news coverage | Northwest Coast Energy News

Washington State proposes converting ferries to LNG

Energy

The Seattle Times reports Plan would convert ferries to liquefied natural gas

A proposal to convert six Washington state ferries to liquefied natural gas could save nearly $10 million a year, consultants have told top Washington legislators.

The conversions of the Issaquah-class ferries would cost $65 million, but consultant Cedar River Group said the money would be paid back in seven years through fuel savings.

The six ferries have a life expectancy of 30 more years…

If the state were to convert the six Issaquah-class ferries built in the 1980s — the Cathlamet, Chelan, Issaquah, Kitsap, Kittitas and Sealth — they would be the first ferries fueled by liquefied natural gas in the nation.

Kinder Morgan buys US natural gas pipeline company in $21 billion dollar deal

Kinder Morgan, the giant oil pipeline company, which has proposed building a second bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, Sunday announced it was buying El Paso Corp, America’s largest natural gas pipeline operator.

The Associated Press says the deal is worth $20.7 billion, Bloomberg says it is worth $21.1 billion.

Kinder Morgan already operates a pipeline from Alberta through British Columbia to the port of Vancouver and there are plans to expand that pipeline.

Kinder Morgan’s move comes after Enbridge also said it was interested in moving into the natural gas pipeline business. Both companies are moving to take advantage of the natural gas found in shale deposits and the growing demand for natural gas in both North America and Asia.

Bloomberg says:

The takeover is the largest ever proposed of a pipeline company, surpassing the 2007 leveraged buyout of Kinder Morgan itself by a group including Richard Kinder and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The combined company would have 67,000 miles (107,000 kilometers) of gas lines and eclipse Enterprise Products Partners LP as the biggest U.S. pipeline operator.

“This once in a lifetime transaction is a win-win opportunity for both companies,” Kinder, who will be chairman and chief executive officer of the combined company, said in the statement. He said the deal, once closed, would create immediate shareholder value because of its cash flow.

The Associated Press says

Kinder Morgan will more than double the size of its pipeline network by purchasing El Paso. The new pipeline system would stretch 80,000 miles — long enough to wind around the globe three times. Kinder Morgan’s pipelines in the Rocky Mountains, the Midwest and Texas will be woven together with El Paso’s expansive network that spreads east from the Gulf Coast to New England, and to the west through New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California.

“We believe that natural gas is going to play an increasingly integral role in North America,” said Richard Kinder, Kinder Morgan Inc.’s chief executive, said on Sunday when the deal was announced.

Robert McFadden, a Houston-based natural gas pipeline consultant, said the expanded network will make it easier to move natural gas from new fields that have mushroomed across the U.S. in the past few years.

The take over deal came on the same weekend that the “Occupy” movement was demonstrating around the world against the greed of financial institutions.

Reuters reports that:

The investment banks advising on Kinder Morgan Inc’s $21 billion purchase of El Paso Corp are set to rake in a total of $100 million to $145 million in M&A fees, according to Freeman & Co on Sunday.

Evercore Partners and Barclays Capital , which are advising Kinder Morgan on the deal, would earn $45 million to $65 million in fees, Freeman estimates show.

Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs , which are on El Paso’s side, would split another $55 million to $80 million in fees, depending on the role they played, the estimates show.

EPA finds submerged oil, orders Enbridge to file new Michigan clean up plan by Oct. 20

Environment

A map issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency showing pockets of submerged oil found in the Kalamazoo River during summer 2011 cleanup operations (EPA) Click on map for larger version.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Enbridge to “to take additional steps to clean up the July 2010 oil spill that damaged over 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River system.”

The
directive requires Enbridge to submit plans by Oct. 20, 2011 “for
cleanup and monitoring work expected to last through 2012”. EPA news release. Failure to comply could result in civil penalties.

The local newspaper the Battle Creek Courier quotes an EPA official as saying agency has learned a lot in the 14 months since the Enbridge pipeline burst, contaminating five acres of land, part of Talmadge Creek and 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River. The order was based on what the EPA has learned in the past few months.

“As we get near the end of the active submerged oil recovery, we’ll have to have systems in place long-term to do long-term maintenance,” Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA’s on-scene coordinator told the paper. “So we’ve taken all of these elements and packaged them into a set of expectations — specific tasks that Enbridge has to perform through 2012.”

Most of the remaining oil is submerged at the bottom of the Kalamazoo River or on about 200 riverbank sites that haven’t had work done yet, Dollhopf told the paper.

The EPA also is asking Enbridge to install “passive collection devices” in areas where oil commonly accumulates in the river, Dollhopf said. Oil remaining in the river tends to mass at natural deposit points — most commonly near dammed areas.

The EPA says the work will continue to the end of 2012 and even into 2013 if necessary to remove as much remaining oil as it can without harming the environment.

Some parts of the river may be reopened to the public in 2012.

An Enbridge spokesman, Jason Manshum said in an email to the Michigan paper “Enbridge has committed since the outset of this incident to restore the area as close as possible to its pre-existing condition, and to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, Michigan DEQ and the local community. We remain fully committed to that goal.”

The EPA situation report says that after a year of extensive cleanup work in the Kalamazoo River system. the EPA identified pockets of submerged oil in three areas covering approximately 200 acres that require cleanup…

To date, more than 766,000 gallons of oil have been recovered and 113,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris have been sent to EPA-approved disposal facilities. Enbridge will be required to repay the government for all response costs.

Work during the summer of 2011 was focused on:

Revisiting shoreline areas cleaned up in 2010 where winter weather and spring floods exposed previously unseen oil or spill impacts.
Excavating oil contaminated soil and weathered tarry oil from the overbank areas.
Recovering pockets of submerged oil in the sediment. EPA has identified three major submerged oil areas including the delta leading into Morrow Lake.

Michigan cleanup by the numbers

766,288 gallons of oil recovered
6 million gallons of oil/water collected and disposed
144,942 cubic yards soil/debris disposed
783 personnel on site
$33.9 million costs to date

Source EPA, Sept. 16, 2011

Northern Gateway Pipeline will benefit all Canadians, Daniel says

Energy Link

Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel, writing on the Troy Media site says Northern Gateway Pipeline will benefit all Canadians

With the second largest proven
petroleum reserves in the world, Canada may like to flatter itself that
it is a global energy superpower, but it’s not true.

It could be. One day it might be. But it is not an energy superpower yet…

The Enbridge Northern Gateway
pipeline project, which will run from Edmonton, Alberta, to Kitimat,
British Columbia, is one step on the road to Canada becoming an energy
superpower. With Northern Gateway we will be able to safely move energy
to the West Coast, open new markets for Canadian petroleum and create
thousands of construction and supplier jobs as well as significant
permanent employment right across Canada.

Washington Post editorial argues that Northern Gateway will go ahead

Energy Link (Editorial)

An editorial in the Oct. 10, 2011 issue of the Washington Post argues that it is realistic that the Northern Gateway pipeline (without actually mentioning the name) will go ahead.

In Keystone XL pipeline is the wrong target for protesters

The Post takes aim at the protestors who oppose the Keystone pipeline, seeing it as a passionate fight against fossil fuels. The editorial then goes on to say

True, the petroleum that comes from Alberta’s “tar sands” isn’t very clean; it produces more carbon emissions than light sweet crude. And, true, pipelines can leak, as recent ruptures in Michigan and under the Yellowstone River demonstrate.

But rejecting the pipeline won’t reduce global carbon emissions or the risk of environmentally destructive spills.

Canada’s government — and rising world petroleum prices — guarantee that the country will extract the oil from its tar sands, and that Asia will take it if America doesn’t. That means using pipelines to transport Canada’s heavy crude hundreds of miles to the West Coast and then shipping it abroad, burning fossil fuels and risking ocean spills along the way. China already has a large stake in Canadian oil production. Plans are already in the works to build the necessary pipelines.

The Post notes the allegations that the bitumen sands crude, once refined will not benefit the US but will be exported through the Gulf Coast. Then adds, “But if export markets are that attractive, Canadian crude will reach them without transiting the United States, and American refineries will get their low-grade crude from somewhere else.” For the Post the bottom line is American security, preferring low-grade crude form Canada rather than from hostile Venezuela or the volatile Middle East.

The Post concludes:

Producing energy is a dirty business, and it will remain so for a long time, even with the right policies. Part of facing this reality is admitting that how the world produces energy must change over time. But another part is accepting that oil production will continue for decades and clear-headedly managing the risks — not pretending we can wish them away

The online comments, as you might expect, are about one third in favour (jobs and the economy), one third opposed (climate change, oil spills) and the rest the usual nasty diatribes.

Editors note: Whether or not one supports or opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline, the editorial is a prime example of arm chair rhetoric probably composed by a writer comfortably living in a Georgetown brownstone who will never come within 1000 kilometres of Douglas Channel. It is well known that The Washington Post is not the paper it was 20 years ago. The muddled talk about “clear-headedly managing the risks” shows how the once-great paper has declined. The editorial is actually insulting to both sides, since it is obvious that the Post editorial board have no knowledge of the thousands of pages filed by Enbridge that outline the risks of the Northern Gateway and the company’s contingency plans nor the reservations about the pipeline outlined by the environmental movement, First Nations and local residents.

But then not many news organizations these days bother to assign reports to actually come to the scene of any story. In recent months, just three, Alberta Oil, The Calgary Herald and The Globe and Mail have come here. The rest are content to sit at their desks and work on, as one former managing editor of a major Canadian daily put it, “telephone-assisted reporting.”

US Coast Guard seizes “stateless” drift net boat off Alaska: AP

Fishery

Associated Press reporter Becky Bohrer in Juneau reports on the Bangun Perkasa a rat-infested illegal fishing boat with a 10 mile long drift net seized off Alaska.

Seized Vessel Shines Light on Illegal Fishing

The recent seizure of a stateless ship in international waters 2,600 miles off Alaska’s coast has spotlighted the challenge that the U.S. and other nations face in trying to crackdown on illegal fishing, an activity that accounts for up to $23.5 billion a year in global economic losses.

Finding rogue vessels in the vast, open ocean can be like finding a needle in a haystack. But U.S. officials and some environmentalists say progress is being made, including multinational patrol and enforcement agreements and the potential for sanctions against countries that engage in illegal, unreported and unregulated (or IUU) fishing.

Enbridge plans natural gas pipeline along Northern Gateway route

Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel has told Reuters in New York that the company would prefer to supply natural gas through Kitimat to Asia “over any other export project” and that Enbridge plans to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the
proposed Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline.

Pat Daniel was interviewed by Reuters reporter Edward McAllister. In a story with a New York place line the agency reports:

Pipeline operator Enbridge Inc
would prefer to supply natural gas to the Kitimat liquefied natural gas
plant in British Columbia over any other export project in western
Canada, the company’s chief executive told Reuters on Thursday.

Enbridge is interested in joining one of two proposed Canadian LNG
projects to ship natural gas to Asia, it said this week, as ample North
American supply pushes gas prices far below global levels.

But the location of Kitimat has attracted Enbridge more than Royal Dutch Shell’s potential project in Prince Rupert, also in British Columbia, company head Patrick Daniel said in an interview.

“Kitimat is the preferred project. Pipelining into Kitimat is
relatively straight forward compared to Prince Rupert, which is the
other proposed port,” Daniel said, though talks continue with both
projects…..

Enbridge plans to build a natural gas pipeline along the route of the
proposed Gateway oil line, which would transport natural gas from Horn
River and other natural gas fields to the coast by 2016, Daniel said.

Accuracy is the best neutrality. It’s all about the bitumen.

Editorial

Memo to my media friends and colleagues:

Last Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2011, the District of Kitimat sponsored an “educational forum” here at Mount Elizabeth Theatre on the controversial Northern Gateway pipeline project which, if approved, would carry bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and on to Asia.
.
There was an hour of presentations covering all sides the debate, followed by a question and answer period.

The Enbridge educational forum in Kitimat, Sept. 20, 2011. Left to right, Ellis Ross, Chief Counsellor, Haisla First Nation, Mike Bernier, mayor of Dawson Creek, Greg Brown, environmental consultant and John Carruthers, President Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. (Robin Rowland/ Northwest Coast Energy News)

Throughout those two hours, the word used to describe the substance that could come to Kitimat through that pipeline was the word “bitumen.” Panelists Ellis Ross, Chief Councillor of the Haisla First Nation, John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines talked about “bitumen,” so did environmental consultant Greg Brown, they all spoke about “bitumen.” The questions from the audience were about “bitumen.”

Of course, after a couple of years of hearings,briefings and educational forums on the Northern Gateway pipeline project, with more to come (especially when the Joint Review Panel’s formal hearings begin here in January) the people of Kitimat are used to the word “bitumen.” Everyone from grade school kids to seniors know the right words to use, especially since Kitimat is also the site of proposed liquified natural gas projects (which introduced a whole new set of terminology.)

When we talk about (and sometimes debate) the Northern Gateway project on the cross trainers and treadmills at the Riverlodge gym, the word used is “bitumen.”

While the Kitimat meeting was underway the rest of the continent, and especially the media was focused on another pipeline project, the proposed Keystone XL project that would carry bitumen from Alberta down to Texas to be refined there.

So it was no real surprise when Open File Ottawa ran a short item by freelancer Trevor Pritchard on the debate over media use of the words “oils sands” vs the words “tar sands.”

Type in “Alberta tar sands” into Google, and you get 852,000 results. Perform a search for “Alberta oil sands” instead, and you end up with 334,000 results–not even half that. And if you change “Alberta” to “Alberta’s,” the gap widens even further.
So why do most media outlets tend to default to the phrase “oil sands”? Is “tar sands” pejorative? Or do both terms carry their own bias?

Pritchard pointed back to an article in the Tyee posted after the Calgary Herald attacked the late NDP leader Jack Layton for using the term tar sands.

Tyee quoted the Calgary Herald editorial (no longer visible on the web)this way:

Interestingly, the Calgary Herald didn’t so much take issue with the statements themselves, as it did with his vocabulary.
“It’s not what Layton said,” read an editorial from early April. “It’s the loaded and inaccurate language he used repeatedly, referring to the oil sands as ‘dirty’ and ‘tar sands’ — a word that’s part of the propaganda lexicon for radical environmentalists.”

Nearly two weeks later, the Herald was still ruminating about Layton’s and Obama’s language choices.
“Tar sands is inaccurate and pejorative,” wrote columnist Paula Arab.

In today’s polarized world, you might expect the Calgary Herald, in the centre of the Alberta oil patch, to be in favour of the term “oil sands”

However, most of the mainstream media seem to have bought into the idea that if the sandy hydrocarbons found in northern Alberta are called “tar sands” (it certainly looks and smells and feels like tar) it is pejorative, while “oil sands” are neutral. As comments on both the Tyee and Open File stories show, those who tend toward the environmental point of view consider the term “oil sands” energy industry spin.

Open File asked the Canadian Press for their take on the subject, since the CP Stylebook (like its equivalent from the AP in the United States) is considered the usage Bible not only for the Canadian media for most non-academic writing in the Canada.

Senior Editor James McCarten responded:

Canadian Press style calls for the use of the term “oilsands” (all one word), as it is both the official term used by the petroleum industry and the least susceptible to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It is also in keeping with accepted style for terms like “oilpatch” and “oilfield” — consistency is a critical element of any effective writing style.
It’s also important to choose the most neutral term available.

“Tarsands,” while at one time the industry’s chosen term, has been appropriated in recent years by opponents of the oil industry and has taken on political connotations, so we choose to avoid it.

To which commenter Raay Makers responded:

So let me get this straight: CP deems the term preferred by the petroleum industry “neutral,” while the term “appropriated” by opponents of the oil industry isn’t. They obviously have misconceptions of the meaning of the term neutral.

An hour after I read the Open File story, I turned to CBC TV News and watched Margot McDiarmid’s item on the Keystone debate. In her first reference to the Keystone pipeline, McDiarmid used the term “oil sands bitumen” to describe what would go through the Keystone to Texas. Relatively accurate. But then at the end of her item she said “oil” would be flowing through the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat.

Even though I worked in radio or TV for three decades and know the necessity to keep things as simple as possible in a short item, I was appalled. To describe the bitumen that is going through those pipelines simply as “oil” is misleading and inaccurate.

If you’ve sat through briefings, attended hearings and read the documents, it is clear that bitumen behaves differently in a pipeline from conventional oil, whether it is crude oil or refined oil.

That difference is at the heart of the debate over both pipelines. It appears that no one outside of the local media here in Kitimat and media along the Northern Gateway route seems to understand that difference, not even at the centre of the current debate about the Keystone XL in Nebraska.

So I checked. What term is the media using to describe what will flow through the Keystone and Northern Gateway pipelines? The media is all over the place, calling it oil, crude oil, crude, tar sands oil, oil sands crude, oil sands bitumen.

I first checked the CBC.ca site:

Max Paris in the written story tied to McDiarmid’s item uses “oil sands bitumen,” the CBC interactive uses “oil sands crude.”

Today’s New York Times uses the term “oil pipeline” to describe the Keystone project.

In a Nebraska local paper, the Omaha World Herald, reporter Paul Hammel describes it as “a crude-oil pipeline”

In another local paper, the Lincoln Nebraska, Journal Star reporter Art Hovey uses “oil.”

An Associated Press story today, (at least as it appears on the Forbes site) is totally inconsistent, with the web friendly summary speaks about Keystone XL carrying “tar sands oil,” but the main body of the story calls it “oil.”

Reuters uses the term “oil” in this story

An editorial from Bloomberg uses “oil” in the lead

On first look, it might seem wrong to allow TransCanada Corp. to build the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

It goes on to eloquently describe the situation in Alberta’s sandy hydrocarbons

What’s more, a new conduit would seem to only encourage the further development of the Athabascan oil sands in Alberta. This is a dirty business, to be sure: Vast tracts of spruce and fir are cleared to make way for open-pit mines, from which deposits of sticky black sand are shoveled out and then rinsed to yield viscous tar. For deeper deposits, steam is shot hundreds of feet into the earth to melt the tar enough that it can be pumped to the surface. Then there are the emissions associated with mining Canadian oil sands: It produces two and a half times as much carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as oil drilling in, say, Saudi Arabia or west Texas.

Bloomberg as you might expect from a business site, goes on to give the argument for building Keystone XL in terms of jobs and the economy (and in a much more measured way than the strident columnists in the Postmedia chain here)

Bloomberg concludes

Keep in mind, the U.S. is crisscrossed by thousands of miles of pipelines carrying crude oil, liquid petroleum and natural gas. One of these is the Keystone 1 pipeline, which already carries crude from the oil sands. Yes, these pipes sometimes leak — spectacularly last year when almost 850,000 gallons of oil spilled from a ruptured pipe in Michigan. Far more often, when leaks occur, they are small and self-contained.
After the public hearings, the U.S. should give TransCanada the green light — and then make sure the company manages pipeline design and construction with care.

Get the picture. As far as I can tell, no one, no one in the major news media is accurately describing what will flow through the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines. Again the accurate descriptions come from the local media in northwestern BC who have attended years of local briefings and hearings.

Oil comes from oil sands, right? Here is where the use of the term “oilsands’ leads to misleading coverage. It is where senior editors at CP and other senior editors at other news organizations are wrong. Saying oil or crude will flow through these specific pipelines does lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and it comes directly from the ill advised use of the words “oil sands.”

Say “oil” and, although it is a generic term, most people think of the substance you put in an engine, ranging from the thick, black gooey stuff that goes into a two stroke boat engine, through the lighter oil that goes into your car or the even lighter oil used by model makers. “Petroleum” would probably be a better generic term.

Say crude and most people would think of James Dean covered in the crude from the gusher in Giant or similar movie scenes. Or for those old enough to remember, they think of the opening of the Beverly Hillbillies when the “bubbling crude” comes out of the ground at Jed Camplett’s farm.

So what is going through the pipelines? While Enbridge uses the term “oil” in its promotional brochure on Nothern Gateway (pdf file), in the briefings here Enbridge officials always talk of “bitumen.” They know that the people living in Kitimat, again whether supporter or opponent, have done their home work. Everyone here knows it won’t be “oil” in the pipeline. But it seems that the public relations branches of Enbridge and TransCanada still believe they can spin the media into reporting the pipelines will just be carrying oil.

So what is going to be in the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines? Read the documents filed with the Joint Review Panel and you find out it is “diluted bitumen” (The bitumen from those sandy hydrocarbons in Alberta has to be diluted or it won’t flow through the pipeline.)

Documents filed with the Joint Review Panel by Stantec, an environmental consulting company based in Fredericton, New Brunswick, hired by Enbridge, and frequently retained by the energy industry uses this definition:

diluted bitumen A hydrocarbon consisting of bitumen diluted with condensate in order to reduce viscosity, rendering it suitable to be transported via a pipeline. In addition to condensate, other subjects can be used as a dilutant (naptha and synthetic oil)

So what is condensate?

Again as defined by industry consultant Stantec condensate is:

condensate: A low density mixture of hydrocarbon liquids that are present in raw natural gas produced from many natural gas fields or which condense out of raw gas if the temperature is reduced below the hydrocarbon dew point temperature of the raw gas.

(Another angle the media has ignored about the Northern Gateway project. While it carries diluted bitumen west from Alberta, there is a twin pipeline that carries the condensate east to Alberta.)

What to call the pipelines and the product?

So let’s talk about Northern Gateway and Keystone XL first. These pipelines are different from the other pipelines that Bloomberg and other media say crisscross North America.

These pipelines will be carrying diluted bitumen, not oil, not crude.

When the public think of oil they think of a lubricant that enhances flow, not a gritty substance that has to be diluted before it can move. Diluted bitumen is a mixture of sand and soil and crude hydrocarbons, with various petrochemicals added to so that that mixture can actually get through the pipelines.

The use of diluted bitumen is raising all kinds of questions. There were questions at last week’s forum on the effect of the friction from the sand on the stability of the pipelines. There were questions at the forum about the corrosive nature of the condensate added to the bitumen on the stability of the pipelines.

These questions do not arise when it comes to conventional pipelines which have been built for the past century.

While there have been major oil spills for decades on land and sea, there has never been a major spill of bitumen in either a pristine watershed or the ocean. There has never been a major spill involving this mixture of bitumen and condensate.

Unfortunately, the ultimate answer to the question of how dangerous such as spill could be, will only be found out if there is disaster.

A photo map of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline (in yellow) showing its route close to the Kitimat River, site of the town’s water supply. (Enbridge. Filed with the Joint Review Panel)

The Northern Gateway Pipeline follows the route of the Kitimat River. One of the most frequent questions is what happens to the town’s water supply if the pipeline breaks.

There are thousands of pages on the Joint Review Panel website that show that Enbridge and their consultants have done all kinds of tests, modelling and contingency planning to support their stand the pipelines and the tankers are as safe as possible. There are documents from environmental groups and others that take the opposite position.

So to maintain its already shaky credibility the media must be accurate. Accuracy is the best form of neutrality.

So here are my style/copy suggestions:

The media should call what is going into the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipelines “diluted bitumen” on first reference and “bitumen” on subsequent references.

It is NOT accurate to call it “oil.” It is not really accurate to call it “crude.”

It is crude oil mixed with sand and the condensate chemicals. To call what will go through the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL pipeline simply as oil or crude is leading to gross misinterpretation and complete misunderstanding.

The media should continue to use oil when they are referring to conventional oil flowing through a conventional pipeline.

The public isn’t stupid. If you ask a Grade Three student in Kitimat about bitumen and condensate you’ll get a pretty good answer. If the media has to produce sidebars, graphics, interactives, explainer items, to explain what bitumen is, the sooner the better, so that those taking part in the debate and those reporting it know what they’re talking about.

Tar sands/Oil sands

It is clear that the Canadian media managers who decided in the mid 2000s that the term “oil sands” was more neutral than “tar sands” blundered.

Yes the environmentalists do use “tar sands” and for some it can be pejorative. But if you have ever seen the stuff it certainly is tar.

Just as Enbridge uses “oil” in its brochure on Northern Gateway but says the real thing “bitumen” in meetings, “oil sands” is the preferred energy industry spin term. The use of the term “oil sands” reduces media credibility.

Using “oil sands” likely amplifies the general belief that the “corporate media” is in the pocket of big business and thus reduces the credibility of the shrinking numbers of hardworking reporters left working in the field.

Here crowd sourcing and social media help. There are postings both on Open File and Tyee saying the terms “bitumen sands” or “bitumen-bearing sands” are proper neutral terms. I have used the term “sandy hydrocarbons” in this article, I came across it in a briefing document some while ago and it stuck in my mind (though I can’t remember where I saw it).

It is up to public editors, ombudspersons and style book editors to make the call here for their organizations. I believe that if the media starts using “bitumen sands” as a technically accurate and neutral term for what is found in northern Alberta, the readers and viewers will quickly accept it.

Staff of the Joint Review Panel brief residents of
Kitimat on the process, June 16, 2011.
(Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

The big picture. Why isn’t the environment in the style books?

There is a bigger problem that I discovered when I was looking into this issue. I checked the Canadian Press Stylebook to see what the editors said about the environment and found nothing. Absolutely nothing. There are chapters on business news, entertainment, sports, even travel, but nothing on environmental coverage.

A very quick check with copy editor friends seems to have come up with same result across the media. Media stylebooks don’t consider the environment important enough to have a full chapter. (I may have missed some of course, the check was very quick) yet environmental stories are in the news every day.

The Associated Press was founded in 1848, in part so the New York newspapers could cooperate in getting the latest business news from Europe, first from ships and then from the transAtlantic cable. So business news has been essential to the media for at least a century and a half. This, I believe, has created this historical, and probably unintentional, institutional bias that favours word usage preferred by business. If media style books had environment chapters then the question of oil sands/tar sands would have been considered more thoroughly and the “neutrality” of “oil sands” questioned.

Who knows what other environmental issues have been considered only superficially because stylebooks don’t have a chapter on the environment?

Reporters in the field are often left angry and frustrated by rulings from public editors and ombudspersons who may, despite their efforts, err on the side of “neutrality” rather than “accuracy” especially in this era of extreme polarization.

Media managers often take the path of least resistance, especially if they are being inundated with complaining e-mails and letters.

A stylebook chapter on the environment should stress accuracy over neutrality. Thus it serves the public.

A rigorous chapter in a media style book on the environment (and also on science which is also lacking) would give guidance to reporters in the field, editors at the desk and allow managers to tell the complainers with agendas just how the issue has been examined.

This site has always used bitumen to describe what will be in the Northern Gateway Pipeline. From now on it will use bitumen sands in copy, and will use tar sands and oil sands in direct quotes as appropriate. I hope the rest of the media will follow.

Disclosure: I worked for CBC.ca from 1996 until I took early retirement in 2010. I have also freelanced for both Canadian Press and OpenFile.

Glossary of terms used in Stantec environmental report (PDF excerpt from original file)

Christy Clark flies to Kitimat, spins on LNG, flies out again

Energy Environment Politics
BC Premier Christy Clark meets with the leaders of the Haisla First Nation at Kitamaat Village, Monday, Sept. 19, 2011. (BC government hand out )

BC Premier Christy Clark made a flying visit to Kitimat Monday, Sept. 19, 2011, dropping into Kitamaat Village to meet with the leaders of the Haisla First Nation and, as part of the flying, boarded a helicopter to take a look at the KM LNG at under construction at Bish Cove, before flying out again.

It was all part of the premier’s campaign style job strategy which sees Clark touring the province this week and unveiling a complete jobs package on Thursday.

The proposed liquified natural gas terminals at Kitimat are not as controversial in this region as the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. There is general support for the LNG projects, allowing for safety concerns about LNG tankers and environmental problems from the construction of the pipeline.

Clark’s visit to the Kitimat region is controversial here because from all appearances, there was little or no substance. If the visit had in been the early decades of the last century, when politicians traveled by train rather than helicopter, it would have been a “whistle stop,” nothing more.

A BC premier visiting the traditional territory of the Haisla First Nation should, of course, make a courtesy call on the leadership in the village, although it appears the visit was short, routine rather than a truly substantial meeting.

As for the rest of the Kitimat region was concerned, the premier’s short in and out photo op was not aimed at helping the people of Kitimat but appeared to be more spinning her jobs strategy throughout the rest of the province which is less familiar with the history of development in Kitimat.

No one in the local media, the Northern Sentinel, Kitimat Daily nor Northwest Coast Energy News were given any information about timing of the premier’s visit, perhaps because local reporters might ask tougher questions than the BC legislature pool traveling with Clark. The Northern Sentinel only found out about the time of the meeting after one of the numerous calls made by local media was actually returned in time for their reporter to be in the village for the premier’s visit.

As of Sunday, no meeting between the premier and Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan was scheduled. At the last minute, after some political arm twisting, the premier did have a brief ten to fifteen minute meeting with Monaghan and Municipal Manager Ron Poole at the village on Monday. (It should be noted that members of Kitimat council will meet with Clark at the up coming convention of the Union of BC Municipalities).

At 14:55 Monday, Sept. 19, Clark (or her PR team) tweeted.

We’re taking steps to get #kitimat’s liquefied natural gas plant running by 2015. A strong LNG industry means local jobs. #bcpoli

The message was quickly retweeted by Clark supporters. That tweet raised eyebrows, since the process for the KM LNG is already well under way, with construction apparently on schedule for the 2015 date when the first natural gas will flow into a tanker. The licence for KM LNG is in the hands of the federal National Energy Board.

What the tweet meant became clearer once the premier’s office issued a news release

Christy Clark’s “more aggressive approach to the development of the natural gas sector” includes traditional small c conservative elements:

Cutting red tape: accelerate the lengthy permitting processes and improve the decision making required to bring large-scale production facilities from a concept to a reality, and that these commitments will be a greater priority for B.C. on a go forward basis.

Skills training: working with industry partners for some time on the future skills required to support a new LNG industry. The goal is to ensure the post-secondary system is able to deliver the targeted training necessary to grow the oil and gas industry, including LNG.

Attracting investment: by working with industry stakeholders and First Nations to remove the barriers and secure the investment required to establish up to three LNG plants by 2020. As of today, the Province is aware of a handful of LNG proposals.

The only practical element in Clark’s announcement was help for the Haisla First Nation in dealing with multiple developments: (as related in the news release)

The Province’s assistance is timely,” said Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross. “Our own training capacity is limited by resources and capabilities, and these have been exhausted given the projects now underway on our territory and the demands they place on our people for skills and training. Our economic future has never looked better, and this assistance will help us deliver on this promise to our community.”

Michael Smyth of The Province (along with a number of Tweeters) noted that most of Clark’s announcement was recycled.

Those same economic storms have buffeted the government, too, and Clark doesn’t have a lot of money to spend on direct job creation — not if she keeps her promise to balance the budget in 2013.

So, expect many re-announcements of old projects. The proposed Kitimat liquefied natural gas plant Clark trumpeted Monday, for example, was approved three years ago.
She’s also expected to cheerlead the Northwest Transmission Line project this week, another one that’s been in development for years.

Without a lot of money to throw around, Clark will talk about getting government out of the way of private-sector job creation. Deregulation and cutting red tape is less expensive than direct stimulus spending to create jobs.

The environmentalists won’t be happy when she starts fast-tracking permits for mining and other resource extraction, but losing “green” votes is the least of her worries.

Veteran journalist Norm Farrell in his blog “Let’s play political football with Kitimat” gives a list of how often a Kitimat LNG project has been announced going back to an Associated Press report from 1981

The Rim Gas Project, which includes Petro-Canada of Calgary, Westcoast Transmission of Vancouver and Mitsui and Co. Ltd. of Japan, wants to deliver and sell liquefied natural gas to Japan from a plant it will build at Bish Cove, six miles from Kitimat.

And Kitimat Tweeter YWGSourpuss posted:

Kitimat has kinda sorta might been getting an LNG Plant since I was a teenager. Meanwhile, Methanex and Eurocan were culled, dust blows…

and then

I see media wonks waffling about LNG/Kitimat/need for cheap energy. Remember Kemano Completion? Ask Rio Tinto re: hole in the mountain.

On the Opposition side of the question, Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer looked at an apparent split in the opposition NDP over the LNG issue Wednesday, noting that the environment critic NDP environment critic Rob Fleming is concerned about the controversial fracking process used to retrieve natural gas from shale:

When you look at where the gas would come from, we’re talking about major shale-gas deposits. There are big concerns there, from an environmental perspective, around water usage and whether it’s sustainable, and water contamination when it’s injected underground to bring the gas to the surface – the fracking process – and a lot of greenhouse gases produced.

Palmer reports that the NDP house leader John Horgan has indicated that he and Opposition leader Adrian Dix support LNG exports.

In Horgan’s estimation, it could be piped to the coast, liquefied and shipped out with minimal risk. “Liquid natural gas doesn’t stick to things. It blows up, or it vents. So the environmental consequence of a catastrophe with an LNG tanker is relatively insignificant,” he told me during an interview on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV.

“So the risk to our coastline from LNG is insignificant; the benefit to British Columbians is quite significant. And it’s our resource, so we’ll get the royalties for extracting it, we’ll get value added by getting it to an LNG facility, and then we’ll get a better price for it in Asia.

Palmer is concerned about Fleming’s caution not to rush things, stating that

For “you can’t rush these things” is precisely the opposite of what industry analysts are saying about LNG development. The window on the Asian market is closing, and if B.C. doesn’t get moving, the opportunity will be gone. Again.

One wonders where Palmer gets his evidence that window of opportunity for the Asian markets is closing? With the Fukishima meltdown, the market window for LNG is actually expanding, not just in Japan but across East Asia. What some in the energy industry are warning about is Canadian gas being exported through the United States, warnings that were prominent at the NEB hearings in Kitimat last June and is largely industry spin trying to hurry the approval process along.

The controversy over fracking will continue, with the energy industry claiming it is safe and the environmental activists saying it is not. What is apparent about fracking as Pro Pubilica have pointed out in their continuing investigation of the issue, is that use of the process on a wide scale is new and there aren’t enough adequate studies of the process. Inadequate study could mean consequences down the road, we don’t know, so there should be some caution.

The blasting continues at the KM LNG site at Bish Cove as the shoreline rocks are levelled to close to sea level. Meanwhile the political spin pitches just as much hot air and debris into the atmosphere.

Northern View: B.C. Jobs Plan’ keys on trade with Asia

Harper’s decision to defund coast management group may blow back on Enbridge, lawyer says

Energy Environment Link

The West Coast Environmental Law blog says the decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take funding away from the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area plan may actually blow back on Enbridge, delaying the Northern Gateway pipeline project for years.

The cancellation of the funding is perceived as part of the Conservative government’s aim of pushing the
Northern Gateway pipeline through no matter what the cost. (Two cabinet ministers, Joe Oliver and James Moore are publicly endorsing the Northern Gateway, despite the fact the Joint Review Hearings don’t even begin until January 2012. It is unlikely either minister would make an endorsement like that without Harper’s approval.)

In the blog post, Why Harper’s shot at PNCIMA also hit Enbridge in the foot, lawyer Andrew Gage argues that Harper’s move, apparently motivated by fears that the PNCIMA process could block the pipeline, fears created by Vancouver blogger Vivian Crause and her allies among PostMedia’s right wing columnists, will actually delay the pipeline for years because it negates the legal obligation to consult First Nations and thus will likely throw the entire process into the courts for years.

Litigation by any of the Coastal First Nation against the Enbridge Pipeline could pose a serious problem for Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Project. Because of First Nations title and rights that are protected by Canada’s constitution, the federal government has a duty to “act honourably” and to consult and accommodate First Nations who have a “credible but unproven claim” of rights that may be adversely affected by a government decision (such as approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project and related tanker traffic.)

As a result, anything that the federal government does in relation to consultations with the Coastal First Nations about tanker traffic and the Enbridge Pipeline that might be considered “dishonourable” creates legal uncertainty and problems for Enbridge. So was the decision to withdraw from the current PNCIMA funding arrangement “dishonourable?”

Gage notes that the federal government is required by the Oceans Act, passed under the Liberals in 1997, to set up integrated management plans for all coastal areas of Canada, not just the northwest, a process that began in 2005.

Gage also points out that Enbrige has, in the past, participated in the process:

A wide range of stakeholders, including one seat for the conservation sector, provide input and consensus based advice on an Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, but do not determine the outcomes of the PNCIMA process. Enbridge has itself participated on the Integrated Oceans Advisory Committee, along with representatives of the fish farming, commercial fishing, renewable energy, recreational fishing and tourism industries, and even sponsored an early workshop in the PNCIMA process.

In short, PNCIMA is created by the federal government, managed jointly by the federal and provincial governments and First Nations, but with efforts being made to involve a wide range of stakeholders. Because the PNCIMA is co-chaired by a federal government staff-member, and requires sign-off from the government, it was unlikely to have resulted in a complete ban on oil tanker traffic, although it might have placed restrictions on marine travel, or otherwise provided protection for the coast from shipping impacts.

However, progress was slow, in part due to the limits of federal funding available for the process.

He goes onto to say that the Harper government itself agreed to the now controversial foundation funding in 2010. That was before the attacks from Crause and the PostMedia’s business columnists reached a crescendo in recent weeks. But now there is no longer any mechanism that can be perceived as neutral that consult with First Nations and other northwest coast stake holders.

To flip-flop now, slightly more than a year before the process was supposed to wrap up, leaves the PNCIMA process without the funding that the government has acknowledged is required for a thorough planning process. It is also a slap in the face for the Coastal First Nations, the BC government, environmental organizations and industry stakeholders who have worked on this process for years.

Prime Minister Harper’s government may have believed that it was helping Enbridge and its Northern Gateway Pipelines by withdrawing from this funding agreement. But the resulting uncertainty, and the appearance that the federal government has acted less than honourably towards the Coastal First Nations, may well cause Enbridge huge legal head-aches in the future.

Editor’s note: As I said in this post, there appears to be a double standard, since what the Harper government, PostMedia’s columnists and Krause apparently are saying that it is only acceptable if billionaire capitalists spend their money on a conservative or pro-energy industry agenda, but it is not acceptable if a billionaire capitalist decides to spend his money to protect the environment.