Oil, water, salmon and B.C. do not mix
It is oh-so-predictable, that Harper’s new government, in happy lockstep with Gordon Campbell, would:
There is nothing intrinsically “conservative” about raping the planet and damaging irreplaceable ecosystems and food sources, and polls among those who identify themselves as “conservative” bear this out:
Last year, Ipsos Reid asked Conservatives in B.C. their top priority for finding new energy; 53 per cent supported wind and solar, 30 per cent said pursue more efficiency and only 11 per cent chose going after new oil sources, like the tar sands. The same poll found 71.7 per cent of Conservative voters wanted a ban on oil tankers close to shore. David Beers, ‘Tankers on the B.C. coast are getting too close for comfort’ – The Globe and Mail April 28 2007
So why isn’t Stephen Harper listening? Does father really know better?
Or is it because he has outstanding IOUs and is beholden to key oil and gas patch supporters of various Conservative MP’s, cabinet ministers, and Harper himself, including former EnCana president and CEO Gwyn Morgan.
Oil Tankers in B.C. coastal waters?
IOU or not, EnCana is directly woven into this story. Under Morgan’s leadership, the company initiated a move which would see the coastal B.C. town of Kitimat have its port turned into an import terminal for certain oil liquids that are used in the Alberta tar sands extraction process – liquids which are in extremely short supply due to the phenomenal growth of that particular environmental disaster.
To get the stuff to its destination, a pipeline would need to be built across British Columbia to northern Alberta, and that project alone is one for concern as any pipeline built to Alberta will have a twin returning back to B.C. carrying import liquids to the tar sands and tar sands extracts for export to the U.S. west coast or Asia.
Enbridge is planning to build two pipelines in a single corridor one to transport over 400,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Alberta to the B.C. coast, and the other to carry over 150,000 barrels of condensate (a by-product of gas production, which is used to thin oil for easier transport by pipeline) per day from the coast to Alberta. From the new tanker terminal in Kitimat, oil would then be shipped to refineries in California, China and other Asia Pacific markets.
The Gateway Pipeline would be the largest petroleum pipeline development in North America in more than 50 years, and one of the largest private infrastructure investments in B.C.s history. All told, the pipeline would increase Canadas trade opportunities and enhance B.C.s reputation as an international gateway. Anna Grimes, Vancouver Board of Trade June 27 2006
In short, Kitimat will become something akin to the Valdez Alaska Oil Terminal which is operated by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian engineering firm active in oil and gas pipeline and infrastructure projects, has done millions of dollars of work for Alyeska (a pipeline and port operator) and has been involved in billions of dollars of pipeline construction in North American and around the world. Gwyn Morgan is on the board of directors of SNC-Lavalin.
LNG import terminals: ticking time bombs
Kitimat may not only have to contend with oil condensates and bitumen or synthetic crude traveling in and out of its port—there are companies (Galveston LNG, Kitimat LNG) right now trying to get approval to build a time-bomb of a facility, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) re-gassification import terminal, at Kitimat, for the sole purpose of shipping natural gas imported from overseas to the United States. And of course, another petro-fuel terminal, means more pipelines.
Calgary-based Galveston LNG is hopeful of receiving regulatory approval by late May for the “loop” pipeline that would supply substantial volumes of regasified gas to consumers in Alberta, according to a senior company official. “The pipeline will have an initial potential to supply 500 million cubic feet per day,” said Thom Dawson, senior vice-president of Galveston. “Depending on the gas sales and purchase agreements, it can go up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day.” Estimated to cost $1 billion, the project will entail the construction of a roughly 300— kilometre, 36-inch-diameter pipeline from Kitimat in B.C. to Station Four, north of Sumas, a compressor station and isolation valves. The facility will be built on a 50:50 partnership between Kitimat LNG, wholly-owned by Galveston, and Vancouver-based Pacific Northern Gas Ltd. Both firms have formed Pacific Trail Pipelines Ltd. Partnership to develop a natural gas transmission line. Week in Review, April 3–9, www.albertaoilmagazine.com
If the gas is destined for the U.S., why build the plant in Canada you ask?
There are a number of reasons ranging from location to world wide shipping lines, to the EnCana/Enbridge desire to establish an oil and condensate export/import terminal, but frequently overlooked as a significant factor to the current attractiveness of Canada for such projects is that political activism here isn’t as effective, and there are governments in B.C., Alberta, and Ottawa who are so pro oil and gas development they breath butane instead of oxygen. Harper made his intentions clear last fall at a dinner meeting of the Economic Club of New York when he labelled Canada as an emerging energy “superpower”.
The Kitimat LNG project last year received one of several approvals needed befpre it can proceed. Its interesting that any project destined to increase Canada’s share of world wide greenhouse gas emissions (natural gas is a euphemistic alternative name for methane which molecule for molecule has ten times the climate change impact of carbon dioxide – CO2 – and, when used as a fuel, produces significant amounts of CO2 emissions) could receive a positive environmental assessment. Did that assessment consider the GHG component? While John Baird and his predecessor Rona Ambrose try to look green, out the back door their ministry has been approving projects like Emerson’s gateway-linked expansion of Delta Port despite community opposition which submitted environmental assessments of their own that countered the official government story.
What can be done?
Whether we choose to be aware or admit it or not, the fact is that dependence on fossil fuels has much to do with the state of the planet in ecological, political, and military terms. We are all willing or unwilling or uninformed accomplices. Particularly in North America, which has the lions share of world wealth, consumes more than 1/4 of the annual energy production of the entire planet, yet has barely more than 4 percent of the globe’s population, we have a lot to answer for. But our current political leadership only wants to to more of the same, and in fact wants to ramp it up.
What can be done? Take personal responsibility first for your own role, but don’t stop there.
Activism works. Common sense and public outcry resulted in California refusing to authorize exactly such a plant that international mining giant BHP Billiton wanted to build, although a number of other companies continue to lobby various west coast states for permission to proceed. A map showing proposed projects in BC south to California is available here .(PDF)
California activists have had some success but their terminator governor continues to say he supports LNG terminal projects despite his own government pulling the plug on two projects. See: http://www.coastaladvocates.com/ and http://www.lngwatch.com/
Lack of public awareness and action has resulted in a natural salmon fishery that is on its way to being as dead as the east coast cod waters. We can’t allow the prevailing culture of business at any cost to the environment and people continue to drive us into a future that looks more and more like a Mad Max rerun.