Something Wicked This Way Comes - ON THE LINE

Maybe I missed this being posted earlier but, if not, here you go;
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Mic...report+spill+system/9003288/story.htmlMichael Smyth: Alarm bells ring with new report of B.C.'s oil-spill system


BY MICHAEL SMYTH, THE PROVINCE OCTOBER 6, 2013

25

STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Premier Christy Clark is concerned that B.C. is not prepared for a large coastal oil spill.
Photograph by: Jason Payne , PNG
British Columbia is not prepared for a large coastal oil spill and the spill-prevention-and response system needs a major upgrade, especially before any new oil pipelines are approved.

That will be the bottom line in a new report on the province's oil-spill system to be released this week by the Christy Clark government.

As B.C. debates two major oil-pipeline projects — Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline — the government hired Alaska-based Nuka Research to investigate our coastal-spill system.

The company's report has been received by the government, I'm told, and Clark hinted at its contents in comments last week.

"We are woefully under resourced," Clark said, adding the spill-response system must be improved, especially "before any more heavy oil comes off the coast."

British Columbia already has hundreds of oil tankers passing through coastal waters and this week's report will question whether the spill-response system is adequate even for existing tanker traffic, I'm told.

The report will echo earlier concerns raised about B.C.'s inadequate preparation for a major coastal oil spill.

"Even a moderately sized spill would overwhelm the province's ability to respond and could result in a significant liability for government," said briefing notes prepared in June for B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak and obtained by The Canadian Press.

"The Canadian Coast Guard's national emergency management plan is out of date, and the organization has not fully assessed its response capacity in over a decade," Scott Vaughn, then Canada's independent environment commissioner, said in 2010.

"Because the Coast Guard does not have a reliable system to track spills, it cannot accurately determine the number of spills that occur each year, their size and their environmental impacts.

"We note several areas of concern, from incomplete assessments to out-of-date emergency response plans. These must be addressed to ensure the federal government is ready to respond to any ship-source oil spill occurring in Canadian waters."

The alarm bells are ringing as debate rages over the two proposed pipelines that would pump heavy crude oil — diluted bitumen — from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast for shipment by super tankers to Asia.

Enbridge, the Calgary company behind the proposed $6.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, has launched a new ad campaign touting the environmental safety of the project.

Leaked planning material from the ad blitz includes a "mood board" showing pictures of breaching whales and migrating salmon alongside photos of people and cars.

The proposed text for one commercial compares Enbridge vice-president Janet Holder to an orca, saying they both love "clean oceans and a full life" and both hate oil spills.

An Enbridge official said the material came from an early draft of commercials that were not produced, but convey the company's commitment to preventing a spill.

"What we are saying to the public is that our focus and concern aligns with their focus and concerns: the environment," said Holder, the B.C.-based Enbridge executive in charge of the project.

Premier Christy Clark has laid down five conditions for supporting the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, including addressing First Nations' concerns, ensuring B.C. gets a "fair share" of the profits and establishing "world-leading" environmental protection standards.

The government told a federal environmental panel in the spring it officially opposes the Enbridge project because it has not met those conditions. But Clark has stressed the conditions were always meant to be a "path for success" and not meant to permanently block economic development.

This week's report on the province's oil-spill system will include recommendations on how to bring it up to the world-leading standards Clark has demanded.

A report produced by the government last year singled out Alaska and Norway for having leading oil-spill regimes, pointing out superior standards for training, spill-response technology, and permanently staffed and equipped emergency depots and vessels.

Holder, the Enbridge vice-president, said the company is willing to meet the government's world-leading standards.

"We can still make changes to the project," she said.

A key question, though, is whether any oilspill system will be adequate in the dangerous waters of B.C.'s north coast.

"For most open ocean spills, no oil from a spill is recovered," the B.C. government said in legal arguments on the Enbridge pipeline in May, adding oil recovery could be even more difficult in the fall and winter months in confined and treacherous waters.

"There are significant periods during which spill response will be impossible or severely constrained," said the legal brief.

Art Sterritt, leader of anti-pipeline Coastal First Nations, is dubious any oil-recovery system can be put in place that would convince First Nations groups to support the pipeline.

"This industry has spent trillions of dollars on longer pipelines and bigger super tankers to ship more oil to more destinations than ever - but they've spent hardly anything on a system to clean up a freaking spill," he said.

"If you can't prove to us that you can clean up your own accident — because we know you'll have one at some point — then we will fight you to the wall."

The government's report on B.C.'s oil-spill response system and how to improve it is bound to crank up the debate even higher this week.

msmyth@theprovince.com

twitter.com/mikesmythnews

© Copyright (c) The Province
 
Another day another oil pipeline spill .......

[h=1]Burst oil pipeline in N. Dakota spewed crude, farmer says[/h]Oct 11, 2013 A North Dakota farmer who discovered an enormous oil spill while harvesting wheat says crude was bubbling up out of the ground when he found it.
Steve Jensen said he smelled the crude for days before the tires on his combines were coated in it. At the apparent break in the Tesoro Corp.'s underground pipeline, the oil was "spewing and bubbling six inches high," he said Thursday.

What Jensen had found on Sept. 29 turned out it was one of the largest spills recorded in the state. At 20,600 barrels it was four times the size of a pipeline rupture in late March that forced the evacuation of more than 20 homes in Arkansas.
But it was 12 days after Jensen reported the spill before state officials told the public what had happened, raising questions about how North Dakota, which is in the midst of an oil boom, reports such incidents.
The spill happened in a remote area in the northwest corner of the state. The nearest home is a about a kilometre away, and Tesoro says no water sources were contaminated, no wildlife was hurt and no one was injured.
The release of oil has been stopped, state environment geologist Kris Roberts said Thursday. And the spill, which spread out over three hectares, has been contained.
Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who says he wasn't even told about what happened until Wednesday night, said the state is now investigating its procedures for reporting spills.
"There are many questions to be answered on how it occurred and how it was detected and if there was anything that could have been done that could have made a difference," Dalrymple told reporters on Thursday. "Initially, it was felt that the spill was not overly large. When they realized it was a fairly sizable spill, they began to contact more people about it."
Tesoro Logistics, a subsidiary of the San Antonio, Texas-based company that owns and operates parts of Tesoro's oil infrastructure, said in a statement that the affected portion of the pipeline has been shut down and the company would fully remediate the contaminated farm land at an estimated cost of $4 million.
Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club, said the spill is an example of the lack of oversight in a state that has exploded with oil development in recent years.
"We need more inspectors and more transparency," Schafer said. "Not only is the public not informed, but agencies don't appear to be aware of what's going on and that's not good."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/burst-oil-pipeline-in-n-dakota-spewed-crude-farmer-says-1.1987683
 
GARY MASON
B.C.’s First Nations are suddenly the cool kids
GARY MASON
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 11 2013, 6:00 AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 11 2013, 6:00 AM EDT

For decades, federal governments have done their best to avoid dealing with the many intractable issues facing British Columbia’s First Nations. Provincial governments have been only slightly more engaged in trying to right many of these decades-old wrongs.

The B.C. treaty process established in the early 1990s has been a failure. In the intervening time, only two First Nations groups have signed accords. The blame for failing to reach more deals has been laid at the feet of Ottawa, which has preferred to study the often thorny problems emerging from negotiations rather than actually deal with them.
Any time a federal or B.C. government has tried to unilaterally exert rights in matters affecting the province’s First Nations, they’ve been slapped down by the courts. Still, it hasn’t stopped Ottawa from pretending and acting as if the rulings didn’t give aboriginal groups any additional powers.

At least until now.

Suddenly, B.C.’s First Nations have become a top priority for Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government. It seems to have had a conversion on the road to Kitimat, the West Coast terminus of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. It realizes that tens of billions of dollars in energy dollars are at stake.

Without First Nations consent and co-operation, a lot of that money could go up in smoke. As a result, we’re now entertained by the sight of Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver making regular sojourns to the province and talking about the importance of consultation.

You can excuse aboriginal leaders for snickering. For years, they’ve been unable to get Ottawa’s attention. Now that it’s dawned on the Conservatives that First Nations stand between them and energy riches, aboriginal leaders are atop everyone’s invitation list. They’re suddenly the cool kids in class. There isn’t a federal cabinet minister they can’t get on the line.

“They tried jamming us on Northern Gateway and it’s backfired,” says Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations. “They discovered that not only do we have legal power, we have political power. Joe Oliver is no longer calling us foreign-funded radicals or enemies of the state. He’s now talking about sitting down and building relationships.”

It’s true that Mr. Oliver is taking a softer position these days. It may be because the Prime Minister’s B.C. energy envoy has warned privately that taking a tough stand is a dead-end strategy. Doug Eyford, a highly respected Vancouver lawyer and treaty negotiator, knows the lay of the land and how to speak a language that resonates with aboriginal groups.

He understands that it will take lots of talk and money to get deals done, and that First Nations won’t be rushed along by someone else’s timetable. Complicating matters is that many First Nations lack the resources to properly investigate a pipeline’s possible socio-economic impact. There are also limits to what industry can negotiate – many issues require Crown consent.

Government attempts to force through projects over the objections of a First Nations community are likely to backfire and end up in court. That could effectively kill a project whose viability is contingent on meeting certain market-driven deadlines.

It’s difficult to say where all this ends. Mr. Sterritt and others contend that Northern Gateway is dead and that Ottawa should be prepared to sacrifice it in the name of other deals. Kinder Morgan also faces major First Nations hurdles. There seems a greater likelihood that B.C.’s many proposed liquefied natural gas projects will go ahead with First Nations’ blessing – and that’s partially because of money.

LNG proponents realized that the meagre amounts Enbridge was offering First Nations – 10 per cent equity stakes – weren’t enough to move the dial. One LNG deal that recently wrapped up gave affected groups a 33-per-cent share in the project. That caught everyone’s attention.

“When you’re talking about projects that could have a profound impact on the lives of First Nations people, you don’t just talk to us,” says Mr. Sterritt. “You’re going to need to get our permission before anything moves forward. That’s just a fact of life.”

For now, B.C.’s First Nations have the federal and provincial governments right where they want them – over a barrel.
 
Why the Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built

Why the citizens of BC will ensure Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built:-

http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/bc-still-not-sale

http://www.theprovince.com/technolo...t+mean+itll+actually+built/9148788/story.html

And here is a short video recording this past Saturday’s demonstration against the pipelines and tar sands expansion held in over 130 communities across Canada!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQOSiKUcko0&feature=youtu.be
 
For those who have been led to believe that the 2 current proposed pipeline deals are somehow good for BC / Canada's economy I am hoping you will read the following report.

http://www.robynallan.com/2013/11/14/pipelines-and-oil-tankers.html

Intro:
There are two major oil pipeline projects proposed for BC: Enbridge’s Northern Gateway, and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion.

This is an opportune time to reflect on Canada’s energy strategy and whether oil pipelines and tanker traffic along BC’s coast are in our public interest.

This question is complex. But my experience is that when thoughtful people are provided good and full information they make sound decisions.

Unfortunately, when it comes to oil sands extraction and export, we are given only part of the story. We are provided the picture the industry wants us to see.

-click link above for full analysis.

About the author:

Robyn Allan has held many executive positions in the private and public sectors including President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Vice-President Finance for Parklane Ventures Ltd., and Senior Economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

Recently she provided written evidence on economic and insurance issues related to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project currently before the National Energy Board. She was the Economic and Financial Adviser to the Barrett Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia. She has taught Money and Banking, Public Finance and Micro and Macro Economics at the university level as well as written numerous articles for newspapers and magazines including the Globe and Mail, Financial Post, Business in Vancouver and Enterprise Magazine.
 
http://medicinehatnews.com/business/bus ... oval-poll/

Strong belief in oil industry’s economic clout drives pipeline approval: poll

OTTAWA – A new poll suggests a broad cross-section of Canadians see the oil and gas sector as vitally important to the national economy, an attitude that in turn appears to be driving up support for pipeline construction.

Almost nine out of 10 respondents to the Harris-Decima poll, 87 per cent, said they believe oil and gas development is economically important, while a clear majority – 53 per cent – ranked the sector as the most important in Canada.

The telephone poll of just over 1,000 respondents also found a majority of respondents in favour of the proposed west-to-east pipeline from Alberta to Atlantic Canada, as well as the Northern Gateway pipeline to the B.C. coast
 
worth a read

2012 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Chapter 4—A Study of Federal Support to the Fossil Fuel Sector
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201212_04_e_37713.html

Main Points
What we examined

As a member of the <abbr title="Group of Twenty">G-20</abbr>, Canada has officially recognized that efforts to deal with climate change, wasteful energy consumption, market distortions, and barriers to clean energy investment are undermined by inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
The purpose of this study was to provide parliamentarians with information on the various means, including but not limited to subsidies, by which the government supports the fossil fuel sector, and the cost of that support. Because there is no single entity within government that is responsible for assembling a listing of government programs and activities that support the fossil fuel sector in Canada, our study undertook to compile such an inventory.
Where a program offered support to other economic sectors as well, we considered to the extent possible only the value of the support attributable to the fossil fuel sector. We also included programs that reduce carbon footprint through clean energy technology.
This document is not an audit report. For this reason, our observations should not be considered an assessment of the government’s current practices. Our study did not assess the effectiveness or efficiency of the programs and activities identified or their impacts.
Our work for this chapter was completed on 28 August 2012. More details about the objectives, scope, and approach are in About the Study at the end of this chapter.

Why it’s important


In general terms, subsidies have a direct effect on public sector budgets. Subsidies can help address market failures, respond to social needs, and encourage environmental improvements. At the same time, subsidies can also exert market and pricing distortions that can have negative impacts on environmental quality.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has identified fossil fuel subsidies in its member nations amounting to between US$45 billion and US$75 billion annually between 2005 and 2010. Approximately 30 percent of that amount was received by producers, and the majority was provided through tax expenditures. A report submitted to the G-20 noted that subsidies to producers of fossil fuels worldwide may be around US$100 billion per year.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the complete phase-out of global subsidies for fossil fuel consumption could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 gigatonnes by 2020. This would amount to approximately 40 percent of the abatement needed to limit global warming to a 2°<abbr title="Celsius">C</abbr> rise by 2020. Although reform of fossil fuel subsidies on its own may not be sufficient to resolve climate change, according to the IEA it is a necessary step forward.

What we found


  • The government has a broad range of programs that provide support to the fossil fuel sector. That support can be grouped into two main types: direct spending through various programs; and tax expenditures under the Income Tax Act, which represent the majority of financial support.
  • Based on the data that the government provided to us, the majority (97 percent) of direct spending to support the fossil fuel sector was for research and development, more than half of which related to clean technology. Other direct spending went to economic development activities. Total direct spending amounted to $508 million over the fiscal period 2007–08 to 2011–12. Extended over 30 years, this would represent a significant decline in direct spending support to the sector since the 30 years preceding our 2000 study of government support for energy investments.
  • The costs of tax expenditures are not as easily determined as are direct expenditures, due to limitations in data availability and the methodological challenges of developing cost estimates.
  • The estimated costs of tax expenditures that Finance Canada was able to attribute specifically to the fossil fuel sector amounted to $1.47 billion over the fiscal period 2006–07 to 2010–11, primarily relating to the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands projects. This tax expenditure is being phased out over four years. A number of other tax expenditures are also being phased out over varying time periods. The estimated costs of tax expenditures attributable to the oil and gas, mining, and clean energy sectors as a whole amounted to about $2 billion, accounted for largely by deductions for flow-through shares. Finance Canada was unable to estimate the proportion of this support that was attributable specifically to the fossil fuel sector. For other tax expenditures, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining and Canadian exploration expenses, the Department was unable to provide an estimate of the costs.
 
[h=1]Ewart: Dual energy dialogues provide insight to Canadians[/h]http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Ewart+Dual+energy+dialogues+provide+insight/9230718/story.html?__lsa=null

There are two distinct dialogues happening these days encompassing governments, the oil industry and Canadians.

You can hardly avoid one of the conversations — it’s advertised on TV and other media 24/7. It is the other discussion that takes more effort to observe. That’s because it relies on environmentalists and/or journalists using federal and provincial access to information laws to get a peek at the ongoing dialogue between the oil industry and governments.
Both contribute to overall energy literacy in Canada.
Consider that since September we’ve learned from e-mail exchanges obtained through freedom of information that:
- Canada’s U.S. ambassador was warned by staff in June that resurgent U.S. oil production could derail the need for the Keystone XL pipeline.
- Alberta’s energy regulator met regularly with the engineering firm conducting an “independent” review of the pipeline system after a series of ruptures last year.
- The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers told the Alberta government earlier this year its proposed GHG regulations were too ambitious and would hamper industry’s ability to compete. It proposed a 50 per cent lower target.
- Amid pipelines delays, Chinese oil giant CNOOC met with federal officials in March about moving oilsands crude on CN Rail to Prince Rupert, B.C.
None of these stories uncovered major scandal but all provided the public valuable information and insight.
At the same time, Canadians were reminded in nearly ever-present TV, print and movie theatre ads that a lot of everyday people earn a good living in the oil and gas industry, transportation infrastructure has been always important in Canada’s history and oilsands producers are rising to the challenges by putting innovative Canadian ideas to work.
The sustained PR push by industry and Ottawa — which dates to 2010 when hundreds of ducks died in an oilsands tailings pond — was back in the news this week when the federal government confirmed it will spend $40 million on advertising in 2013-14. The ads primarily focus on oil and gas.
“The government has a responsibility to provide Canadians with facts to assist them in making informed decisions,” Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told a House of Commons committee, noting $16.5 million will go to ads in Canada and the remainder in foreign markets.
The ads — part of untold millions in co-ordinated spending by industry and government annually — portray Canada as an environmentally responsible and reliable supplier of natural resources.
They’re intended to counter what Oliver’s ministry called “intense and sustained public relations campaigns” against oilsands development.
Last May, Postmedia News used Access to Information to learn the federal government had drafted plans for a “strong and co-ordinated” PR campaign in December 2011. Postmedia, the Herald’s parent company, also cited government documents it obtained in reporting on a March 2010 meeting about federal and Alberta officials and oil industry executives to discuss “upping their game” on oilsands communications.

CAPP has not disclosed the cost of its long-running, and award winning, “Canada’s Energy” ad series, but it runs into the millions of dollars. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association has said it is spending $2.5 million on its current ad campaign. Companies like Enbridge and Cenovus Energy augment industry and government ads with their own commercials.
The goal of the campaigns is to communicate directly to a broad audience and win over public opinion. The media can’t be counted on to deliver industry or government messages and, in fact, often work against that effort. Certainly Postmedia doesn’t have a monopoly over access to information scoops. The news in the above bullets is from The Globe and Mail, Global News and CBC. In many cases, environmental groups such as Greenpeace Canada or The Pembina Institute make the request to the governments and share their findings with media outlets.
There are indications the PR push is paying off. A Harris-Decima poll in November found almost nine in 10 respondents consider oil and gas development economically important to Canada. More than half called the sector the most important in Canada — although the energy accounts for less than 10 per cent of overall GDP. Polling numbers can always be disputed but the stakes in debate are undeniably high.
As Oliver has said, there are “tens of billions of dollars in play.”
Whether broad public acknowledgment of the economic benefits of oil and gas development translates into support from key stakeholders for the Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain, Energy East or Line 9 pipeline projects remains to be seen.
The opposition is hardly a silent minority. If industry and government dominate advertising, activists rule social media.
A study on Keystone XL by U.S.-based MediaBadger Public Affairs found between 2008 and 2011 there were more than 1,500 videos, over 35,000 photos, 350,000-plus tweets, more than 1,800-plus blog posts and countless comments on media stories. That dwarfed any industry messaging and was before the opposition really hit its stride last year.
Freedom of information requests may be the bane of oil and gas lobbyists or government bureaucrats but they aren’t synonymous with the WikiLeaks saga. As Suzanne Legault, information commissioner of Canada, said recently, access of government information is an expression of Canadians’ core values and “fundamental to the functioning of democracy.”
Legault called on Ottawa to put controls on instant text messages from civil servants — in particular ministers’ office staff — this week to preserve government records and respect the access to information law.
There are numerous calls for Ottawa to update the 30-year-old Access to Information law and there’s logic to it. Since it’s proving to be one of the better communication tools in understanding what’s happening with public policy and the oil and gas sector it would even help industry and governments realize their goal of increasing energy literacy.

And it doesn’t include spending a fortune on ads.

Stephen Ewart is a Calgary Herald columnist.
 
What will they think of next?

As pressure for significant tar sands crude shipping by vessels on the Great Lakes mounts, so, too, does the need to understand whether our region can or should embrace such a use of the lakes with its inherent risks. No method of transporting oil can ever be perfectly safe, and history has shown that shipping by vessel is no exception. Additionally, as tar sands crude spill cleanups have proved particularly problematic, a cleanup of a deep-water tar sands crude spill in the Great Lakes would present new and extraordinary challenges. With the amount of tar sands crude shipped on the Great Lakes by vessel poised to expand as early as 2015, the Great Lakes will soon face a new threat that poses a substantial risk to their future.

http://www.greatlakes.org/tar-sands/report

This should be an eyeopener for the people that use the great lakes for their drinking water
 
Great 20 minute video of Economist and Businesswoman Robyn Allan explaining the hidden cost of resource exploitation in Canada.

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/81247491?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/81247491">Pipelines and Oil Tankers, Economic Cost and Environmental Risk</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/karljensen">Karl Jensen</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

http://robynallan.com/

Bio:

Robyn Allan has held many executive positions in the private and public sectors including President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Vice-President Finance for Parklane Ventures Ltd., and Senior Economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

Recently she provided written evidence on economic and insurance issues related to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline Project currently before the National Energy Board. She was the Economic and Financial Adviser to the Barrett Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia. She has taught Money and Banking, Public Finance and Micro and Macro Economics at the university level as well as written numerous articles for newspapers and magazines including the Globe and Mail, Financial Post, Business in Vancouver and Enterprise Magazine.

Her first book, Quest for Prosperity: The Dance of Success, was published in 1995.

She holds a Masters Degree in Economics from the University of British Columbia and The Canadian Securities Course designation.
 
The sooner we get the foreign interest out of our oil the better.
 
http://www.raincoast.org/media/in-the-news/salmon-in-the-news/embroiled/

Sidney, British Columbia – A new report by the Raincoast Conservation Foundation says the consequences to salmon from Northern Gateway’s proposed oil tankers and Kitimat oil terminal are not worth taking. The report, Embroiled: Salmon, Tankers and the Enbridge Northern Gateway Proposal, explores the connections between the oil industry’s proposed activities and how those activities can adversely affect salmon. A recommendation is looming any day now on the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal by the federal Joint Review Panel (JRP).
 
Back
Top