Is British Columbia's nascent LNG industry going to be a saviour of B.C.'s economy, a still-born pipedream of some political opportunists or a mercifully-aborted miscarriage of commerce, as both the markets and many political opponents seem to be portending? Or something else in between?
That language may seem a bit extreme but no less than Premier Christy Clark has promised the former (an economic boon to the economy and to government finances) and she more or less won an election on it in 2013 and now she is staking her political future on it by trying to force it forward perhaps before the demand is really there.
Clark's colleagues and many pro-industry supporters also now paint the LNG prospect as a life-or-death issue for B.C.'s economy, and B.C. Hydro and Power Corp. has been ordered to charge ahead on the huge (and hugely contentious) Site C hydroelectric dam project that among other features would provide large volumes of reliable though not cheap power to liquefy vast volumes of natural gas (i.e. making LNG) from B.C.'s apparently vast reserves.
Meanwhile First Nations people and environmentalists are fighting on the ground in northern B.C. and in the courts to both thwart the Site C project and slow down the pace and scope of natural gas exploratory drilling, and they're being aided by a somewhat steep and sudden drop in world oil prices and hence in energy prices in general [triggered by Middle East political and religious feuds, which is a separate story], which in turn has exacerbated economic slowdowns in China and globally which have driven down commodity and resources prices and thus further undermined energy prices, kind of like a compounding problem.
Technological questions about "fracking" and signs of inadequate monitoring by safety and regulatory authorities further undermine the short-term prospects for LNG in B.C. and now we see in the news that there are new questions about the economics of the hugely costly LNG export terminals being proposed in several B.C. locations, of which only one has received approval and none have yet begun construction.
Below are links to two excellent background articles on B.C.'s LNG decision, or maybe call it a dilemma, first by the widely-esteemed Andrew Nikiforuk in The Tyee and second by Seth Klein of the B.C. Centre for Policy Alternatives, and they're followed by a column broadcast by the David Suzuki Foundation about the long-term big-picture evolution of human and environmental rights - of which LNG development in B.C. is now a prominent symptom.
Twigg's personal view:
Where do I stand personally? I have long been a proponent of natural gas exploration and development in B.C., and indeed of economic growth in general, but that is not a carte blanche endorsement because I also have a pre-requisite that any such development be done safely and responsibly and with fair sharing of the benefits given that we citizens are sharing a lot of the risks too.
But lately we have been learning more about flaws in the natural gas exploration part of the deal, which is somewhat apart from the cost-benefit of LNG for export at tidewater, and those flaws relate especially to fracking, a very common practice that has been quite rightly excoriated by Nikiforuk in his latest book "Slick Water" published by Greystone Books and the David Suzuki Institute.
Though fracking has a long and mostly clean and safe history in B.C., experiences in other jurisdictions such as Alberta and Pennsylvania (and many others such as Quebec) suggest fracking is almost inherently incompatible with environmental safety, especially the pollution of water formations at shallow depths (as Alberta resident Jessica Ernst has been bravely proving in an epic legal battle described in Nikiforuk's excellent book).
My problem with it in B.C. is that in recent years the number of exploratory wells has soared while the number of safety and regulatory inspectors was capped and even reduced under successive waves of false-economy spending restraint by first the Gordon Campbell and then Christy Clark Liberal regimes; they may try to claim their oversight is still adequate but I have become increasingly skeptical of both that and the safety of the fracking technology (which uses a lot of toxic chemicals) not to mention situations that are potentially explosive.
And then there are the economics; the world prices of energy have been crashing, yes, but meanwhile what will be the real final cost of the Site C dam and generating station that is just now beginning construction? The Clark government has given out various figures but they sound like best guesses, and anyway my question is why should B.C. Hydro, its existing customers and B.C. taxpayers be forced to pay now for Site C when some expert analysts suggest the consumer need for its "extra" power is still several decades away?
In fact many people would feel better about all this if the B.C. Utilities Commission would be allowed to do its statutory duty and examine the situation in an independent and professional manner. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
LNG a ruse for water exports
I suspect the Site C project is not only an enabler of LNG and the fracking needed to supply it but it also will be a collector and seller of water to the United States and really the added power supposedly for domestic B.C. consumers of electricity is a ruse, and an excuse to put B.C. taxpayers on the hook for the massive costs, when really the main payers should be the natural gas frackers and LNG manufacturers plus the Americans who will get the added water via transmission systems already designed decades ago in the NAWAPA plan, the North America Water and Power Alliance - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance and http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/ and especially http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/the-big-picture---grand-plan-to-steal-canadas-water-resource-wealth---the-traitors-within.html , which contains this pivotal paragraph:
"The body of water featured here is Williston Lake, British Columbia, the largest lake, a man made lake, in British Columbia. This lake re-fills itself from falling snow and rain every 2 years. By contrast, Lake Superior, one of the Great Lakes, re-charges itself every 180 years and Lake Okanagan, in the dry region of south central British Columbia, has a re-charge period of 80 years. Williston Lake sits at an elevation of 2200 feet above sea level (671 m). A properly constructed aqueduct would permit water to flow down hill to California without the aid of expensive energy consuming pumping stations.Ten feet of water, taken from the surface, every year, would provide approximately 4 million acre feet, annually, with minimal environmental impact in Canada. This is some of the purest, cleanest water in the world. If a fraction of the outflow of Williston Lake, 4 million acre feet, were diverted and sold in southern California for $1,000 per acre foot the annual revenue would be $4 billion."
In other words, the real main purpose of the Site C project is NOT to provide power to the nascent LNG industry and nor is it to provide new power to B.C.'s already over-supplied domestic consumers (who now are paying for Gordon Campbell's disastrous foray into subsidizing and sweetheart dealing with a few dozen (private-sector) Independent Power Producers already with excess capacity).
Instead the real purpose of Site C is to provide WATER! Lots of cheap water to the increasingly drought-stricken U.S. consumers!!
Now I can debate both the merits and drawbacks of that NAWAPA arrangement, and its risks and rewards for B.C., and conceivably if such a deal was properly structured it could be win-win for both sides.
And we can and should make similar arguments in favour of bulk water exports from the dozens of locations along B.C.'s long long coastlines where there are many great sources of large volumes of surplus water - again provided that the projects are done safely, the benefits are shared fairly and the government ensures that the sales prices and contract terms do not expose the province to NAFTA's rules regarding fulfillments in long-term contracts (which could be accomplished quite easily by using an auction system and/or a single-window sales system as now done in the potash industry and/or a constraint against long-term contracts).
No doubt some readers - if they get this far in reading - will argue that "hey what about all that lost farmland in the Peace River valley??" and that IS a fair question too, but my own view is that while it's regrettable that Site C will flood a lot of land it still leaves the province with vast areas of farmable land (not to mention the huge potential in urban agriculture).
But my main argument against Site C and hence against fracking for LNG is not only with the environmental risks but moreso it is with the economic costs and benefits.
To word it bluntly, why should B.C. citizens carry most of the costs and risks of fracking and LNG when the beneficiaries of those are mainly a few large corporate investors and a great many foreign consumers of both gas and water? In fact they shouldn't.
To state my thesis simply, the whole Site C and LNG concept should be slowed and restructured so that the risks and rewards can be studied independently by the BCUC and then if they proceed the costs and benefits will be shared more fairly and more efficiently.
Or to be really blunt: make the users pay, not B.C. taxpayers.
Background on LNG
From http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/01/22/Renewables-Outcompete-LNG/
Renewables Could Outcompete Costly, Risky LNG, Investors Warned
Industry report finds declining costs of wind and solar a viable threat to North American product
A new industry report warns
investors, governments and regulators that renewable forms of energy
could outcompete high-cost and high-risk liquefied natural gas
projects.
The sheer volume of shale gas in North
America has blinded many of its key promoters to an important dynamic:
"Namely the fast progress of renewable energy technologies capable of
providing an alternative to one or more of the major sources of demand
for LNG, electricity production and in the future perhaps heating," the
report found.The report was prepared by the Brattle Group, an independent firm that "answers complex economic, regulatory, and financial questions for corporations, law firms, and governments around the world."
Join The Tyee and acclaimed energy
journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk for a special evening on
fracking. Nikiforuk will survey the latest energy battleground and
discuss his new book, Slick Water, which centres around Jessica
Ernst's landmark case. The event takes place Jan. 28 in Vancouver. Find
further details and ticket information here.
John Twigg's view: Yes the clean and renewable energy industries are growing quickly as nations around the world try to reduce their emissions of pollutants, but the latest graphs show CO2 still rising while temperatures have sort of plateaued (see links in my Twitter feed and at @EcoSenseNow (Patrick Moore) but it will be many decades yet before fossil fuels can be replaced in long-distance transportation (airplanes, trucks etc.) and in many many other industrial and commercial applications (ferries, plastics, steel-making, remote logging shows), so at some point trying to displace carbon fuels becomes counter-productive. A lot depends on the applications, and for example clean transportation in urban areas is a great one for electric cars and buses.
----------
Time to face the truth: BC’s LNG pipe dream is over
At the end of December, in the wake of the Paris climate talks, Seth Klein shared his thoughts on the future of liquefied natural gas in BC in an article for the Tyee, and he didn’t beat around the bush:Seth’s message resonated with readers across the province, including more than 7,000 who shared the article on social media (In fact, this was the most widely shared article on the Tyee the week it was published).It's time for the provincial government to admit that its LNG project is over, and for the new federal government to clearly state that there is no room in our future for new fossil fuel development of this sort.
Unfortunately, the BC government continues to pursue LNG development despite the mounting evidence that this is a bad move, both environmentally and economically. We’re keeping a close eye on this file, and you can expect more analysis from Seth, Ben Parfitt and Marc Lee in the weeks to come. ...
and finally . . .
Environmental rights are human rights
|
|
By David Suzuki (from the David Suzuki Foundation)
Jan. 22, 2016
My grandparents came here from Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Although it would be a one-way trip, the perilous journey across the Pacific was worth the risk. They left behind extreme poverty for a wealth of opportunity.
But Canada was different then, a racist country built on policies of colonization, assimilation and extermination of the land's original peoples. My grandparents and Canadian-born parents, like indigenous people and others of "colour", couldn't vote, buy property in many places or enter most professions. During the Second World War, my parents, sisters and I were deprived of rights and property and incarcerated in the B.C. Interior, even though Canada was the only home we'd ever known.
A lot has changed since my grandparents arrived, and since I was born in 1936. Women were not considered "persons" with full democratic rights until 1929. People of African or Asian descent, including those born and raised here, couldn't vote until 1948, and indigenous people didn't get to vote until 1960. Homosexuality was illegal until 1969!
In 1960, John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government enacted Canada's Bill of Rights, and in 1982, Pierre Trudeau's Liberals brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with equality rights strengthened in 1985.
We should celebrate those hard-won rights. I'm happy to have witnessed much of the progress my country has made. But there's room for improvement. And in some ways Canada has gone backward.
When I was a boy, we drank water from lakes and streams without a thought. I never imagined that one day we would buy water in bottles for more than we pay for gasoline. Canada has more fresh water per capita than any nation, but many indigenous communities don't have access to clean drinking water.
When I was growing up in Vancouver, Dad would take me fishing for halibut off Spanish Banks, sturgeon on the Fraser River and salmon in English Bay. Today I can't take my grandchildren fishing in those places because the fish are gone.
As a boy, I never heard of asthma. Today, childhood asthma is as common as red hair. And half of all Canadians live in places with unacceptable air pollution.
I also remember when all food was organic. I never thought we'd have to pay more not to have chemicals in our food. Today we can't avoid the toxic consequences of our industrial and agricultural activities. We all have dozens of toxic pollutants incorporated into our bodies.
We may think the highest rate of deforestation is in the Amazon but in 2014 Canada became the world leader in loss of pristine forests.
Surely, in a nation with so much natural wealth, we should expect better appreciation, treatment and protection of the air, water, soil and rich biological diversity that our health, prosperity and happiness depend on.
The right to live in a healthy environment is recognized by more than 110 nations — but not Canada. That inspired the David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice to launch the Blue Dot movement a little over a year ago.
It's exceeded our expectations, with more than 100 municipalities passing environmental rights declarations and a number of provinces considering or committing to the idea. The next step is to take it to the federal level, by calling for an environmental bill of rights and, ultimately, an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The environmental rights campaign is also about human rights and social justice — something recognized by the United Nations, which has appointed a special rapporteur on human rights and the environment. A country and its values are measured not by the number of extremely wealthy people but by the state of its poorest and most vulnerable. Many environmental problems are tied to societal inequities — hunger and poverty, chronic unemployment, absence of social services, inadequate public transit and often conflicting priorities of corporations and the public interest — as people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and toxic pollution.
Canada has come a long way, but we can't be complacent. We must work to maintain and strengthen the rights of all Canadians, to build an even better Canada. That means giving all Canadians the right to a healthy environment.
By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Learn more about how DSF’s Blue Dot movement is fighting for Canadians’ environmental rights.
Jan. 22, 2016
My grandparents came here from Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Although it would be a one-way trip, the perilous journey across the Pacific was worth the risk. They left behind extreme poverty for a wealth of opportunity.
But Canada was different then, a racist country built on policies of colonization, assimilation and extermination of the land's original peoples. My grandparents and Canadian-born parents, like indigenous people and others of "colour", couldn't vote, buy property in many places or enter most professions. During the Second World War, my parents, sisters and I were deprived of rights and property and incarcerated in the B.C. Interior, even though Canada was the only home we'd ever known.
A lot has changed since my grandparents arrived, and since I was born in 1936. Women were not considered "persons" with full democratic rights until 1929. People of African or Asian descent, including those born and raised here, couldn't vote until 1948, and indigenous people didn't get to vote until 1960. Homosexuality was illegal until 1969!
In 1960, John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government enacted Canada's Bill of Rights, and in 1982, Pierre Trudeau's Liberals brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with equality rights strengthened in 1985.
We should celebrate those hard-won rights. I'm happy to have witnessed much of the progress my country has made. But there's room for improvement. And in some ways Canada has gone backward.
When I was a boy, we drank water from lakes and streams without a thought. I never imagined that one day we would buy water in bottles for more than we pay for gasoline. Canada has more fresh water per capita than any nation, but many indigenous communities don't have access to clean drinking water.
When I was growing up in Vancouver, Dad would take me fishing for halibut off Spanish Banks, sturgeon on the Fraser River and salmon in English Bay. Today I can't take my grandchildren fishing in those places because the fish are gone.
As a boy, I never heard of asthma. Today, childhood asthma is as common as red hair. And half of all Canadians live in places with unacceptable air pollution.
I also remember when all food was organic. I never thought we'd have to pay more not to have chemicals in our food. Today we can't avoid the toxic consequences of our industrial and agricultural activities. We all have dozens of toxic pollutants incorporated into our bodies.
We may think the highest rate of deforestation is in the Amazon but in 2014 Canada became the world leader in loss of pristine forests.
Surely, in a nation with so much natural wealth, we should expect better appreciation, treatment and protection of the air, water, soil and rich biological diversity that our health, prosperity and happiness depend on.
The right to live in a healthy environment is recognized by more than 110 nations — but not Canada. That inspired the David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice to launch the Blue Dot movement a little over a year ago.
It's exceeded our expectations, with more than 100 municipalities passing environmental rights declarations and a number of provinces considering or committing to the idea. The next step is to take it to the federal level, by calling for an environmental bill of rights and, ultimately, an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The environmental rights campaign is also about human rights and social justice — something recognized by the United Nations, which has appointed a special rapporteur on human rights and the environment. A country and its values are measured not by the number of extremely wealthy people but by the state of its poorest and most vulnerable. Many environmental problems are tied to societal inequities — hunger and poverty, chronic unemployment, absence of social services, inadequate public transit and often conflicting priorities of corporations and the public interest — as people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and toxic pollution.
Canada has come a long way, but we can't be complacent. We must work to maintain and strengthen the rights of all Canadians, to build an even better Canada. That means giving all Canadians the right to a healthy environment.
By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Learn more about how DSF’s Blue Dot movement is fighting for Canadians’ environmental rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment