Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting, I wonder where the people and the market to get us from 20,000 to 400,000 wells is gonna come from? Coleman isn't the only one with some interesting ideas. Everyone who's concerned about the methane emissions make sure to put your money where your mouth is by not consuming anything that is produced using natural gas, and stop eating all red meat and dairy which is still the largest industrial emitter worldwide. Don't forget about 20% of your electricity. Also comparing us to the Eastern US isn't accurate, the depths are vastly different. Classic irrational fear mongering.
 
Everyone who's concerned about the methane emissions make sure to put your money where your mouth is by not consuming anything that is produced using natural gas, and stop eating all red meat and dairy which is still the largest industrial emitter worldwide. Don't forget about 20% of your electricity. Also comparing us to the Eastern US isn't accurate, the depths are vastly different. Classic irrational fear mongering.

The "we will have to live in a cave" argument.
It's all or nothing, right.
Best you keep that to your self.

How about we live up to our international commitment to use less.
Canada is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. ...oops we backed out of that because of the tarsands.
Canada is a signatory to the Copenhagen agreement.
In 2009 the goal was to cut carbon emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020.[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP] The goal was later changed in early 2010 to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 2.5% above 1990 levels.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP]

BC and Alberta oil patch and their yes men want to blow right by those numbers.
We need them to reduce activity not expand it.
All sectors except Cement and Oil & Gas are reducing there GHG.
Why can't they get it through there thick sculls.
Been living in a cave for the last 10 years?

Coleman is being untruthful and we all know it.
Just saying we have been fracking for 50 years is a sure sign he is untruthful.
To be clear we fracked (been there) small vertical zones with 2 frack trucks at most.
Used sand and other products to prop open the sandstone or limestone to help the oil flow
Now we frack tight horizontal shale zones with a dozen trucks.
Big difference.

Perhaps we should tread lightly on this earth.
It's the only one we have and we need to pass it to our children.

GLG
 
Dawson Creek reports illegal dumping

City says its sewage facility has been misused at least twice

JULY 30, 2014

JONNY WAKEFIELD

Without upgrades to how it handles dumping at its raw sewage treatment facility, the city of Dawson Creek could be in deep doo-doo.
City staff say industrial waste, including chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, has been illegally dumped at its treatment station for residential raw sewage.
Jim Chute, the city's chief administrative officer, told the Alaska Highway News that oilfield waste could irreparably damage biological components of the city's water reclamation system.
Under new Environment Canada rules, Chute said, he could even face jail time if the city negligently allowed harmful chemicals into the ecosystem.
In two cases, the city discovered illegal compounds in the holding tank of its dumping facility on 115 Street.
In one instance, staff discovered "chemicals used in the fracking process" in the holding tank. (Fracking is the water and chemical intensive process used to free natural gas trapped in rocks underground.)
In another, an individual attempted to dispose of a "load of diesel." Both cases involved subcontractors of oil and gas companies, Chute said, although he declined to name them.
"We do know where the product originated and we have had discussions with those companies," he said. "They've taken steps to better monitor it from their end, but these are all cases where an individual decided to do a bad thing."
He added: “In all these cases, it was private individuals – it was not in any way authorized by the company," further adding that the contractors were required to pay a fine and the cost of cleaning the holding tank.
Chute said the companies informed the city that the offending employees have been fired.
The city's sewage dump is intended for rural residents on sewage lagoons and septic fields. Waste from the city facility eventually finds its way to the Peace River after an extensive reclamation process.
The city's wastewater treatment process, including its eventual discharge into the river, is permitted by Environment Canada.
After it enters the system, waste passes through several "ponds" where it is settled, separated and aerated. After that, it passes through "SAGAR" cells, which Chute described as a biological process in which the sewage is broken down by living organisms.
The illegal chemicals discovered in the holding tank would have killed the biological components in the system, derailing the entire wastewater treatment process. (By law, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission regulates the disposal of oilfield waste.)
As Dawson Creek's system is not staffed, and relies largely on the honour system. This exposes the city to several sources of liability, Chute said.
According to a report, the city contracts with Shell Canada to provide up to 3,400 cubic meters "of treated effluent when requested." Shell uses the treated sewer water for fracking operations. If the city were unable to hold up its end of the bargain because the system was compromised, Shell could potentially seek damages.
New Environment Canada rules also put cities that operate raw sewage dumps in a risky position.
When asked who from the city could face jail time for a negligent discharge, Chute said, “probably me, which is a bad idea. I can’t get behind that at all.”
The city of Fort St. John last September decided that operating a raw sewage drop off facility was too great a liability. The facility provides sewage waste disposal to around 2,000 rural residents, as well as industrial facilities in the area.
But Fort St. John is no longer willing to accept the risk that a user will abuse the treatment system.
In July 2012, the city ceased discharge of treated wastewater into the Peace River "because the quality of the treated wastewater did not meet the mandatory requirements," according to a city report.
Victor Shopland, Fort St. John’s director of Integrated Services, said the city had to store around two months worth of solid waste while the system was being repaired. Staff believed illegal contamination weakened the treatment process.
"Once the lagoons receive this type of wastewater the biological process is stressed significantly, or even destroyed," the report continued.
Shopland could not say whether it was oilfield waste that contaminated the system.
Fort St. John will close its facility for good on December 31, "due to new and more strict federal/provincial sewage discharge requirements leading to increased FSJ liability."
The Peace River Regional District is hoping to build a state of the art treatment facility in the coming years to fill the gap. But Karen Goodings, a rural representative who chairs the PRRD board, said that facility won't be ready before Fort St. John decommissions its facility.
"We're certainly hoping Fort St. John will allow us an extension, but it is our intention to move ahead so we can handle residents’ needs and not have to rely on the municipalities," she said.
She added that industrial development in the area will greatly increase the overall amount of sewage in the region.
Preliminary estimates peg the cost of the PRRD project at $19.2 million. It would be paid for partly through property taxes, and would not be completed until 2016 at the earliest.

Chute said an upgraded facility is sorely needed in the Peace Region, adding that state of the art treatment facilities reduce liability by remotely detecting hazardous waste before it enters the system.
In the meantime, there's worry that uncertainty about where to process sewage will lead to an uptick in illegal dumping of both industrial and human waste.
However, he said the city is not considering closing its sewage treatment station at this time, "because the alternatives are not good."
"Where would that sewage go?" he said. "They'll find a ditch or they'll find a field somewhere."
 
http://www.bcogc.ca/node/11277/download

Some facts for perspective. Yes I know who the OGC is, yes I know how they're funded and yes I know first hand they're here to enforce the rules and do so daily so they have a relatively neutral bias IMO.

If people really want to do something about GHG's here's an idea. Boycott the number one emitter on the planet, not only is it actually possible your body will benefit from it and there will be zero impact on your quality of life. It may not me as trendy nowadays but it's realistic. Beef and dairy.
 
There is a good report on the role of beef and climate change here
http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=92

I will just copy and paste some of it from that report.

The role of (animal) agriculture in climate change
Agriculture, through meat production, is one of the main contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and thus has a potential impact on climate change. Estimates of the total emissions from agriculture differ according to the system boundaries used for calculations. Most studies attribute 10-35 per cent of all global GHG emissions to agriculture (Denman et al. 2007, EPA 2006, McMichael 2007, Stern 2006). Large differences are mainly based on the exclusion or inclusion of emissions due to deforestation and land use change.
Recent estimates concerning animal agriculture’s share of total global GHG emissions range mainly between 10-25 per cent (Steinfeld et al. 2006, Fiala 2008, UNEP 2009, Gill et al. 2010, Barclay 2012), where again the higher figure includes the effects of deforestation and other land use changes and the lower one does not. According to Steinfeld et al. (2006) and McMichael et al. (2007), emissions from livestock constitute nearly 80 per cent of all agricultural emissions

Emissions for a meal
In an analysis of the EU-27 countries, “beef had by far the highest GHG emissions with 22.6 kg CO2-eq/kg” 4 (Lesschen et al. 2011) in comparison to other products such as pork (2.5), poultry (1.6) and milk (1.3). A study in the UK found that emissions from beef amount to 16 kg CO2-eq/kg beef compared to 0.8 kg CO2-eq/kg of wheat (Garnett 2009). In an analysis of commonly consumed foods in Sweden, the total GHG emissions for beef summed up to 30 kg CO2-eq/kg beef (Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009).The authors conclude that “it is more ‘‘climate efficient’’ to produce protein from vegetable sources than from animal sources”, and add that “beef is the least efficient way to produce protein, less efficient than vegetables that are not recognized for their high protein content, such as green beans or carrots”. In terms of GHG emissions “the consumption of 1 kg domestic beef in a household represents automobile use of a distance of ~160 km (99 miles)” (Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009). By one estimate, about 35 kilojoules (kJ) of fossil energy are required to produce 1 kJ of beef raised in a CAFO/feedlot (Hillel and Rosenzweig 2008).


So 3X5 you maybe correct..... if everyone in BC gave up beef that might allow us to develop LNG and still meet our commitments to the rest of the world to reduce our GHG.
It might be a hard sell but go ahead and try. Oh and there is a movement to go meatless Mondays.
http://meatlessmonday.ca/

Perhaps Harper thinks the rest of Canada could also give up beef so we could expand the tarsands too... You never know with him and his crazy ideas..... LOL

FYI you should have a look at what the BC climate change report says about our GHG emissions. Look at the trends and where the future is heading. See what people and industry are doing here in BC and have a look at who the slackers are....... You one of them by chance?

Here is a copy paste from one of the reports....
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/pdfs/2014-Progress-to-Targets.pdf
British Columbia will continue to adjust to changing circumstances over time. New economic opportunities will arise. New emissions sources will emerge. New options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions will be adopted. Emissions will go up and down. Climate change impacts will increasingly be felt. There remain big challenges. B.C.’s commitment to having the world’s cleanest LNG facilities is world-leading, but will still bring about an overall emissions increase for the province.


More info here....
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/theme.page?id=4D9B65E26DFA11EF78C200B82FAD10BD

So what does that mean.... if LNG is a go then it will be up to the rest of us to cut our emission or not meet our commitments... slackers..... I guess we could give up beef or perhaps a pure and simple water only Mondays......
or.... How about your answer to the carbon problem is more carbon is BS
Think about it......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how are we doing.... here is a report card of sorts for Canada.

Federal climate change report warns of economic, health impacts

Governments not doing enough to help Canadians adapt to damages of global warming

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/..._report_warns_of_economic_health_impacts.html

OTTAWA—Canadians can expect more floods, storms and other damaging extreme weather events as global warming inevitably gets worse, says a federal government report that also says governments are lagging in efforts to adapt to this climate change shift.

The 292-page report, released with little fanfare on the Natural Resources Canada website, says “more work is needed” by governments to help Canadians cope with the far-reaching health, economic and environmental threats posed by global warming.

It says the response so far in Canada has failed to live up to this country’s capacity to adapt to change and the ever-growing knowledge base on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The report says barriers to adjusting to climate change include lack of scientific knowledge, “limited motivation” and “issues related to governance.”

To date, Canada has seen “relatively few examples of implementation of specific changes to reduce vulnerability to future climate change, or take advantage of potential opportunities,” the study notes. “As such, adaptation implementation in Canada is still in its early stages.”

Most examples of actions in Canada to prepare for impact of a changing climate so far can be found at the municipal level, the study adds.

The report, “Canada in a Changing Climate,” is an update of a 2008 examination of Canada’s efforts to recognize and cope with global warming.

“Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer, with average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5 degrees Celsius between 1950 and 2010,” it says.

The rate of warming in Canada is double the global average, the study says.

“Further changes in climate are inevitable,” the study says. “On average, warmer temperatures and more rainfall are expected for the country as a whole, with increases in extreme heat and heavy rainfall events, and declines in snow and ice cover. Sea levels along many of our coastlines will continue to rise, and warmer waters and ocean acidification are expected to become increasingly evident in most Canadian ocean waters over the next century.”

Negative impacts on the economy, human health and biodiversity are expected to grow, particularly as a result of increasing extreme weather events such as storms, droughts, forest fires, heat waves and floods, the report says.

The government report is likely to provide more ammunition for critics who complain the Harper government is lax on addressing global warming. The federal government committed to reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. But Environment Canada reported last fall that Canada is not on track to meet that target.

Responding to Tuesday’s report, a spokesperson for Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said Ottawa is reacting to climate change with concrete actions.

“Through our support for energy efficiency, climate change adaptation and clean technologies, we are helping increase the resilience of Canada’s communities and enhancing the competitiveness of our industries,” Chris McCluskey said.










Concrete actions like doubling of the tarsands production and a hole new LNG industry. According to the reformocons the answer to our carbon problem is more carbon.....
Kind of like the answer to the smoking problem is more smoking with a lite brand....
Only logic coming out of pea sized brains of our "leaders".

As for me I'm on track to be 25% less energy by 2020.... may even do better then that.
 
There is a good report on the role of beef and climate change here
http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=92

I will just copy and paste some of it from that report.

The role of (animal) agriculture in climate change
Agriculture, through meat production, is one of the main contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and thus has a potential impact on climate change. Estimates of the total emissions from agriculture differ according to the system boundaries used for calculations. Most studies attribute 10-35 per cent of all global GHG emissions to agriculture (Denman et al. 2007, EPA 2006, McMichael 2007, Stern 2006). Large differences are mainly based on the exclusion or inclusion of emissions due to deforestation and land use change.
Recent estimates concerning animal agriculture’s share of total global GHG emissions range mainly between 10-25 per cent (Steinfeld et al. 2006, Fiala 2008, UNEP 2009, Gill et al. 2010, Barclay 2012), where again the higher figure includes the effects of deforestation and other land use changes and the lower one does not. According to Steinfeld et al. (2006) and McMichael et al. (2007), emissions from livestock constitute nearly 80 per cent of all agricultural emissions

Emissions for a meal
In an analysis of the EU-27 countries, “beef had by far the highest GHG emissions with 22.6 kg CO2-eq/kg” 4 (Lesschen et al. 2011) in comparison to other products such as pork (2.5), poultry (1.6) and milk (1.3). A study in the UK found that emissions from beef amount to 16 kg CO2-eq/kg beef compared to 0.8 kg CO2-eq/kg of wheat (Garnett 2009). In an analysis of commonly consumed foods in Sweden, the total GHG emissions for beef summed up to 30 kg CO2-eq/kg beef (Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009).The authors conclude that “it is more ‘‘climate efficient’’ to produce protein from vegetable sources than from animal sources”, and add that “beef is the least efficient way to produce protein, less efficient than vegetables that are not recognized for their high protein content, such as green beans or carrots”. In terms of GHG emissions “the consumption of 1 kg domestic beef in a household represents automobile use of a distance of ~160 km (99 miles)” (Carlsson-Kanyama and González 2009). By one estimate, about 35 kilojoules (kJ) of fossil energy are required to produce 1 kJ of beef raised in a CAFO/feedlot (Hillel and Rosenzweig 2008).


So 3X5 you maybe correct..... if everyone in BC gave up beef that might allow us to develop LNG and still meet our commitments to the rest of the world to reduce our GHG.
It might be a hard sell but go ahead and try. Oh and there is a movement to go meatless Mondays.
http://meatlessmonday.ca/

Perhaps Harper thinks the rest of Canada could also give up beef so we could expand the tarsands too... You never know with him and his crazy ideas..... LOL

FYI you should have a look at what the BC climate change report says about our GHG emissions. Look at the trends and where the future is heading. See what people and industry are doing here in BC and have a look at who the slackers are....... You one of them by chance?

Here is a copy paste from one of the reports....
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/pdfs/2014-Progress-to-Targets.pdf
British Columbia will continue to adjust to changing circumstances over time. New economic opportunities will arise. New emissions sources will emerge. New options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions will be adopted. Emissions will go up and down. Climate change impacts will increasingly be felt. There remain big challenges. B.C.’s commitment to having the world’s cleanest LNG facilities is world-leading, but will still bring about an overall emissions increase for the province.


More info here....
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/theme.page?id=4D9B65E26DFA11EF78C200B82FAD10BD

So what does that mean.... if LNG is a go then it will be up to the rest of us to cut our emission or not meet our commitments... slackers..... I guess we could give up beef or perhaps a pure and simple water only Mondays......
or.... How about your answer to the carbon problem is more carbon is BS
Think about it......

Thanks for confirming what I was saying about the cattle industry but you may have missed the point. Red meat in one hand natural gas in the other, which can you, me and the rest of society most easily do without? Not just the product but all the other benefits each brings to the table. They both have negatives but which one has more positives for society? Responsible development doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, seems like enough of a compromise to keep most stakeholders happy. I know you're gonna dispute the term reasonable but we're doing it the best way possible with current technology.

What plan would you propose instead? For jobs, energy sources, and funding of social programs?
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140811124117.htm

Expert panel calls for public health research on natural gas drilling
Date:
August 11, 2014
Source:
Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania
Summary:
A group of environmental health researchers has published recommendations for public health research associated with unconventional natural gas drilling operations. Groundwater and air quality testing before, during, and after natural gas drilling -- which includes hydraulic fracturing -- should be key components of efforts to ensure the safety of communities near these sites, according to these experts
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Print this page
Groundwater and air quality testing before, during, and after natural gas drilling -- which includes hydraulic fracturing -- should be key components of efforts to ensure the safety of communities near these sites, according to an expert panel convened to weigh in on public health research needs associated with unconventional natural gas drilling operations (UNGDO). The panel also urges that any research conducted should use "community-based participatory research principles" so that the concerns of the many stakeholders involved in these activities can be addressed.


A group of environmental health researchers, led by Trevor Penning, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence in Environmental Toxicology (CEET) at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, published their findings this month in Environmental Health Perspectives.
UNGDO, which includes hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, supplies an energy source which is potentially cleaner than liquid or solid fossil fuels and may provide a route to energy independence for the U.S, say proponents. However, significant concerns have arisen due to the lack of research on the public health impact of this type of energy extraction.
"The working group was convened following presentations on the potential of natural gas drilling to adversely affect public health at the 2012 Annual Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers [EHSCC] meeting at Harvard School of Public Health," states Penning.
Sixteen of the twenty EHSCCs funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) joined the working group to review the literature on the potential public health impact of UNGDO and to make recommendations for research.
The Inter-EHSCC Working Group concluded that a potential for water and air pollution exists that might endanger public health and that the social fabric of communities could be affected by the rapid emergence of drilling operations. The working group recommends research to inform how potential risks could be mitigated.
Some of the key suggestions are:
• Baseline ground water quality data should be taken before drilling begins and be monitored over the lifetime and abandonment of the gas-producing well.
• Ambient and occupational air quality should be measured at active drilling sites and be compared with baseline measurements in adjacent areas without drilling operations.
• An environmental epidemiological study should be performed to determine whether an association exists between health outcomes data and water quality in private drinking wells in communities with and without hydraulic fracturing.
• An environmental epidemiological study should be performed to determine whether air pollution associated with UNGDO increases the incidence of respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease.
• Community-based participatory research principles should be embraced in designing and conducting studies on environmental and health impacts of UNGDO so that a range of community perspectives are addressed. All stakeholders (individual/community/industry/advocacy groups/decision makers) should be engaged early to foster multi-directional communication and accountability.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
Trevor M. Penning, Patrick N. Breysse, Kathleen Gray, Marilyn Howarth, Beizhan Yan. Environmental Health Research Recommendations from the Inter-Environmental Health Sciences Core Center Working Group on Unconventional Natural Gas Drilling Operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014; DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1408207
 
A new look at what's in 'fracking' fluids raises red flags: Some compounds toxic to mammals
Date:
August 13, 2014
Source:
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Summary:
As the oil and gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing proliferates, a new study on the contents of the fluids used raises concerns over several ingredients. The scientists say out of nearly 200 commonly used compounds in “fracking,” there’s very little known about the potential health risks of about one-third, and eight are toxic to mammals.

Scientists are getting to the bottom of what’s in fracking fluids — with some troubling results.
Credit: Doug Duncan/U.S. Geological Survey

As the oil and gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") proliferates, a new study on the contents of the fluids involved in the process raises concerns about several ingredients. The scientists presenting the work today at the 248th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) say that out of nearly 200 commonly used compounds, there's very little known about the potential health risks of about one-third, and eight are toxic to mammals.


William Stringfellow, Ph.D., says he conducted the review of fracking contents to help resolve the public debate over the controversial drilling practice. Fracking involves injecting water with a mix of chemical additives into rock formations deep underground to promote the release of oil and gas. It has led to a natural gas boom in the U.S., but it has also stimulated major opposition and troubling reports of contaminated well water, as well as increased air pollution near drill sites.
"The industrial side was saying, 'We're just using food additives, basically making ice cream here,'" Stringfellow says. "On the other side, there's talk about the injection of thousands of toxic chemicals. As scientists, we looked at the debate and asked, 'What's the real story?'"
To find out, Stringfellow's team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of the Pacific scoured databases and reports to compile a list of substances commonly used in fracking. They include gelling agents to thicken the fluids, biocides to keep microbes from growing, sand to prop open tiny cracks in the rocks and compounds to prevent pipe corrosion.
What their analysis revealed was a little truth to both sides' stories -- with big caveats. Fracking fluids do contain many nontoxic and food-grade materials, as the industry asserts. But if something is edible or biodegradable, it doesn't automatically mean it can be easily disposed of, Stringfellow notes.
"You can't take a truckload of ice cream and dump it down the storm drain," he says, building on the industry's analogy. "Even ice cream manufacturers have to treat dairy wastes, which are natural and biodegradable. They must break them down rather than releasing them directly into the environment."
His team found that most fracking compounds will require treatment before being released. And, although not in the thousands as some critics suggest, the scientists identified eight substances, including biocides, that raised red flags. These eight compounds were identified as being particularly toxic to mammals.
"There are a number of chemicals, like corrosion inhibitors and biocides in particular, that are being used in reasonably high concentrations that potentially could have adverse effects," Stringfellow says. "Biocides, for example, are designed to kill bacteria -- it's not a benign material."
They're also looking at the environmental impact of the fracking fluids, and they are finding that some have toxic effects on aquatic life.
In addition, for about one-third of the approximately 190 compounds the scientists identified as ingredients in various fracking formulas, the scientists found very little information about toxicity and physical and chemical properties.
"It should be a priority to try to close that data gap," Stringfellow says.
He acknowledges funding from the University of the Pacific, the Bureau of Land Management and the state of California.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by American Chemical Society (ACS). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
 
What plan would you propose instead? For jobs, energy sources, and funding of social programs?

Right out of the gate these LNG projects ares not for energy use in Canada.
They are for LNG to China.
Jobs???? Did you not read post # 81 on this thread?
It shows that the province is fighting to make sure we have TFW for those projects.
POSTMEDIA NEWSJUNE 25, 2014
CALGARY — British Columbia’s minister of natural gas urged the federal government to keep the doors open on temporary foreign workers as the province looks to head off a skill shortage tied to development of a liquefied natural gas industry.
“It’s critical, quite frankly, to the Canadian economy,” Rich Coleman said Wednesday in Calgary. “We can’t be like Australia and decide that we want to restrict the movement of labour coming in, because that really affected the cost of construction for these plants.”
Funding of social programs??? Please that's cheap talk... we all know how much dough will come out of this project for the average BC'er. Squat if your not one of the 1% who works there or is one of the share holders. Currently this industry is pissed that BC is asking for 7 cents on the dollar for the public's resource. That's after 5 years of free gas....

We all know that we will need petroleum products for many years to come. The key here is that we need to start using less, not more. We need to cut our GHGs or we will be passing a mess on to our children. It's just plain wrong to do such a thing. We know better.

The Oil and Gas industry need to cut there emissions. How are you going to do that if you want to grow your industry by 10 fold? What's your solution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 1
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=FBB18F75B34F4B47BBBDECE8D784B0CF#3
Q1. What are the total industrial greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia?

A1. Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 from all reporting operations emitting 10,000 tonnes or greater were 20.7 Mt CO2e (million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent).


Q2. What reports are published? Are all reports published?

A2. Report summaries have been published for single facility operations, linear facilities operations, individual facilities within linear facilities operations with emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 tonnes CO2e, and the aggregate of facilities with emissions less than 10,000 tonnes CO2e each within linear facilities operations.


Q3. Are industrial emissions going up or down?

A3. Industrial emissions for reporting operations were 0.6 per cent higher in 2013 than 2012, including emissions attributable to electricity imports (which are reported but not counted towards B.C.’s greenhouse gas targets in accordance with international accounting procedures); total 2013 industrial greenhouse gas emissions were 1.5 per cent higher than in 2012.


Q4. How many reporting operations reported to the Ministry of Environment?

A4. 127 reporting operations (from 105 companies) reported the Ministry of Environment.


Q5. How many reporting operations had verification requirements?

A5. 89 reporting operations had verification requirements.


Q6. How many individual facilities are there with over 10,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions?

A6. In total, 195 individual facilities had emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 tonnes of CO2e. 76 of these were single facility operations, 117 were individual facilities within linear facilities operations, and 2 were electricity import operations.


Q7. How many individual facilities within linear facilities operations are there with emissions between 1,000 and 10,000 tonnes CO2e?

A7. There are 438 individual facilities within linear facilities operations with emissions between 1,000 and 10,000 tonnes CO2e. These facilities are mainly within the oil and gas industry, and had total emissions of 1.4 million tonnes CO2e.


Q8. Which companies have the largest emissions in British Columbia?

A8. The three companies with the largest emissions in 2013 (excluding wood biomass) were:

  1. Spectra Energy Transmission: 4.7 Mt CO2e
  2. Teck Coal: 1.5 Mt CO2e
  3. Lafarge Canada: 0.9 Mt CO2e


Q9. What facilities have the largest emissions in British Columbia?

A9. The individual facilities with the largest emissions in 2013 (excluding wood biomass) were:

  1. Fort Nelson Gas Plant - Spectra Energy Transmission: 1.5 Mt CO2e
  2. Transmission Mainline – Spectra Energy Transmission: 0.93 Mt CO2e
  3. Pine River Gas Plant – Spectra Energy Transmission: 0.83 Mt CO2e


Q10. What are the reported emissions for the different industry sectors?

A10. Reported emissions for the different industry sectors are as follows (rounded to the nearest 1,000 tCO2e):


SECTOR
2012 (tCO2e)
2013 (tCO2e)
2013 (as %)
% Change from 2012
Oil and Gas10,084,00010,291,00050 2.1
Mining and Smelting3,612,0003,349,00016-7.3
Cement and Lime1,647,0001,904,000915.6
Forest Products1,748,0001,648,0008-5.7
Electricity and Heat Generation858,000949,000510.6
Manufacturing and Refineries898,000834,0004-7.1
Waste Treatment401,000393,0002-2.0
BC Emissions Total
19,248,00019,369,000n/a
0.6
Electricity Imports1,158,0001,342,000615.9
Reported Total
20,406,00020,711,000101.5

<tbody>
</tbody>


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 2
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=50B908BE85E0446EB6D3C434B4C8C106
[h=4]Q11. Why are Reporting Regulation Schedule C biomass emissions excluded from the totals and reported separately from other biomass emissions?[/h]A11. Carbon dioxide from biomass listed in Schedule C of the Reporting Regulation is not included in reporting operation totals because the regulation follows international greenhouse gas accounting protocols. These emissions are reported and published to provide transparency and an understanding of the complete emissions profile.


[h=4]Q12. What are the categories of emissions?[/h]A12. The categories of emissions sort emissions from the various sources into a standard classification. Section 1 of Schedule A of the Reporting Regulation defines the following emission categories: stationary combustion, industrial process, venting, flaring, fugitive, on-site transportation, waste and wastewater emissions.


[h=4]Q13. Why are stationary combustion and industrial process emissions for cement and lime facilities not reported separately?[/h]A13. These two categories are aggregated for the small number of facilities in B.C. in this sector as a result of a justified confidentiality request.


[h=4]Q14. Are any industries or facilities excluded from reporting?[/h]A14. The Reporting Regulation is designed to cover industrial emissions in British Columbia. It does not require reporting of emissions from biomass decomposition in landfills, on-road transportation, facilities covered by the Carbon Neutral Government Regulation, or forestry and agriculture biological processes.


[h=4]Q15. Why are emissions associated with electricity used (but not generated) by a facility not included in the reports?[/h]A15. Electricity use is not attributable under the Reporting Regulation to the facility but instead associated emissions are reported by the facility generating the electricity.


[h=4]Q16. I expected to see an emissions report for facility XYZ – why can I not find the report?[/h]A16. The facility may be known by a different name, did not have a reporting obligation as per the answer to question 14, or could be an individual facility with emissions less than 10,000 tCO2e within a linear facilities operation and its emissions are bundled in the aggregated report summary for its linear facilities operation.


[h=4]Q17. Why do linear facilities emissions not have any on-site transportation emissions reported?[/h]A17. The Reporting Regulation specifically excludes on-site transportation emissions from being reported at a linear facilities operation due to the highly spread-out nature of most of these individual facilities.


[h=4]Q18. How do these emissions relate to those in the British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (PIR)?[/h]A18. Industrial emissions reported in 2013 under the Reporting Regulation represent 31 percent of the total emissions of 62.2 Mt reported in the 1990-2012 B.C. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. The Provincial Inventory Report summarises total emissions occurring within B.C. for all sectors. Electricity imports are not included in this calculation as imported electricity is not included within the scope of the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.


[h=4]Q19. What are other sources of greenhouse gases in B.C.? Where do I find information on other provincial emissions such as government, hospitals, transportation and communities?[/h]A19. Greenhouse gas sources in British Columbia that are not covered by the Reporting Regulation but that are included in the British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report include on-road transportation (individual and industrial), agriculture, waste, commercial, institutional and net deforestation. Further detail on public sector emissions can be found in the Carbon Neutral Government reports, and information on community-wide emissions can be found in the Community Energy Emissions Inventory reports.


[h=4]Q20. How can we be sure that industry is reporting their emissions correctly?[/h]A20. Since the Reporting Regulation prescribes quantification methods and since third-party verifiers review all emissions reports for reporting operations with emissions greater than or equal to 25,000 tonnes CO2e, there is assurance that the published data is a fair and accurate representation of actual facility emissions. There is also ongoing review by the Ministry of Environment to ensure data quality.
 
Part 3
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=50B908BE85E0446EB6D3C434B4C8C106

Q21. Why do some smaller linear facilities operations have two reports with identical emissions?

A21. There are two reports for smaller linear facilities operations since the first report is for the entire linear facilities operation and the second one is for the sum of all facilities with emissions of <10,000 tonnes of CO2e. When a linear facilities operation does not have any individual facilities with emissions equal to or greater than 10,000 tonnes, the two reports will be identical.


Q22. Why has verification status been published?

A22. The publication of verification status provides transparency on compliance with the regulation. 93% of reporting operations either had no or only minor issues found during verification, and none of the rest received an adverse verification. Five reporting operations received ‘No Opinion’ due to insufficient information provided at this time; the Ministry will update their verification status when a revised verification statement is received.


Q23. What is the value of the facility greenhouse gas reports?

A23. The emission report summaries: (1) Inform the public about significant sources of GHG emissions in British Columbia; (2) Enables industry to take charge of their GHG emissions and identify opportunities for emissions-reducing efficiencies; and, (3) Provide timely, accurate, quantitative information to support policy and program efforts to reduce GHG emissions.


Q24. How are the B.C. reporting requirements different from what industry has been required to report in the past to Environment Canada?

A24. Since the Reporting Regulation prescribes quantification methods and requires third-party verification, the facility reports may be different from those reported to Environment Canada. In most cases they will be the same. There are also different emission thresholds between the two reporting systems.


Q25. What are the total emissions associated with electricity imported into British Columbia?

A25. Emissions related to imported electricity were reported to be 1.3 Mt, 16% more than in 2012. 2012 was a very high-water year, meaning that less power was needed to be brought into B.C. However, 2013 emissions were 30% less than in 2011. Approximately 50% of imported electricity reported in 2013 was not used to serve BC Hydro customers and is instead immediately re-exported.
Note: that at this time imported electricity is not included within the scope of the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
(PIR).


Q26. What emission sources were added for 2013 reporting?

A26. No new sources were added for 2013 reporting. For comparison with 2010 reporting, note that above ground coal mine fugitive emissions and emissions associated with electricity imported into B.C. were added in 2011.


Q27. Why did mining and smelting emissions decrease by 7% between 2012 and 2013?

A27. The 7% decrease in emissions in the mining and smelting sector is due in large part to decreased production at RioTinto Alcan and increased efficiency at a number of coal mines.


Q28. What portion of B.C. industrial emissions are covered by the carbon tax?

A28. Approximately 67% of B.C. industrial emissions are covered by the carbon tax.
(who wants to bet that O&G industry is mostly exempt on the carbon tax?)
(edit added as I looked it up to be fair:
Myth: Many emissions are not taxed.
Fact: The carbon tax has the broadest base possible given current technological, measurement and data limitations and applies to virtually all emissions from fossil fuel combustion in British Columbia captured in Environment Canada’s National Inventory Report.
The carbon tax applies to virually all emissions from burning fuels, which accounts for an estimated 70 per cent of total emissions in British Columbia.
Of the approximately 30 per cent of emissions that are not from fuels:


  • 10 per cent are from non-energy agricultural uses (e.g. emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management, and agricultural soils) and waste (landfills);
  • 10 per cent are from fugitive emissions which cannot currently be accurately measured;
  • 6 per cent are non-combustion industrial process emissions; and
  • 5 per cent are from net deforestation.
The Province will look at options to extend the carbon tax to emissions beyond those generated by the purchase and use of fuels, and integrate the carbon tax with other climate action initiates such as cap-and-trade. )



Q29. Were there any modifications to the reported 2010, 2011 or 2012 emission levels?

A29. Between the 2010 and 2011 emissions report publication two modifications were made, with total reported 2010 emissions being revised upwards from 18.7 Mt to 18.8 Mt CO2e:

  • Murphy Oil submitted a new emissions report, with total 2010 emissions of 68,976 tonnes CO2e
  • Encana submitted a supplementary report that upwardly revised 2010 emissions for the Steeprock Sour Gas Planet facility by 27,456 tonnes CO2e
Between the 2011 and 2012 emissions report publication one modification affecting two emission report summaries was made to 2010 emissions, with total reported 2010 emissions remaining at 18.8 Mt CO2e

  • BC Hydro – Linear Facilities Operation revised the quantity of SF6 emissions, with total 2010 reporting operation emissions of 62,263 tonnes CO2e
  • BC Hydro – BC Aggregated Facilities (E < 10,000 tCO2e each) revised the quantity of SF6 emissions, with total 2010 reporting operation emissions of 46,048 tonnes CO2e
Between the 2011 and 2012 emissions report publication one modification was made to 2011 emissions, with total reported 2011 emissions being revised upwards from 19.3 Mt to 19.4 Mt CO2e:

  • Peace River Coal – Trend Mine submitted a new emissions report, with total 2011 emissions of 99,638 tonnes CO2e
Between the 2012 and 2013 emissions report publication, three modifications were made to 2012 emissions, one new report was submitted for 2011 emissions, and one revision and one new report were submitted for 2010 emissions. Total reported emissions were revised: downward by 32,000 tonnes CO2e for 2012; upward by 9,000 tonnes CO2e for 2011, and upward by 32,000 tonnes CO2e for 2010:


  • Penn West Petroleum revised downward its 2012 linear facilities operation report by 38,953 tonnes CO2e
  • Spectra Energy Transmission revised downward its 2012 linear facilities operation report by 4,680 tonnes CO2e
  • New Gold - New Afton Mine revised upward its 2012 report by 11,882 tonnes CO2e
  • Cequence Energy submitted a new 2011 emissions report, with total emissions of 9,025 tonnes CO2e
  • Cequence Energy submitted a new 2010 emissions report, with total emissions of 10,624 tonnes CO2e
  • Peace River Coal – Trend Mine revised upward its 2010 emissions report by 21,254 tonnes CO2e
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 4
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=FBB18F75B34F4B47BBBDECE8D784B0CF#3

Q30. What are the emissions from the different segments of the oil and gas industry?

A30. Emissions for the different segments of the oil and gas industry are


Oil and Gas Industry Segment
Total (tCO2e)
Percentage
Well Drilling and Completions417,0004.1
Upstream / Gathering3,827,00037.7
Processing4,662,00045.9
Transmission1,260,00012.4
TOTAL UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS
AND TRANSMISSION
10,165,000
100.0
Natural Gas Distribution126,300n/a

<tbody>
</tbody>





Q31. What are the emissions from the different oil and gas sources in British Columbia?

A31.


  • Emissions for the 25 different oil and gas emission sources found for well drillings and completions, upstream and gathering, processing and transmission are provided below
  • Emissions were quantified according to prescribed Western Climate Initiative Essential Requirements for Mandatory Reporting quantification methods and have, in the vast majority, undergone third-party verification. As such, the data is believed to be a complete, fair and accurate representation of oil and gas sector emissions in British Columbia.

Emission Source
Category
Total (tCO2e)
Percentage
Stationary Combustion: Natural GasStationary Combustion5,389,00053.0
Stationary Combustion: Other FuelsStationary Combustion296,0002.9
Electricity GenerationElectricity generation271,0002.7
Well Testing FlaresFlaring141,0001.4
Associated Gas FlaresFlaring17,3000.2
Flare StacksFlaring391,0003.8
Continuous High-Bleed Device VentsVenting187,0001.8
Pneumatic Pump VentsVenting261,0002.6
Continuous Low-Bleed and Intermittent Device VentsVenting55,6000.6
Acid Gas RemovalVenting2,088,00020.5
Dehydrator VentsVenting51,8000.5
Well Venting for Liquids UnloadingVenting3,5000.0
Well Venting, with or without Hydraulic FracturingVenting2,6000.0
Blowdown Vent StacksVenting102,0001.0
Well Testing VentingVenting--
Associated Gas VentingVenting8300.0
Centrifugal Compressor VentsVenting62,6000.6
Reciprocating Compressor VentsVenting98,9001.0
EOR Injection Pump BlowdownsVenting--
Other Venting SourcesVenting75,5000.7
Storage TanksFugitive48,1000.5
Gathering Pipeline Equipment LeaksFugitive109,0001.1
Equipment Leaks from Valves, Connectors, etc.Fugitive441,0004.3
Above-Ground Meters/Regulators at Gate StationsFugitive6,3000.1
Below-Ground Meters/Regulators/ValvesFugitive59,1000.6
Third-Party Line HitsFugitive10.0
Other Fugitive SourcesFugitive7,4000.1
Wastewater ProcessingWastewater1400.0
TOTAL10,165,200
100.0

<tbody>
</tbody>

My summary of the above table...
59.5 % Combustion to make the wheels go around and around.
5.4 % Flaring - wasted energy that could have produced work.
28.7 % Venting - don't know what to do with it so they dump into the sewer we call our air.
7.6 % Fugitive - Poor workmenship they call unavoidable cost of doing business.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some members would like us to look at BC as a whole and perhaps point a finger at agriculture.
Well let's look at that....
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=50B908BE85E0446EB6D3C434B4C8C106

2012_emissions.jpg

SectorDescription
EnergyEmissions from stationary and transport fuel combustion and fugitive emissions from the fossil fuel industry.
Sub-sector a:
Stationary Combustion
Emissions from stationary devices that combust solid, liquid or gaseous fuel in order to generate useful heat or electricity. Sources include boilers, combustion turbines, engines, incinerators and process heaters. Devices used to transport oil and gas through pipelines are not included in this sub-sector.
Sub-sector b:
Transport
Emissions from mobile devices that combust liquid or gaseous fuels for the purpose of generating useful energy for propulsion. Sources include road vehicles, marine and jet engines. Emissions from stationary devices used to transport oil and gas through pipelines are also included in this sub-sector.
Sub-sector c:
Fugitive Emissions
Unintentional emissions from the production, processing, transmission, storage and delivery of fossil fuels; as well as the intentional combustion of fossil fuels not used to generate useful heat or electricity.
Industrial ProcessesEmissions from chemical reactions used in industry that physically or chemically transform materials.
Solvent & Other Product UseNitrous oxide when the gas is used as an anaesthetic or propellant.
AgricultureEmissions from enteric fermentation, manure management and non-CO2 emissions from agricultural soils.
WasteEmissions from solid waste disposal, wastewater treatment and waste incineration.
Afforestation & DeforestationEmissions from deforestation and other land conversions and removals from afforestation.

<tbody>
</tbody>



Well ...... Agriculture on this chart is only 3.3%
Let's compare that to O&G wasted in sub-sector C: fugitive emissions 7.8%
Unintentional emissions from the production, processing, transmission, storage and delivery of fossil fuels; as well as the intentional combustion of fossil fuels not used to generate useful heat or electricity.

So if CO2 is a function of the energy, we could power our agriculture twice over on the waste of O&G Industry.
I remember reading we could also heat all of Vancouver with that wasted energy.
Makes you wonder where the real problem is.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG: Wow!! You really do your homework!

Yea it needs to be said...
Exporting LNG is not a path to the future it's lock-in to the past.
One that most of us see as a danger to children and salmon.
We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones.
 
So how do we effect change.....
You could try by being a shareholder and influence the company at that level.
You could ask at the AGM like this...

Resolved: That the shareholders of Spectra Energy (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semiannually,
disclosing the Company’s:
1. Policies and procedures for making, with corporate funds or assets, contributions and expenditures (direct or indirect) to
(a) participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, or (b) influence
the general public, or any segment thereof, with respect to an election or referendum.
2. Monetary and non-monetary contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used in the manner described in section 1 above,
including:
a. The identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each; and
b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for decision-making.
The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant board committee and posted on the Company’s website.


OR

Resolved: Shareholders request Spectra Energy set reduction targets for methane emissions resulting from all operations under the company’s financial or operational control by October 2014.

But then you would have the Directors shoot that down and say were doing good enough with business as usual and we don't need no stinking rules.... Then the share holders vote "what ever you say Boss"

Down in flames so much for that plan....
 
Any idea if when they calculate the number for agriculture they factor in energy . For example heating barns, running farm equipment, mining potash for feetilizer etc? In the key accompanying the chart it provides a very narrow definition!
 
Any idea if when they calculate the number for agriculture they factor in energy . For example heating barns, running farm equipment, mining potash for feetilizer etc? In the key accompanying the chart it provides a very narrow definition!
That's an excellent question that I have no exact answer for.

My guess is that heating barns under Stationary Combustion
Running farm equipment would fall under transportation.
Potash mining would fall under mining in Saskatchewan so not on here.

But if you look at this webpage it seen to tell us the most CO2 is enteric fermentation
(Cattle emit methane through a digestive process that is unique to ruminant animals called enteric fermentation)

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.pag...tle=British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Agriculture Sector – Annual agriculture sector emissions decreased by 15.0 per cent between 2007 and 2012, and by 20.0 per cent between 2002 and 2012. Changes can be attributed for the most part to methane (CH4) emissions from enteric fermentation (the largest source of agriculture sector emissions) and related changes in cattle populations.
More info here from a USA site
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html
This is something that 3X5 and myself were looking at and what solutions there were.
But in the grand scheme of things here in BC it's a drop in a barrel.
Let's get our house in order.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top