Danny Nunes at the District of Kitimat Council meeting, March 5, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Danny Nunes, a candidate for mayor of Kitimat in the fall election, together with a group of volunteers, is launching a petition/referendum opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.
Nunes was a gadfly candidate for Kitimat mayor in the fall election, gaining 85 votes. He is a Kitimat and Terrace based video producer and comedian, also known as Matt Mask.
Nunes pointed to a vote by Kitimat council on January 17, 2012, not to hold any council vote or referendum on the Enbridge project until after the Joint Review Panel has reported, sometime in 2013. In the meantime, Prince Rupert, Terrace and Smithers councils and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District have all had votes opposing the Northern Gateway project.
“If they won’t hold a referendum, I will,” Nunes told Northwest Coast Energy News, referring to the District of Kitimat council.
He plans an old style paper petition, getting signatures by going to events or door to door, making sure that as many signatures as possible can match the voters’ list in the last municipal election. Matching with the voters’ list is one reason why Nunes says he is not going to use an online petition site.
Once he has signatures from all those Kitimat residents who oppose the Northern Gateway project– “we’ll know if the town is opposed or just a small minority” — he plans to present the petition to District of Kitimat Council, probably sometime in April.
Hatha Callis, left, of Progressive Ventures Construction, discusses contracting possibilities with the staff of the Pacific Trails Pipeline at a community meeting in Terrace, BC, March 1, 2012 (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)
Pacific Trails, which has proposed to build a natural gas pipeline from Summit Lake, near Prince George, to Kitimat, held four community meetings in Vanderhoof, Burns Lake, Houston and Terrace, to discuss changes to a plan for the pipeline that was approved the BC Environmental Assessment Office in 2008.
Paul Wyke, a spokesman for Apache Corp., one of the main investors in the Kitimat LNG project as well as the Pacific Trails Pipeline, said the companies considered the meetings successful. About a dozen people showed up in Vanderhoof and Burns Lake and about 25 to 30 in Terrace and Houston, perhaps an indication of the lack of controversy, so far, for the PTP, which will follow roughly the same route as the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. Apache and Pacific Trails also took part in a job fair on February 10 in Burns Lake, the town hard hit when a huge explosion flattened the Babine Forest Products sawmill on January 20, killing two, injuring 19 and left about 250 workers jobless.
About half the people showing up at the meetings were interested in job or contracting opportunities while the rest were concerned about environmental issues.
Nathan Hagan-Braun, project assessment manager for the BC Environmental Assessment Office, who also attended the community meetings, said that a decision on approval of the amendments to the PTP plans will likely come in May.
PTP says that once the project adjustments are approved, logging and clearing is scheduled for the summer of 2012, pipeline construction in 2013 and 2014, with the pipeline going into operation in 2015.
Smithers has become the third northwestern British Columbia municipal council to vote against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, joining Prince Rupert and Terrace. Earlier, one regional district, Skeena Queen Charlotte, also voted against the controversial pipeline and tanker project.
I brought forth a new motion to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The motion passed 5-1 after careful and considerable debate by council. My decision was based in part on new information that came out from recent decisions made in Terrace, SQCRD, and Prince Rupert that made it clear that local governments had the right and are clearly permitted to provide information to the Joint Review Panel. Since the previous motion was tabled with the reasoning being that it was felt we should not be influencing the JRP it seemed appropriate to bring forth a new motion at this time taking into consideration that we made the decision based on the information currently available.
Brienesse was quoted by CFJW on Tuesday night: “I hope this really brings our community together and in particular what it does, is it brings the north together so now we have Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert, and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District all opposing Enbridge, in their own unique ways that makes sense to their community,” said Brienesse, adding “we have a united North, so I am very positive about this.”
CFJW said the only vote against the motion was from Councillor Charlie Northrup, who noted not all councillors were present for last night’s meeting — and he wanted to table it until everyone was there.
Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway, speaking on CBC Radio, repeated what he said to Northern View after the Prince Rupert vote, that it was better for all communities to wait until the Joint Review Panel had finished the hearings and then make a decision based on all the evidence.
Prince Rupert council has joined Terrace and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District in voting to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project and associated tanker traffic on the west coast.
The Prince Rupert Council vote was unanimous.
The council has adopted the same resolution that the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District (SQCRD) did over a week ago:
Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Prince Rupert be opposed to any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic as well as bitumen export in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound in British Columbia.
And be it further resolved that the City of Prince Rupert petition the federal government to establish a legislated ban on bulk crude oil tanker traffic and bitumen export through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound in British Columbia.”
The council debate took place before a packed audience. Council decided to consider the matter after the Prince Rupert Environmental Society that asked the city council to adopt the resolution.
Like some other northern councils, including Kitimat, Prince Rupert had remained neutral on the controversial pipeline.
Councillor Jennifer Rice said it was time for the city to make its position clear. She said the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review panel was asking northern municipalities for their opinion (although actually the opinion and argument phase of the JRP hearings won’t take place until the “final arguments” currently scheduled for sometime around April 2013).
Rice said Prince Rupert’s silence could have been taken as acceptance of the $5.5-billion proposal to pipe Alberta oil across B.C. to Kitimat, where supertankers would carry it to overseas customers.
Other members of council agreed with Rice, expressing concerns about damage that could be caused if a Very Large Crude Carrier (a supertanker) could get into trouble.
The mayor, Jack Mussallem, argued, as have others across the northwest, that council should wait until the Joint Review Panel concludes its hearings, when all appropriate information was available. He did not vote. (After the vote in Terrace, B.C. Energy Minister Rich Coleman said local representatives to follow the provincial government’s lead and remain neutral until a federal environmental review is complete.)
Prince Rupert city council has expressed a position on the Northern Gateway project and that is their right. Surely the best time to make a decision in the public interest is when all the facts are known?
Northern Gateway is in the midst of an extensive federal review which will examine the project in detail and in public – as it should. We would hope that people will wait until they have an opportunity to hear the facts before making up their minds.
Most of the communities along the corridor have taken a neutral position until this regulatory review has been completed. This is fair to everyone, and it allows elected officials to get a full view of the project with all the facts having been aired through the review process – which then allows them to make an informed decision.
Numerous communities – in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have a history of working with Enbridge – have written letters of support for the project and filed them with the Joint Review Panel.
It is our view that the more people learn about the project, the more they tend to support Northern Gateway. A recent Ipsos Reid poll found that, among British Columbians, those in the North are the most familiar with the project, and they are also the most supportive.
The Terrace, BC, town council voted 5-2 Monday night to oppose both the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project and the associated tanker traffic along the British Columbia coast.
Sentiment among councillors and mayor showed all were opposed or wary in one way or another about the pipeline project that would carry bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat and send it via tanker from Kitimat. The vote split on whether the council should take a position now, or wait until there is a final report from the Joint Review Panel which is now holding hearings.
Councillor James Cordeiro introduced a motion that the council first rescind a motion from last March that it remain neutral on the issue and second adopt the position taken at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities that council should 1) oppose the shipping of tar sands oil in pipelines across northern BC for loading crude oil onto tankers and 2) oppose any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, and Queen Charlotte Sound.
Cordeiro told council that during the election campaign last fall he found there was “overwhelming” opposition to both the bitumen pipeline and to the tanker traffic. He found there were a small number of people either in favour or waiting for more information, to which he responded, that if there is enough information for supporters to formulate their opinion, there is also enough information for those opposed.
The promise of jobs and new oil export opportunities “are weak at least and do not meet the threshold of the wishes of the electorate,” Cordeiro told council. He went over the current economic situation where Alberta oil is sold to the United States at a discount but can be sold to Asia at world market prices. “Alberta will reap billions of dollars in the short term. BC will not get a fair share of Alberta’s windfall. This is not acceptable to the citizens of Terrace.” He said the best approach was to support Terrace’s First Nations neighbours in their opposition to the pipeline and look for projects that would bring long term benefits to British Columbia.
Councillor Marilyn Davies said she too found little support for the pipeline during the recent election campaign. “I really can’t see what’s in it for us,” she said. “I am a free enterpriser, but this does not deserve free enterprise support. We get some benefits but at what cost? The environmental risk is way too high.” She also said there is not enough information about who is funding the pipeline project and not much information about who is funding the tar sands. Davies said the bitumen should be upgraded in this country, not in a country known for its human rights abuses. “Why should we gamble? We get very little, and that’s in the short term, whereas we could lose something that can never be replaced.”
Brian Downie, who voted against the motion, took the view that voting at this time did not serve Terrace’s best interests. He pointed to “a dozen years of recession” in Terrace that is “just starting to turn around in a fragile recovery.” Downie said he was worried about how the vote would affect Terrace’s economic reputation, pointing to the recent vote by Kitimat council to put off any decision until after the Joint Review reports.
Downie said wasn’t logical to rush the process and to take a position in advance of the JRP report. He then concluded by saying: “I have heard the arguments for and against. I have participated in the Community Advisory Board and I am not convinced there are substantial direct benefits for Terrace and I have concerns with the geotechnical issues.” Downie also said he had reservations about how well Enbridge can manage the project, but, in the end, he said, it is best to defer to the Joint Review Panel for now.
Councillor Stacey Tyers was clear in her position, that the JRP process can’t be trusted. It went from environmental to economic, she said. As for the pipeline: “It is good for Alberta and good for Ottawa, while we get few benefits. It is important to take a stand, to stop sitting on the fence. It is imperative to take a decision, to get off the fence. We must join the coastal First Nations in taking a stand, opposing what isn’t good for our community.”
She concluded by adding, “If it’s good for Kitimat, let them vote on it.”
Mayor David Pernarowksi said that he understands the majority of people in Terrace are opposed to the pipeline. He then added that some people in the economic development community believe that remaining neutral made more sense, because taking a position now could put Terrace in a “precarious position.”
While Pernaroswki said he is personally opposed to the pipeline project, but he felt it was the duty of council to listen to the 4,000 people who have signed up for the Joint Review, to listen through the presentations by both the intervenors and those making oral comments: “I would like to hear from these people, I don’t want to deny my thoughts. We don’t think this project makes sense but Council has a responsibility to listen to the panel. We shouldn’t make a decision until we hear from those people.
“It’s tough one. We see the risk, I am currently opposed to the project, because a majority of the First Nations oppose it. I am going to have a hard time to stand in difference to our First Nations community. November would be more appropriate to bring this before council.”
He concluded by saying the economic position may be different by November, there could be community benefits as a result of on-going meetings between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta that could bring financial contributions that Terrace badly needs. “I am not saying it’s all about the money. I’d like to show that we’re open to listening and then coming to a good solid, reasoned, knowledgeable conclusion to what this community really wants.”
The veteran politician then said, “I have done the numbers.” knowing the vote would be to oppose the pipeline. He voted against the motion.
Cordeiro told council. “We don’t have to wait until Alberta sweetens the deal.”
The final speaker was Councillor Bruce Bidgood, who said that he had voted in March to remain neutral, but that Prime Minister’s Stephen Harper’s attacks on opponents of the pipeline as “enemies of Canada” had led him to change his vote to oppose the pipeline.
“I believe Terrace is open for business,” he said. “It’s just not for sale at any price.”
Pacific Northern Gas, the main supplier of natural gas to much of northern British Columbia, has agreed to be taken over by the much bigger Calgary-based AltaGas Ltd. in a deal worth $230 million or $36.75 a share.
The deal gives AltaGas a stake in the natural gas export race, since Pacific Northern’s pipelines link Alberta and British Columbia gas fields to Kitimat, where there are at least three projects underway to export liquified natural gas to Asian markets.
Pacific Northern Gas distribution network. (PNG)
In a news release, Pacific Northern Gas said that company executives began considering the future after PNG sold their interest in Pacific Trails Pipeline last February to the partners in the Kitimat LNG project.
Roy Dyce, president and CEO of PNG said in the news release:
This transaction is in the
best interests of our shareholders, customers, employees and other
stakeholders. Among the reasons we recommend the proposed transaction to
our shareholders are the size of the premium, the immediate liquidity
and the certainly of value the cash consideration offers, and the fact
that we believe AltaGas’ offer fairly values the $20 million contingent
payment that PNG will receive if the Kitimat liquefied natural gas
project proceeds.
Pacific Northern already had a small partnership with AltaGas to build a gas pipeline from a Montney gas plant to
British Columbia.
In its news release, AltaGas said “We are pleased to welcome all PNG employees to our team. AltaGas has a
long history of operating natural gas utilities across Canada and we
will continue to deliver safe and reliable service to our customers.”
AltaGas says the transaction will result in a 50 per cent increase in AltaGas’ holdings of regulated natural gas to consumers and businesses, now worth over $500 million and increase customers from 75,000 to more than 110,000.
The company is looking to increased natural gas exploration taking place in areas northeastern BC in the Montney and Horn River gas fields. AltaGas also expects to profit from “increased industrial activity in northern BC are expected to result in rate base and customer growth as areas such as Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.”
The new company would align the PNG system with AltaGas assets such as the Bear Mountain Wind Park and the Younger facility, BC’s only natural gas liquids extraction plant.
AltaGas adds. “Growing North American natural gas supply and continued attractive natural gas prices in Asian markets continue to support growth of an LNG industry in western Canada. PNG’s Western system is well positioned to capitalize on the growing demand for additional pipeline capacity along the Summit Lake to Kitimat/Prince Rupert corridor.”
AltaGas is an energy infrastructure business with a focus on natural
gas, power and regulated utilities. With the physical and economic links
along the energy value chain together with its efficient, reliable and
profitable assets, market knowledge and financial discipline, AltaGas
has provided strong, stable and predictable returns to its investors.
AltaGas focuses on maximizing the profitability of its assets, providing
services that are complementary to its existing businesses, and
growing through the acquisition and development of energy
infrastructure.
Consumers in northern British Columbia will be wondering, despite any long term spinoffs from liquified natural gas projects, what the deal will mean for their natural gas bills. Despite the statement by Dyce, “We look forward to joining with AltaGas in continuing our mutual history of delivering safe, reliable service to our customers” and Cornhill’s similar statement, “AltaGas has a long history of operating natural gas utilities across Canada and we will continue to deliver safe and reliable service to our customers,” it is highly likely that consumers in BC will be skeptical of the deal because up until now, while the price of natural gas has been falling, Pacific Northern Gas continued to charge very high (some would say extortionate) transportation and other fees to consumers.
A study of west coast forests in California, Oregon and Washington concludes that biofuel from forests could increase carbon dioxide emissions by at least 14 per cent.
Oregon State University calls the study “the largest and most comprehensive yet done on the effect of biofuel” from the US west coast.
A diagram from the Oregon State University shows how using biofuels would increase the carbon emissions by releasing more forest carbon, including the processing and transportation of biofuel. (Oregon State University)
The study, published Sunday inNature Climate Change, contradicts previous findings that suggest biofuel could be either carbon neutral or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It is uncertain whether the conclusions of the study could apply to northwestern British Columbia, due to different ecological conditions, including pine beetle devastation and the effects of climate change.
For four years, the Oregon State study examined 80 forest types in 19 ecological regions in the three states, ranging from temperate rainforests to semi-arid woodlands. It included both private and public lands and different forest management practices.
Tara Hudiberg, a PhD candidate at Oregon State and lead author, said in an e-mail interview, “We applied thinning scenarios which would remove whole trees and use the merchantable portion for wood products and the rest for bio-energy use (tops, branches, smaller trees of less then five inch DBH (diameter at breast height ).
“On the [US] West Coast, we found that projected forest biomass removal and use for bio-energy in any form will release more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than current forest management practices.
“Most people assume that wood bio-energy will be carbon-neutral, because the forest re-grows and there’s also the chance of protecting forests from carbon emissions due to wildfire,” Hudiburg said. “However, our research showed that the emissions from these activities proved to be more than the savings.”
The only exception was if forests in high fire-risk zones become weakened due to insect outbreaks or drought, which impairs their growth and carbon sequestration as well as increasing the potential for large forest fires (a situation prevalent through much of British Columbia due to the devastation caused by the pine beetle.) The study says in that situation, it is possible that some thinning for bio-energy production might result in lower emissions in such cases.
“Until now there have been a lot of misconceptions about impacts of forest thinning, fire prevention and bio-fuels production as it relates to carbon emissions from forests,” said Beverly Law, a professor in the OSU Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society and co-author of this study.
(Oregon State University)
“If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bio-energy from forests will be counterproductive,” Law said. “Some of these forest management practices may also have negative impacts on soils, biodiversity and habitat. These issues have not been thought out very fully.”
The study examined thousands of forest plots with detailed data and observations, considering 27 parameters, including the role of forest fire, emissions savings from bio-energy use, wood product substitution, insect infestations, forest thinning, energy and processes needed to produce bio-fuels, and many others.
It looked at four basic scenarios: “business as usual”; forest management primarily for fire prevention purposes; additional levels of harvest to prevent fire but also make such operations more economically feasible; and significant bio-energy production while contributing to fire reduction.
Compared to “business as usual” or current forest management approaches, all of the other approaches increased carbon emissions, the study found. Under the most optimal levels of efficiency, management just for fire prevention increased it two percent; for better economic return, six percent; and for higher bio-energy production, 14 percent.
“We looked at CHP (combined heat and power from combustion) and cellulosic ethanol and we accounted for all sources of Carbon emissions from harvest to use,” Hudiberg said.
She added, “We don’t believe that an optimal efficiency of production is actually possible in real-world conditions. With levels of efficiency that are more realistic, we project that the use of these forests for high bio-energy production would increase carbon emissions 17 percent from their current level.”
About 98 percent of the forests in the three western US states are now estimated to be a carbon sink, meaning that even with existing management approaches the forests sequester more carbon than they release to the atmosphere. Forests capture a large portion of the carbon emitted worldwide, and
some of this carbon is stored in pools such as wood and soil that can
last hundreds to thousands of years, the scientists said.
The study suggests that increases in harvest volume on the US West Coast, for any reason, will instead result in average increases in emissions above current levels.
“Energy policy implemented without full carbon accounting and an understanding of the underlying processes risks increasing rather than decreasing emissions,” they conclude.
When asked about British Columbia, Hudiberg noted: “We are not aware of anything in particular, but we do know that BC forests may (or already are) be more susceptible to climate change impacts and insect outbreaks. So initially, it may be a more suitable region for bio-energy but the same analysis we did here would have to be done [in BC] to know for sure. She cautions, “The study conclusions are based on the regional conditions and current regional carbon uptake with current management practices For other areas, the current conditions need to be assessed before deciding if bio-energy will increase or decrease carbon emissions.”
Biofuel in northwestern BC
Biofuels are seen as a growth industry in northwestern British Columbia, with a number of companies are starting to work on various forms of biofuel investments including large corporations as well as medium and small business.
In Kitimat, Pytrade has proposed a biomass plant that would use pyrolysis to convert wood waste into liquid bio-fuels and also generate heat that can be used by green houses used to train people in horticulture in conjunction with North West Community College. Pytrade also plans to make money by selling carbon offsets for every tonne of C02 not emitted into the atmosphere they will make money by selling credits. An application by company for a provincial a one million dollar Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) grant has been approved.
General Biofuels Canada is planning a 500,000 metric tonne per year wood pellet facility in Terrace. This project would use hemlock fibre from “non-saw grade fibre” from area forest licence holders.
Toronto-based CORE BioFuel Inc. Wants to build a plant, likely in Houston, (and perhaps more plants) to turn forest waste fibre into gasoline. Each plant would cost $100 million and require 220,000 tons of fibre a year to produce 67 million litres of gas.
As well as the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, the study involved institutions in Germany and France. It was supported by the US Dept. Of Energy.
For four years, the Oregon State study examined 80 forest types in 19 ecological regions in the three states, ranging from temperate rainforests to semi-arid woodlands. It included both private and public lands and different forest management practices. 
