen sands and the pipeline projects.

Links January 6, 2012

Analysis: What did Ipsos-Reid mean about “northern British Columbia” in the Enbridge pipeline poll?

A poll by Ipsos-Reid, commissioned by Enbridge, released on Jan 4, 2012, gauging support for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, has become almost as controversial as the pipeline itself.

Ipsos-Reid says their “poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge shows that British Colombians are more likely to support than oppose the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Project.”

Most important, according to Ipsos-Reid, a majority of British Columbians are not familiar with the Northern Gateway project.

Environmental groups and media reports look at the that unfamiliarity and question whether or not the poll actually represents the views of people in British Columbia.

There were also pointed questions here in northwestern British Columbia about the figures that showed strong support, 55 per cent in what Ipsos-Reid called “northern British Columbia.”

There were also questions from those familiar with the pipeline project, posted on Facebook, Twitter and blogs about the term “oil” used by Ipsos-Reid in its poll questions.

The question
As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alberta and Kitimat, in northern BC. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Ipsos-Reid vice -president of public affairs Kyle Braid for clarification.

Overall results

According to Ipsos-Reid, the poll shows slightly more than four-in-ten (42%) residents say they are “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) with the project described above. Another three-in-ten (30%) are “not very familiar” and one-quarter (25%) are “not at all familiar” with the project.

Familiarity (“very” or “somewhat”) is higher among Northern residents (61%), men (48% vs. 37% of women) and older residents (53% of 55+ years vs. 43% of 35-54 years, 30% of 18-34 years).

According to the poll, support for the project is well ahead of opposition. Nearly half (48% overall, 14% “strongly”) of British Columbians say they support the project, compared to one-third (32% overall, 13% “strongly”) in opposition. Two-in-ten (20%) are undecided about the project.

Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups. Project support is highest among Northern residents (55%), men (58% vs. 38% of women) and older residents (58% of 55+ years vs. 47% of 35-54 years, 38% of 18-34 years).

Ipsos-Reid says it asked all respondents, on an open-ended basis, to name one main project benefit and one main project concern.
The top project benefit, mentioned by half (51%) of British Columbians, is “employment/ economic benefits”. Less frequently mentioned benefits include “export/trade benefits” (10%) and “better/ safer mode of transport” (5%).

The top mentioned project concerns include “general environmental concerns” (43%) and “risk of spills/leaks” (21%). Less frequently mentioned concerns include “general safety/ protection concerns“(7%), “pollution/ contamination” (5%) and “cost/ expenses” (5%).

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman Paul Stanway said the poll, released exclusively to Postmedia News, will set a “proper context” for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.

“The argument often made by our opponents that there is overwhelming opposition from British Columbians in general, and I think that’s far from being an accurate view of what’s going on,” Stanway told the Sun.

Defining the North

As with all polls, the margin of error raises with the smaller number of people questioned as part of the larger sample. Ipsos-Reid acknowledges this when it says

These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge. The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted online using Ipsos-Reid’s national online household panel between December 12 and December 15, 2011. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error would be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual BC population according to 2006 Census data.

So what does Ipsos-Reid mean by northern British Columbia?

Braid responded by e-mail, saying the polling company follows regional districts as defined by BC Statistics. “In lieu of providing a list of those districts, an approximate break is everything Williams Lake and above is considered North,” Braid said.

As published on the table (Tables from Ipsos-Reid Northern Gateway poll pdf) handout on the website, Ipsos-Reid interviewed 168 people in “northern British Columbia.” Braid says the 168 people represents 17% of the sample. These interviews would have been weighted down to about 7% in the overall results to reflect the actual population of the North in BC. The margin of error in the North is about +/-7.6%, 19 times out of 20.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Braid if he knew how much of the sample represents respondents who live along the pipeline route. He replied, “I do not know how many of the Northern interviews were along the pipeline route.”

That likely means that the northern margin of error is much higher. If all of British Columbia north of Williams Lake is looked at carefully, there are actually three subregions within the Ipsos-Reid sample.

West of Prince George there is strong opposition to the pipeline. East and northeast of Prince George, especially in the oil and natural gas fields around the Peace River region, there is strong support for the energy industry and the pipeline. South of Prince George, toward Williams Lake, far away from the pipeline route and not involved in hydrocarbon energy extraction, it is most likely that the respondents there would fall into the “unfamiliar” category.

Oil or bitumen?

For those who live along the pipeline route, the fact that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be carrying diluted bitumen, not standard crude oil, is a key factor among those opposing the pipeline.

In response to the question about use of the oil, Braid responded. “On the use of the word “oil”, I know that few average British Columbians know what bitumen is, so that’s no good. And we also try to avoid the use of loaded words like “tar sands” in these interviews. Using a loaded word results in a question that’s biased in one direction. And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project? I believe it’s better to keep the question as clean as possible with no messaging. And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?”

There are a couple of problems with Braid’s response, which we looked at in an earlier analysis of media coverage during the Keystone XL debate.

As was pointed out in that article, in all its filings with the Northern Gateway Joint Review, Enbridge uses the terms “bitumen,” “diluted bitumen,” or “dilbit,” not oil. Bitumen is not the “bubbling crude,” the boomer generation would remember from the Beverly Hillbillies or the oil covered James Dean in Giant.

As media critics have pointed out, the use of “oil sands” is considered a loaded term by the environmental critics, who prefer “tar sands.” The neutral term is bitumen.

Thus it can be argued the use of oil instead of bitumen, even if the poll respondents are not that familiar with the subject, is itself “a loaded word [that] results in a question that’s biased in one direction.”

Braid’s other point “And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?” It would be conventional crude, which has been coming out of wells in Alberta since 1948, that bubbling crude, not bitumen.

Finally “And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project?” That leads to the other major criticism of the poll from environmentalists, that the poll had no questions about the economic consequences to British Columbia’s tourist and sports fishing industries from any “full bore” (a term used in the JRP filings) pipeline break or even minor pipeline breach or the costs of cleaning up from a major tanker disaster as well as the consequences for tourism and the sports and commercial fisheries from a tanker oil spill.

Critics have pointed to the fact that Enbridge commissioned the poll to question its credibility, and while who pays is always a factor in looking at any polling data, overall any polling company’s success depends on the long term accuracy of its findings. In this case, it is more likely that Ipsos-Reid itself should be included in the “unfamiliar” category.

Ipsos-Reid news release on the Northern Gateway Pipeline poll

 

Related Links

Enbridge Northern Gateway blog New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

CBC News  48% support for northern B.C. pipeline, says poll

Vancouver Observer Enviros question methodology of Enbridge poll disputing Northern Gateway pipeline opposition

 

West Coast Environmental Law responds to Ethical Oil’s attack ads

West Coast Enviromental Law, the first target of the attack ads by the Ethical Oil activist group has responded in a statement from Executive Director and Senior Counsel, Jessica Clogg who said: “Our campaigns are not dictated by the sources of our funding. Rather, we seek funding to support the environmental initiatives we decide on as a British Columbia organisation with deep roots in communities around the province.”

The Alberta based pro bitumen sands lobby group Ethical Oil, using figures from Vancouver blogger Vivian Krause are attacking any group opposing the bitumen sands and pipelines who may receive backing from foundations or other groups based outside of Canada.

“Our funding to support ordinary Canadians in keeping our magnificent north Pacific Coast free from the threat of oil tankers and oil spills is dwarfed by that of oil producers and refiners, which put up $100 million to promote the Northern Gateway project and push it through the regulatory review,” Clogg said.

A  statement on its website “Why West Coast is fighting Enbridge (it’s not the funding)” says in part:

Through our environmental legal aid services, citizens and community groups who could not otherwise afford it are able to participate meaningfully and democratically in decisions about resource development that have the potential to profoundly affect their lives.
Back in the ‘70s when a broad citizens’ coalition brought to a halt a proposed oil pipeline to an oil port at Kitimat, BC West Coast lawyers were there to support them. And we are there today for these northern communities as they once again face the threat of environmental devastation from oil pipelines and tankers….
Our belief remains strong today, as then, that our salmon-rich north Pacific coast and rivers should remain free from oil supertankers and the threat of oil spills….
This goal, like the other long-term strategic priorities of West Coast Environmental Law is set by our board and staff, informed by the deep connections we have forged over many decades with communities in every corner of the province. Without the generosity of our supporters, including dedicated individuals and foundations on both sides of the border, the work of our non-profit charity to protect the environment through law would not be possible. But we, not our funders, decide what issues we will focus on.

 

Oil spill caused “unexpected lethal impact” on herring, study shows

683-ucdavis1.jpg 

Scientists from the University of California at Davis and NOAA studying herring spawning beds in San Francisco Bay after the Costco Busan oil spill. (UC Davis)

A 53,569 gallon  (202,780 litre) spill of bunker oil in San Francisco Bay in 2007 had an “unexpected lethal impact on embryonic fish,” according to scientists from the University of California  at Davis  and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who spent two years on follow-up research after the spill, looking at the effects of the spill on Pacific herring.

One significant finding from the study is that different oil compounds, for example crude or bunker oil, likely have different effects on vulnerable environments.

On November 7, 2007,  the container ship Cosco Busan hit the San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge, breaching two fuel tanks and sending the bunker oil into the bay.  Television images of the accident were seen around the world.

684-coscobusan.jpg

Damage to the Cosco Busan.  ( PO 3 Melissa Hauck/US Coast Guard)

The oil spill polluted  the nearby North Central Bay shoreline spawning and rearing habitat for  herring, described  by the study as “the largest coastal population of  Pacific herring along the Continental United States.”   The spill happened a month before the herring spawning season.

The herring from the estuaries of San Francisco Bay  migrate in large schools up the Pacific Coast to the Bering sea, and are food for  whales, other mammals, salmon and birds.  After two years at sea they return to the spawning grounds.

The study also notes: “Herring are a keystone species in the pelagic food web and this population supports the last commercial finfish fishery in San Francisco Bay.” It adds: “Although visibly oiled shorelines were cleaned, some extensively, only 52% of the oil was recovered from surface waters and land  or lost to evaporation.  The amount of hidden or subsurface oil that may have remained near herring spawning areas  is unknown.”

The study, Unexpectedly high mortality in Pacific herring embryos exposed to the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco Bay, was published Monday, Dec. 26,  in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study suggests that even small oil spills can have a large impact on marine life.  Gary Cherr, director  of the UC Davis Bodega Marine  Laboratory and lead author of the study says, “Our research  represents a change in the paradigm  for oil spill research  and detecting oil spill effects in an urbanized estuary.”

That’s because the study builds on research following the 1989 Exxon Valdez  disaster in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which released  32 million gallons (121 million litres) of crude. The Exxon Valdez spill also happened close to the herring spawning season and studies since then have shown mortality and   abnormalities in the fish in Prince William Sound.

The San Francisco study  shows that the bunker oil accumulated in naturally spawned herring embryos. At low tide, the oil then interacted with sunlight in the shallower regions of the estuary, killing the embryos.  A control group of herring, fertilized in a laboratory and place in cages in deeper water, were protected from the combination of oil and sunlight but still showed  “less severe” abnormalities.

“Based on our previous understanding  of the effects of oil on embryonic fish, we didn’t  think there was enough oil from the Cosco Busan spill  to cause this much damage,”  Cherr said. “We didn’t expect  that the ultraviolet light  would dramatically increase toxicity in the actual environment, as might observe in controlled laboratory experiments.”

One reason may be that crude oil, the kind spilled by the Exxon Valdez, is naturally occurring liquid petroleum. Bunker  oil is a thick fuel oil distilled  from crude oil and used as a fuel on ships. Bunker oil can be contaminated by other, unknown substances.  In the case of the Cosco Busan,  the bunker oil was relatively low in sulfur compared to some other bunker fuels but the embryos showed higher than expected levels of sulfur compounds.

685-ucdavis2.jpg

Scientists from the University of California at Davis and NOAA studying herring spawning beds in San Francisco Bay after the Costco Busan oil spill. (UC Davis)

The scientists  analyzed the levels of oil-based compounds in the caged herring embryos at four oiled and two-non oiled sub tidal sites, all at least one metre below  the surface.  Naturally spawned embryos from shallower areas were also studied.

In November, 2007, the spilled oil was visible in the areas chosen for the study.  By the time the herring eggs were incubating, oil was not visible in the contaminated areas, except for some tar balls found on shore.

The researchers began the study in February 2008 .  At the time, three months after the spill,  the caged embryos showed non lethal heart defects, typical of exposure to oil spills.  The embryos in the shallower sub tidal zones showed the same heart defects but also had “surprisingly high rates of dead tissue  and mortality  unrelated to the heart defects.”

“The embryos were literally falling apart with high rates of mortality,” Cherr said.

Normal herring embryos are translucent and colourless when they hatch, except for the pigment around the eye  and melanophores (pigment cells) along the gut.  The  the brain, spinal cord and  axial muscle from embryos from the oiled sites were not as clear. Those embryos had no heart beat and the skin tissue was disintegrating.

No  toxicity was found in embryos in unoiled sites, even those close to major highways. The researchers concluded that the high death rates  did not seem to be caused by natural or man made causes unrelated to the spill.

In 2009, when the scientists concentrated on the role of sunlight, the study showed that the embryos had death rates characterized by  loss of tissue similar to the embryos from the year before,  but possibly caused by undetected compounds from the oil spill.

In 2010, the scientists again looked at embryos from the oiled and unoiled sites. By that time, the hatching rates from the oiled sites were similar  to the “relatively high hatching rates” for the unoiled areas.  However, there was a “significant incidence” of heart problems  among embryos from the oiled sites.

The scientists conclude that while the Exxon Valdez spill did show oil poisoning fish in the early stages of life,  they say  case wider research is needed beyond that done for in the case of the Exxon Valdez because the  Cosco Busan

1. Highlights the difference in effects on fish from exposure to oil of differing composition (i.e. Crude vs bunker)
2. Shows  the role of sunlight, interacting with local conditions (such as shallow water)  can have significant affects on toxicity.
3. Shows the need for more study of the toxic effects of different oil compounds
4. The study has shown the “exceptional vulnerability of fish early stages to spilled oil.”

The conclusion adds  “Although bunker oil typically accounts for only a small fraction of oil in ships,  so spills may be small relative to those of crude oil, it may carry a potential  for disproportionate impacts of in ecologically sensitive areas.”

Both Ellis Ross, Chief Counsellor of the Haisla Nation and April McLeod, president of the Kitimat Valley Naturalists expressed concern abut the findings of the study, especially with the Joint Review Hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline scheduled to begin a few days.

The numerous environmental critics of the Northern Gateway pipeline have pointed out that there is no way of knowing what would happen to an area like the Kitimat River, estuary and Douglas Channel is there was a bitumen spill.  Enbridge has filed documents with the Joint Review Panel that include simulations of a spill.  The new San Francisco study shows that any oil spill could have unforeseen effects.

Plans call for at least three new terminals to be built close to the Kitimat River estuary, not just the controversial Enbridge terminal for bitumen, but at least two for the liquified natural gas projects,  KM LNG and BC LNG and in all three cases ships would normally be fueled by bunker oil.

The Kitimat estuary has been industrialized for 60 years since the building of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter, but still has large areas teeming with fish and wildlife, so the estuary is somewhat in the middle between the heavily urbanized estuaries of San Francisco Bay and the more pristine Prince William Sound.

Ross pointed to the collapse of the oolichan  in the Kitimat River as a strong indicator of potential problems.  He recalls that in the early stages of the Eurocan paper mill the Haisla Nation was told there would be no effect on the oolichan, but soon after the mill began operations, the oolichan population collapsed.  That is why, Ross said, the Haisla  are wary of the plans and want to see more and stronger studies done on the effects of bitumen and other oil compounds in the region.

Other comments were unavailable due to the holiday. They will added as received.

686-kitimatestuary.jpg Kitimat River estuary on Dec. 17, 2011, showing a Rio Tinto Alcan transmission tower. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

California Fish and Wildlife Cosco Busan spill web page.

According to Wikipedia, the US National Transportation Board found that the Cosco Busan accident was caused by
    1. the pilot’s degraded cognitive performance from his use of prescription medications, despite his completely clean post accident drug test,
    2. the absence of a comprehensive pre-departure master/pilot exchange and a lack of effective communication between Pilot John Cota and Master Mao Cai Sun during the accident voyage, and
    3. (COSCO Busan Master) Sun’s ineffective oversight of Cota’s piloting performance and the vessel’s progress.

Other contributing factors included:

  1. the failure of Fleet Management Ltd. to train the COSCO Busan crewmembers (which led to such acts of gross negligence as the bow lookout eating breakfast in the galley instead of being on watch) and Fleet Management’s failure to ensure that the crew understood and complied with the company’s safety management system;
  2. the failure of Caltrans to maintain foghorns on the bridge which were silent despite the heavy fog;
  3. the failure of Vessel Traffic Safety (VTS) to alert Cota and Sun that they were headed for the tower. VTS is legally required to alert a vessel if an accident appears imminent, yet they remained silent;
  4. the malfunctioning radar on the COSCO Busan, which led Captains Cota and Sun to use an electronic chart for the rest of the voyage. Although Coast Guard investigators found the radar to be in working order, they did not examine it until days after the accident (allowing time for faulty equipment to be fixed, which is not uncommon after a marine accident)
  5. Captain Sun’s incorrect identification of symbols on the electronic chart;
  6. the U.S. Coast Guard’s failure to provide adequate medical oversight of Cota, in view of the medical and medication information he had reported to the Coast Guard.

NTSB report on the Cosco Busan accident  (pdf)

Linkfarm: The Krause Chronicles

662-linkfarm1-thumb-150x120-661.jpgVivian Krause styles her self as an  “independent researcher.” Her work is increasingly a favourite of right wing columnists on Postmedia and now Sunmedia

The spin from the conservative columnists, now echoed by the Conservative government is that the environmental opposition to the Northern Gateway is all coming from US based environmental foundations, with the hidden agenda of undermining the Canadian economy.

Only one main stream media report doesn’t praise Krause to the skies came from Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail

The next great pipeline debate – and U.S. funding

Whether or not Krause has a legitimate point about American foundations funding Canadian environmental causes, there has, so far, been no balancing investigation of the money spent by American or other energy companies in Canada to promote their cause.

Here are a few relevant links

Vivian Krause’s site Fair Questions

Krause’s list (of mostly positive for her) media coverage. It is quite extensive but will give you an idea of how widespread her message has reached.

Coverage not found in Krause’s list at this posting

Enbridge boss points to ‘curious’ funding of pipeline opposition by U.S. charities: Edmonton Journal

Foreigners funding ‘mischief’ against Canada’s oilsands: Kent   Sunmedia
Environment Minister Peter Kent adds to the controversy.

U.S. billionaires ‘bullying’ Canada on environment: Researcher Sunmedia (with a quote showing that Stephen Harper supports Krause’s campaign)

Ezra Levant writes a  column for Toronto Sun, calling on the Joint Review Panel to restrict the number of people who will testify against the pipeline.

An “ethicial  oil” spokeswoman, Kathryn Marsall then adds to the mix with
The Big Money Behind the Anti-Oil Sands Movement in the Huffington Post

The National Post then claims the it also the UK that is funding the opposition

Anti-oil sands think-tank being funded by U.K.

and  finally a Black Press columnist named Tom Fletcher repeats it all again in The Alberni Valley News.  (I note that as far as I can find out, none of the northern newspapers in the Black Press chain ran this, or at least ran it prominently)

B.C. a playground for eco-stunts

(a Facebook friend linked to the article, somehow our subsequent discussion about Star Trek got posted, probably because Black Press lets you sign in from FB)

Now, the Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is pushing the Northern Gateway pipeline every chance he gets despite the fact the Joint Review Panel hasn’t even started hearings. but in The Vancouver Sun in Protests won’t stop Northern Gateway pipeline, minister says

He wouldn’t comment on the argument heard in the oilpatch that American money is being driven by broader interests fearful of the U.S. losing its virtual monopoly on the
landlocked oilsands resource.
“I’m not into conspiracy theories.”

In contrast to this huge campaign, there is no one, no one, as of this date, in the mainstream media putting perspective on the story.

One blog from George Ghoberg at the University of  British Columbia is:

Foreign influence on Canadian energy and environmental policy: A request for some balance

I wrote two earlier columns on the subject.

Joint Review media analysis Part one: Calgary Herald columnist advocates
curbing free speech on the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings

Joint Review media analysis Part two: Postmedia and The Great American Energy Conspiracy

From the Environmental point of view. the Pembina Institute has responded to the attacks on its integrity and credibility

Attacks on environmental group supporters are disingenuous and disturbing

The David Suzuki Foundation has responded to Krause’s separate attacks on Suzuki’s opposition to salmon farming

DSF responds to questions about salmon farming

And to put things in somewhat of a wider perspective, The Hill, which covers Capitol Hill in Washington DC had this story on all the companies that lobbied for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Lobbyists go to battle over Keystone pipeline