Apex Resources Inc (SLMLF)

[fishin100]

MONEY TALKS!

Alaska’s big move to LNG ?
21-Mar-12

Alaska’s big three gas players are considering a major project to build a pipeline and LNG facility aimed at the east Asian export market.
BP, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are in discussions about a $40bn project to export liquefied natural gas from Alaska to Asia, potentially opening up large but stranded reserves on Alaska’s north slope. The three companies and state authorities hope to reach agreement in March over a long-running lease dispute at Point Thomson, a large oil and gas field on Alaska’s North Slope. The companies have warned that they need to assess the commercial case for the project, which would cost an estimated $40bn-$50bn and take at least 10 years to develop. The gas pipeline would go from the North Slope to Valdez, along the same route as the Alyeska oil pipeline.
Alaska’s North Slope has proven reserves of 35trillion cubic feet of gas – about one-eighth of US total reserves – and undiscovered resources estimated 330 trillion cubic feet.



http://northof56.com/oil-gas/article/alaskas-big-move-to-lng



Alaska’s Deal With Oil Execs Ushers in Pipeline

April 7th. 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CN) – Three oil giants reached a settlement with Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell on Friday on the future development of North Slope energy resources.Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips have agreed to work on the Alaska Pipeline Project(APP) with TransCanada Corp.The Alaska Supreme Court indicated a day earlier that a settlement might be in the works by dismissing its review of disputed leases on the Point Thompson gas fields.Point Thompson is North America’s largest known oil and gas field. The North Slope property is thought to have 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of millions of barrels of petroleum liquids, one-fourth of the known gas resources in the area.Alaska had been trying to win back control of Point Thompson land for the last decade, pulling leases that it said had been held too long without being developed. ExxonMobil, the largest leaseholder in Point Thompson, with more than half of the shares, recently released its Point Thompson Environmental Impact Statement and plans to go active by 2016.It and other oil companies had attributed the development issues to technical challenges and the absence of new pipeline.Before the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, it had heard oral arguments on Feb. 8.Parnell, who discussed proposed oil and gas legislation at a large rally Wednesday, applauded the settlement.”I am pleased to announce that the parties have resolved Point Thomson litigation and the three CEOs have stated their companies are now formally aligned with the APP parties,” Parnell said in a statement. “They have undertaken work together on the commercialization of North Slope gas with a specific focus on a large-scale LNG [liquefied natural gas] project from Southcentral Alaska.”The CEOs of ExxonMobil, Conoco and BP issued a letter Friday saying they are moving forward as “co-venturers” with the goal of bringing the Point Thompson resources to market.”North Slope gas commercialization will bring new job opportunities, increased state revenues, reliable in-state energy supplies and new exploration opportunities, which will further the development of North Slope oil and gas,” the letter states. “This will be key toward reaching your goal of one million barrels of oil per day through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.”We are now working together on the gas commercialization project concept selection, which would include an associated timeline and an assessment of major project components including in-state pipeline routes and capacities, global LNG trends, and LNG tidewater site locations, among others.”State senators have been criticizing the governor’s plan to give certain tax incentives to the companies, claiming that it would take money out of the state and hinder new exploration and competition with new gas players.The Alaska Department of Natural Resources noted in a 20-page report that “the settlement also has severe consequences if the producers fail to develop or expand development.”"If Producers abandon the IPS (Initial Production System)/fail to keep the provisional work schedule, there will be a significant contraction of PT acreage by 2015,” the report states.”If there is no IPS production and a MGS (major gas sale) is not sanctioned by 2019, then the unit terminates and all acreage automatically returns to the state without appeal,” it continued, adding that “this includes leases with capable wells.”"If the producers do not commit to expand production beyond the IPS, or do not sanction a MGS, then significant acreage contracts from the unit and automatically returns to the state without appeal.”If the producers commit to expanded development, or sanction a MGS by 2019, but do not follow through, the unit will contract to the area in production.”If there is no commitment to Brookian oil formation production, then Brookian acreage automatically contracts in 2018 and returns to the state without appeal.“ ‘Without appeal’ is used throughout the agreement – it means that the producers waive their right to appeal automatic termination of their leases to any tribunal in Alaska or the United States.”

http://mylawyersblog.com/criminal-defense-lawyer/alaskas-deal-with-oil-execs-ushers-in-pipeline




pipeline commitment

Parnell announces Point Thomson agreement, pipeline commitment

4/9/2012

Two major milestones were met in Alaska's efforts to bring North Slope natural gas to Alaskans and markets beyond, Gov. Sean Parnell announced. The state has resolved its long-running litigation with ExxonMobil Corp. and other Point Thomson field leaseholders, he told reporters in Anchorage.
He also has received a letter from BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil's chief executives stating that they are aligned with the Alaska Pipeline Project sponsors and are working on a major pipeline project to move gas from the North Slope to a possible liquefied natural gas export terminal in South-Central Alaska, Parnell said.
"This is historically significant. Nobody in this building or the state has ever seen anything like this," he maintained. "The parties are working to finalize commercializing of their gas project, including development of pipelines to distribute some of the gas in Alaska."
The settlement between the state and leaseholders ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Leede ends a 7-year battle over Alaska's largest undeveloped gas field. It requires the producers to begin producing gas liquids from the field by winter of 2015-16 and to build a 70,000 b/d common carrier pipeline connecting to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.
"It is settled around one critical principle: The companies must earn their acreage," Natural Resources Commissioner Daniel S. Sullivan said. "The more work, more commitments, more investments, and more production that occur, the more Point Thomson acreage the companies will retain."
Main provisions
He said if the companies do not begin liquids production by the winter of 2015-16, significant amounts of acreage will automatically return to the state. Beyond near-term liquids production, if the companies do not commit to or sanction a full-field development alterative for Point Thomson, they will lose significant acreage, Sullivan said.
The settlement provides incentives to commercialize the North Slope's vast gas resources by helping to position Point Thomson for gas development, facilitating alignment of interests between the major North Slope producers and the state, and installing critical infrastructure for gas sales, he indicated. It also provides potential for significant in-state gas sales by 2019 and requires a commitment to develop a separate crude oil reservoir within Point Thomson.
Sullivan said the companies agreed to firm Point Thomson production timetables that will result in new investment, more work for Alaskans, and increased revenue for the state and local governments. "This field is so significant and litigation has gone on so long that there are certain provisions we wouldn't have considered otherwise," he observed.
In their letter to Parnell, Chief Executives Rex W. Tillerson of ExxonMobil, James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips, and Robert Dudley of BP said that while Alaska's North Slope holds more than 35 tcf of gas, it has mostly been used so far to enhance crude oil production, adding several billion barrels to Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay field recoveries.
"Serious discussions between our companies have taken place over the past several months, along with the Alaska Pipeline Project (APP) parties who are supporting the [Alaska Gasline Inducement Act] license," they continued. "We have aligned on a structured, stewardable, and transparent approach with the aim to commercialize North Slope natural gas resources within an AGIA framework."
Considering LNG exports
They said because of a rapidly evolving global market, large-scale LNG exports from South-Central Alaska will be considered as an alternative to a gas pipeline through Alberta. "In addition to broadening market access, a South-Central Alaska LNG approach could more closely align with in-state energy demand and needs," the executives said.
"We are now working on the gas commercialization concept selection, which would include an associated timeline and an assessment of major project components including in-state pipelines routes and capacities, global LNG trends, and LNG tidewater site locations, among others," they said.
Sullivan said no matter which gas pipeline crosses Alaska, much of the federal regulatory work has been done already. Filings last month envisioned a dual capacity system, he said. "Work that has been done to export the gas to Alberta can be used to support LNG exports," he noted.
Responding to a question about competing projects to serve LNG customers in Asia, the Alaskan official observed: "What we have seen from customers who are looking to diversify their sources is an interest in Alaska gas that provides many comparative advantages that other supplies to Asia don't have."

http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-4a/general-interest/parnell-announces-point-thomson.html



Exxon Mobil Is A Strong 'Buy' Candidate Now

9-Apr-12
I know a lot of people get angry at the high gas prices, and many blame the gas companies, however, recent news reports show that gas companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM) are doing everything they can to supply more oil, and thus lower the prices of gas.

According to Yahoo, Exxon Mobil and its partners have entered into an agreement with Alaska with other oil companies, BP Plc (BP), ConocoPhillips (COP), and TransCanada, to work on the development of resources in the region.

With Exxon Mobil as the operator, the companies have proposed to construct a $26 billion pipeline, capable of carrying 70,000 barrels per day of liquids into the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, which in return, intends to preserve the leases of the participating companies.

More importantly, the four companies are planning to actually make gas resources profitable, and plan to begin natural gas production in the Point Thomson Field by May 2016 with an initial yield of 10,000 barrels per day of natural gas condensate and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas. This means that oil production in Alaska will enhance tremendously, resulting in increased exports of gas to Asian markets.

Results of high gas prices include less oil sales due to not only people not being able to afford to fill up, but also due to the increase in fuel efficient car sales. According to The Wall Street Journal, General Motors (GM) said it sold more than 100,000 cars that get 30 or more miles on a gallon, its highest ever and nearly half of the 231,052 vehicles it sold. Chrysler Group also reported a 34% jump over the past year.

These decreases in gasoline sales not only hurt the oil companies, but the actual convenience stores, which provide the gasoline as well. Gas companies used to own many of the gas stations where it sold gas, and now have sold the majority of them to independent owners. In 200, Chevron had 1,348 gas stations, and by the end of 2011, it reported only owning 491.

Independent gas station owners are reporting that there is less traffic inside the store when there is less traffic outside at the pumps, which significantly hurts business. Exxon Mobil made a good move by selling more than 95% of the 2,000 stations it owned, and is planning to sell the rest by the end of this year.

Although gas prices are hurting us all right now, new oil acquisition plans in the future look promising. Exxon Mobil looks like it will continue to rise, especially with it'=s deal with Alaska and liquidation of company-owned gas stations.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/485611-exxon-mobil-is-a-strong-buy-candidate-now



TransCanada to concentrate on all-Alaska LNG pipeline

30-Mar-12

TransCanada Corp (TRP.TO) said on Friday it will concentrate its planning efforts for an Alaska natural gas pipeline on a $26 billion route that would take the fuel to an Alaska liquefied natural gas facility, leaving a more expensive route to Alberta as only an alternative option for the project.
Tony Palmer, TransCanada's vice-president of Alaska development, said in an interview that an all-Alaska route had become the preferred focus for the project following an agreement between producers on the state's North Slope and Alaska government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-idUSBRE82T1BL20120330


Legislators rush to resolve key bills

5-Apr-12




With about a week left in the 2012 state legislative session, bills are piled up in the Finance committees of both the state House and Senate and, typically, the most pressing business is left to the last minute.

The Senate Finance Committee hopes to finish work, at last, on its version of an oil tax reform bill the weekend of April 7 and 8, but there seems little prospect that the House will be able to give the bill adequate review before the adjournment deadline at midnight, April 15. House Speaker Chenault expressed that view in a briefing April 2.

The Senate bill is very different than the oil tax bill passed by the House last year but House leaders said the form of the bill isn’t as important as whether the Senate bill would reduce taxes sufficiently to encourage investment.

There’s talk that the Legislature may go into overtime to complete work on the oil tax, but that’s speculation at this point.



Read more: http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/AJOC-April-8-2012/Legislators-rush-to-resolve-key-bills/#ixzz1rZhEIaxh





Gulf pipeline seems to be a smokescreen

8-Apr-12

Why has there been no attention paid to the Canada-U.S. race to supply Asia with natural gas?

On the one hand, thousands of Canadians in B.C. are voicing their concerns over the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline, while Alaska has quietly reached settlement with Exxon and partners to develop an oil and gas field that would provide exports of liquefied natural gas via tankers to Asia.

President Barack Obama appears to centre his concerns on the Gulf Coast pipeline project, citing concerns for Americans in surrounding areas on health and safety matters. Canadians need to realize that American competition on supplying Asian needs by tankers is way ahead. The Gulf Coast pipeline appears to be a smokescreen.


Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Gulf+pipeline+seems+smokescreen/6427414/story.html#ixzz1rT2SgfS4





Cash for Alaska pipeline puzzling, says activist

2-Apr-12

The federal government says it is setting aside $47 million over the next two years for the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline.

The money is going towards the Northern Pipeline Agency, which was made to oversee the planning and construction of the pipeline. The budget says the federal money is to carry out 'federal regulatory responsibilities" related to the project.

It's a small mention in the budget, but no one seems to know what it means. It also comes as Alaska announced its intention to liquefy its natural gas resources and ship them to Asia.

Gas prices are also low and new reserves are being discovered in the United States through the controversial fracking method.

Yukon Conservation Society spokesperson Lewis Rifkind notes the money is fully recoverable from industry, but even that's got him wondering.

"But then why is the federal government fronting the money up front? Surely the proponent would be doing that as part of their application to either renewing or updating their environmental assessment certificate," said Rifkind.

Rifkind says all indications are that Alaska Highway pipeline is dead.

Yukon Senator Dan Lang is referring calls to Natural Resources, the department responsible. Its director of communications, Paul Duchesne, referred CBC News back to the budget documents.

Yukon member of Parliament Ryan Leef is getting ready for his response to the budget, but is not addressing the pipeline agency money.

His office says Leef will be requesting information on the money and will comment at another time.
The Alaska Pipeline was planned to transport natural gas from Alaska through Canada to the rest of the United States.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/04/02/north-northern-pipeline-agency-funding.html


Feds dump $47M down Alaska Highway pipeline pit

Wednesday April 4, 2012

Just a day after Ottawa pledged $47 million to the Alaska Highway pipeline project, the major corporate players announced they’re putting the project on hold.

In response to a request from Alaskan Governor Sean Parnell, TransCanada, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and BP have agreed to “a work plan” that will keep the proposed natural gas pipeline in that state.

The all-Alaska route has always been considered an alternative to a pipeline following the Alaska Highway through the Yukon.




Instead of nearly 3,000 kilometres of pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope to the web of pipelines in southern Canada, it would only take about 1,300 kilometres of pipeline to transport the gas from Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson to south-central Alaska, where it would be turned into liquefied natural gas and shipped to global markets.

On March 30 - the day after Ottawa delivered its federal budget, which included $47 million for the pipeline - the four companies issued a news release to say they were turning their attention to the LNG option and putting their Alaska Highway pipeline plans on the back burner.

“The work that’s happened will take a pause while we look at this and focus on this,” said Shawn Howard, of TransCanada.

“There’s a lot of work and there’s a lot of discussion that has to take place,” he said.

If it were put back on the front burner, the Alaska Highway pipeline project would be reviewed by the federal Northern Pipeline Agency and not the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board.

The $47 million is earmarked for that agency and work it still expects to do on the proposed project over the next two years - a review and consultations with local, regional and aboriginal groups in the Yukon, B.C. and Alberta, said Paul Duchesne, agency spokesman.

The budget document says the entire $47 million should be fully recovered by industry.

In other words, the companies using the pipeline would pay Ottawa back but only if they use the money, said Duchesne.

But if the pipeline never gets built, it will never get used.

However, as far as the agency is concerned, the Alaska Highway pipeline project isn’t dead yet, said Duchesne.

“The agency has no information on whether (the companies’) announcement will have any impact on the current scope or schedule of the Alaska Highway pipeline project through Canada and therefore on the agency’s related responsibilities,” said Duchesne.

“Until such information is forthcoming, the agency remains ready, engaged and prepared to lead the review of the Alaska Highway pipeline project through Canada.”

Howard also said the companies’ agreement to focus on the LNG option does not mean they’ve pulled the Alaska Highway option completely off the table.

“We’re responding to a request from Governor Parnell that the parties get together to look at a potential LNG option,” he said.

“We’ll be studying that. But we all have to understand what this looks like from a commercial perspective. This is a huge undertaking and there’s got to be a business foundation. This is one step of many, many steps that have to be taken with certainty if there is a project.”

After meetings with Parnell in January, both BP and ConocoPhillips - which constitute two of the three main natural gas lease holders on the North Slope - threw their support behind the LNG option.

The Asian market is a better option for Alaska’s natural gas than a pipeline to the lower 48, ConocoPhillips spokesperson Natalie Lowman said in January.

“Bob Dudley, who is our CEO, said that we support Governor Parnell’s vision for Alaska oil and gas development,” said BP spokesman Steve Rinehart in January. “We believe that an LNG option to deliver natural gas to global markets could be competitive.

“‘Could be’ doesn’t mean that we’re convinced it will work, but it means that we think that this could be a real opportunity and it’s worth taking a very close look at and that’s what we’re going to do.

“We haven’t completely put (the Alaska Highway option) aside, but we think that looking overseas with the current market is likely to be a better opportunity.”

In January, TransCanada emphasized the final decision is up to the companies that will use the pipeline.

The companies have not been given a deadline as to when they need to make a final decision, Howard said Tuesday.

http://www.yukon-news.com/news/28059/



Canadian Mackenzie gas pipeline on hold

April 6, 2012 at 6:44 AM

CALGARY, Alberta, April 6 (UPI) -- A decision to pull back from the Mackenzie natural gas pipeline from Alberta would strike a blow to provincial economies, an official said.

The National Energy Board in Canada issued a certificate for the construction of the Mackenzie pipeline. The pipeline would run 743 miles from the Beaufort Sea to northwestern Alberta. It's designed to carry more than 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.

Project partners -- Imperial Oil Ltd., Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- said the low cost of natural gas meant the project was on hold, the Calgary Herald reports.

The project's critics questioned the viability of the pipeline given the abundance of shale gas in the United States.

Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLead said the region is out billions of dollars in revenue because of the decision.

"This has a significant impact for the Beaufort part of the Northwest Territories, where there have been a lot of businesses that have invested in equipment and so on in anticipation of the pipeline," he was quoted by the Herald as saying.

The pipeline could carry enough natural gas to meet the energy demands of more than 60 percent of all Canadians.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/04/06/Canadian-Mackenzie-gas-pipeline-on-hold/UPI-57961333709059/#ixzz1rHmhl0xU





Alaska’s big move to LNG ?



North Slope of Alaska

















The Alberta Tar Sands: Without Natural Gas, you have no tar sands as it is required to melt or steam the oil out of the sand.

Canada maintains the position that the Mackenzie Gasline Project (MGP) must go first.

ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
CANADIAN RELATIONS
Monday, August 01, 2011
The Office of the Federal Coordinator has a good working relationship with the provincial and territorial governments who are interested in the project: the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, Alberta and BC. Canada maintains the position that the Mackenzie Gasline Project (MGP) must go first. The U.S. position is the Alaska natural gas pipeline project and the MGP are two exciting Arctic pipeline projects that will provide benefits to both Americans and Canadians and there is room for both projects in the North American markets.

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/canadian-relations-fact-sheet-aug-2011.pdf



How to power it all?

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72377802


MARINE STRUCTURES ENGINEER AMAULIGAK (ARCTIC) 00F97 #470261

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=73647160


BUILD THEM ALL!

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72302238


Gas guzzlers:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68389981



“The Smell of Money"

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66891567



Booming oilsands driving Alberta's power demand

$13.5B needed to upgrade aging system

4-Apr-12


Oilsands operations will continue to drive power demand in Alberta to 2022, with the northeast corner of the province almost doubling its demand.

Alberta will continue to lead Canada in power demand and generation growth over the next decade, driven by booming oilsands activity, the provincial grid operator said.

The Alberta Electricity System Operator is forecasting 3.1 per cent annual growth in power consumption until 2022, with the northeast corner of the province almost doubling its demand for electricity.

"We're being driven by the oilsands, here," said John Es-aiw, director of forecasting, Tuesday.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Booming+oilsands+driving+Alberta+power+demand/6407786/story.html#ixzz1rTLpCFMo



Many ways to move our oil
16-Mar-12



One way or another, our bitumen (heavy oil) will get to China.

There's a myth building up that the proposed but seriously opposed Northern Gateway pipeline is the only option to get oil from the oil sands to Asia.

Not true. It's the most practical and likely the cheapest option, heading straight as an arrow from Edmonton through the northern B.C. interior to the port town of Kitimat.

Here's the deal.

We now produce 2.9 million barrels of oil a day (MBD) in Western Canada, about 60% of that from the oil sands.

We can't come close to using that much - 2.1 million barrels are exported, fairly easily at the moment through existing pipelines, 99% of it heading to the Excited States.

The source of our wealth? Do the math! At $100 a barrel, that's $210 million a day — or about $75 billion a year.

By 2020, only eight years, we'll be up to 3.5 million barrels a day. Of that, 80% will be from the oil sands.

The pipelines will get crowded. The last thing we want, as the principal beneficiaries of this thick black gooey stuff, is to see oil "shut in" because it can't get out.

Meanwhile, oil producers and royalty-receiving governments are frothing at the mouth to get our oil to Asia, where it's worth 20% more than in North America.

Here's why the Northern Gateway pipeline doesn't necessarily have to be built.

A pipeline already runs from Edmonton down to Vancouver. You'd never know it, but you drive alongside it every time you go to Jasper.

For 50 years, oil from the TransMountain pipeline has been loaded onto tankers — about one a week — bound for Asia. In 50 years, not a drop of oil has ever spilled in the busy Vancouver port.

Owner Kinder-Morgan proposes to double the pipeline's capacity and enlarge its Burnaby terminal to accommodate super-tankers. The stretch across Jasper National Park has already been upgraded.

With an existing pipeline and the Lower Mainland used to ships, Kinder-Morgan's expansion won't face the environmental wrath centred on the Northern Gateway.

CN Rail is keeping quiet, probably for fear of protestors lying across its tracks. But moving 100,000 to 200,000 barrels of oil a day by rail on its main line from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, Kitimat's sister port city up the B.C. coast, is quite feasible.

Feasible, but more expensive. The experts say pumping diluted bitumen down a tube costs about $5 a barrel, compared to $10 to $12 a barrel by rail.

With each tank car carrying some 650 barrels of oil, two to three bitumen-express trains a day would meet demand.

CN already owns the rail, already is moving vast quantities of raw goods (including bulk chemicals) to Prince Rupert for export. If an oil train derailed, any oil spill would be confined to ruptured tankers.

Go east!

Canada has refineries in Sarnia, Montreal and St. John, New Brunswick, all using oil imported from the Middle East or Africa. Historically, it's been cheaper to import crude oil into Eastern Canada than from Western Canada by pipeline. Why not, suggests Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith and many others, tweak the existing pipeline infrastructure to move Canadian oil to Canadian refineries for use in Canada? And given the changing economic equations of oil, it might actually make dollars and sense!

Go north!

Finally, an outside-the-box idea that's not without merit: Using an existing right-of-way left over from World War II, a pipeline could be built from the oil sands arching through unpopulated B.C. and Yukon into Alaska, to flow into the Trans-Alaska pipeline into Valdez, Alaska. Valdez now has three to five oil tankers a week sailing down the Prince William Sound across to China or down the coast to California — far enough out to sea to be out of sight and out of mind of West Cost dwellers.

Meanwhile, the protest against the Northern Gateway pipeline is riddled with contradictions.

The anti-pipeline people don't want an oil pipeline, but a major new natural gas pipeline is about to be built from Prince George to Kitimat, and nobody's saying boo!

They don't want oil tankers — now double-hulled and without a major spill since the Exxon Valdez in 1989 — but they're OK with ships soon to carry liquefied natural gas up and down the Douglas Strait to Kitimat. And further out to sea, tankers sail from Alaska to California.

They don't want a buried pipeline, but they accept the on-going twinning of the CN tracks to Prince Rupert.

The opposition to the Northern Gateway is about keeping the Canadian northwest coast pristine, which is admirable.

But at least two ships a day, carrying coal, logs, containers, aluminum and bulk petroleum products like methanol and condensate, are already sailing in and out of Kitimat and Prince Rupert!

Dear B.C. people, have some faith in modern technology!

Edmontonians do. We live with all kinds of "dangerous goods" flowing safely through our city and region, via rail , trucks and pipelines.

Remember when the last major pipeline accident happened here, in a city riddled with pipelines? Mill Woods. In 1979.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/03/16/many-ways-to-move-our-oil


Canadian oil going to Asia, no matter what: Harper

Monday, April 02, 2012


Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during a conversation with former U.S. Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) in an event for the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, April 2, 2012.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.

And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.

"We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position."

His wide-ranging question-and-answer at the influential non-partisan think-tank -- which also touched on border security, trade, the Arctic and Syria among other topics -- followed a meeting with Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House for the sixth North American Leaders' Summit.

Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

"We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy," Harper said. "We're still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn't our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.

"That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing."

Earlier this year, Obama rejected TransCanada's bid to build the $7 billion pipeline that would carry crude from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama blamed Republicans in Congress for imposing an arbitrary timeline on him to decide on the project, which he said did not allow enough time for sufficient reviews even though Keystone had been under review for three years already.

Supporters of the project, which include big labour unions and the business community, estimate construction jobs alone to build the pipeline would be in the thousands at a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the recession.

Polls show some 60% of Americans also support building the pipeline.

But opponents argue developing Canada's oilsands cause high greenhouse gas emissions and worry the pipeline could leak in sensitive environmental areas along the route.

Last month, Obama tried to take credit for expediting the southern leg of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas that is going ahead, but the White House has no jurisdiction over the pipeline except where it crosses an international border.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/02/canadian-oil-going-to-asia-no-matter-what-harper




EXTERNAL FORCES:

Gulf pipeline seems to be a smokescreen

8-Apr-12

Why has there been no attention paid to the Canada-U.S. race to supply Asia with natural gas?

On the one hand, thousands of Canadians in B.C. are voicing their concerns over the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline, while Alaska has quietly reached settlement with Exxon and partners to develop an oil and gas field that would provide exports of liquefied natural gas via tankers to Asia.

President Barack Obama appears to centre his concerns on the Gulf Coast pipeline project, citing concerns for Americans in surrounding areas on health and safety matters. Canadians need to realize that American competition on supplying Asian needs by tankers is way ahead. The Gulf Coast pipeline appears to be a smokescreen.

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Gulf+pipeline+seems+smokescreen/6427414/story.html#ixzz1rT2SgfS4



Bill Gates, Warren Buffett visit Alberta oilsands

CALGARY - Two of the world’s richest people, Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and his friend, American investment magnate Warren Buffett, quietly flew into northeastern Alberta on Monday, where they took in the oilsands, apparently with awe.

19-Aug-08



CALGARY - Two of the world’s richest people, Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and his friend, American investment magnate Warren Buffett, quietly flew into northeastern Alberta on Monday, where they took in the oilsands, apparently with awe.

Buffett and Gates — who were Nos. one and three, respectively, on the world’s richest people list in the March edition of Forbes Magazine — were hosted by a group that included Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) at Canadian Natural’s $9.3 billion Horizon oilsands development.

“We were asked to come up and give a general overview on the oilsands and Canada’s role in the world of energy in general, which we did,” said Greg Stringham, CAPP’s vice-president. “They were exercising curiosity, basically saying, ‘wow, this is neat.’ ”

Canadian Natural spokesman Rob Larson confirmed the tour involving Gates and Buffett happened but he said Canadian Natural management would not comment beyond that.

A source said Gates and Buffett, who in recent months said he favours investing in the Canadian oilsands because it offers a secure supply of oil for the United States, visited the booming hub to satisfy “their own curiosity” but also “with investment in mind.”

There is presently $125 billion worth of new construction being planned for the oilsands, which when combined with operating expenses add up to a whopping $215 billion over the next five years.

The industry has also been under seige from environmental groups and foreign governments, including U.S. mayors, who voiced concerns about the industry’s impact on air quality due to its level of emissions, on water quality in the Athabasca River and about the slow rate of land reclamation by industry players.

Fort McMurray mayor Melissa Blake was not aware of the visit by Gates and Buffett but the politician was been in Victoria since the start of the week.

She said the profile of one of the world’s largest emerging energy plays continues to grow and visits to the area by high-profile investors, politicians and even royalty are now common.

“It’s astounding to me, frankly, the calibre of these individuals to just seem to arrive quietly in our community,” said Blake.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=ce6abff0-6707-4297-9e4c-2f9ae2210a7d




Obama Supporter Buffett to Profit from Rejection of Keystone XL Pipeline

Posted on 24 January 2012

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.



With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”

The State Department denied TransCanada a permit on Jan. 18, saying there was not enough time to study the proposal by Feb. 21, a deadline Congress imposed on President Barack Obama. Calgary-based TransCanada has said it intends to re-apply with a route that avoids an environmentally sensitive region of Nebraska, something the Obama administration encouraged.

The rail option, though costlier, would lessen the environmental impact, such as a loss of wetlands and agricultural productivity, compared to the pipeline, according to the State Department analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions, however, would be worse.

If completed, Keystone XL would deliver 700,000 barrels a day of crude from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, crossing 1,661 miles (2,673-kilometers) over Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Tanker Car Bottleneck

Investors such as John Stephenson, who helps manage $2.7 billion for First Asset Management Inc. in Toronto said he anticipated the project would move forward next year. Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck.

The availability of tank cars may create a temporary “hiccup” in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are “a pretty hot commodity,” as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.

Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.

‘Long-Term Solution’

Rail-car suppliers can add capacity, Hatch said.

“Railroads are not just a stopgap while we wait for a pipeline,” Hatch said in an interview. “They are potentially part of the long-term solution.”

Railroads are being used in North Dakota, where oil producers have spurred a fivefold increase in output by using intensive drilling practices in the Bakken, a geologic formation that stretches from southern Alberta to the northern U.S. Great Plains. During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL.

Shipping oil using tank cars on rail costs about $3 more a barrel than pipeline transport, using prices in North Dakota, a differential “unlikely” to slow the development of oil sands crude if no pipeline is build, the State Department said. The gap is shrinking as larger storage terminals are built, the agency said.

‘Ready to Haul’

Burlington Northern carries about 25 percent of the oil from the Bakken, said Krista York-Wooley, the railroad spokeswoman. The company can carry higher volumes from North Dakota or Alberta, she said.

Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.’s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada.

“With an extensive rail network and proven expertise in moving energy, CP offers a flexible option for transporting crude oil and other energy-related products to and from key locations in North America,” Vice President Tracy Robinson said in an e-mail. “Rail is scalable, allowing CP to effectively keep pace with the shipping needs of producers.”

Oil Sands

Canadian National Railway Co., the biggest Canadian railroad based on annual sales, considers Alberta’s oil sands a chance to expand its business, according to company filings.

“CN continues to work closely with customers in Alberta to capitalize on oil-and-gas related opportunities,” the Calgary- based company said. “CN sees potential for the outbound movement of oil sands products such as bitumen and synthetic crude to refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast region, or eventually through West Coast ports to offshore markets.”

Imperial Oil Ltd., a Calgary-based unit of Exxon Mobil Corp., will consider “various transportation options” for oil sands exports, according Pius Rohlheiser, a spokesman. Cenovus Energy Inc. uses railroads to bring in dilutants needed to mix with heavy crude before it can be shipped by pipeline, and to export oil from the Bakken formation in Canada, according to Jessica Wilkinson, a spokeswoman.

Environmentalists’ Opposition

Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have campaigned to stop Keystone XL because leaks could threaten drinking water supplies and processing Alberta crude produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil.

Railroads too present environmental issues. Moving crude on trains produces more global warming gases than a pipeline, the State Department said.

Union Pacific Corp., based in Omaha, Nebraska, anticipated an increase in rail traffic with or without Keystone, Chief Executive Officer Jim Young said in an interview.

“We would have been involved with moving the pipe and a lot of the construction business in building it,” Young said. “On the other hand, if you don’t build any pipeline capacity, you’re going to be moving a lot of crude by train.”

It will take five to eight years before oil sands production outstrips existing export capacity, the State Department said.

Tank car utilization is at “record levels” fueled by demand from oil and natural gas producers, according to Doug Reece, director of marketing for Oakville, Ontario-based Procor Ltd., a rail-car leasing company. The soonest new cars will be available is 2013, he said.

“In western Canada, shippers and third parties are investing in the necessary infrastructure and we see strong growth ahead,” Reece said in an e-mail. “We are having regular dialogue with customers about their potential needs, as collaboration and fleet planning have become critical.”

Rail allows shippers to reach different markets and capture better prices at refineries, said John Mims, a transportation analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co. in Arlington, Virginia.

“It’s a good secular growth story for the railroads,” Mims said in an interview.“They’re playing an increasing role, especially as you see this push back from a regulatory standpoint on the pipelines.”


http://theendtimesarehere.com/tag/warren-buffett/


3-Feb-12



On January 23, Bloomberg News reported Warren Buffett's Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), owned by his lucrative holding company Berkshire Hathaway, stands to benefit greatly from President Barack Obama’s recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline.

If built, TransCanada's Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline would carry tar sands crude, or bitumen (“dilbit”) from Alberta, B.C. down to Port Arthur, Texas, where it would be sold on the global export market.

If not built, as revealed recently by DeSmogBlog, the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side, and could include increased levels of ecologically hazardous gas flaring in the Bakken Shale, or else many other pipeline routes moving the prized dilbit to crucial global markets.

Rail is among the most important infrastructure options for ensuring tar sands crude still moves to key global markets, and the industry is pursuing rail actively. But transporting tar sands crude via rail is in many ways a dirtier alternative to the KXL pipeline. “Railroads too present environmental issues. Moving crude on trains produces more global warming gases than a pipeline,” explained Bloomberg.

A key mover and shaker behind the push for more rail shipments is Warren Buffett, known by some as the “Oracle of Omaha” — of "Buffett Tax" fame — and the third richest man in the world, with a net worth of $39 billion. With or without Keystone XL, Warren Buffett stands to profit enormously from multiple aspects of the Alberta Tar Sands project. He also, importantly, maintains close ties with President Barack Obama.

Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, BNSF and the Tar Sands

Many eyebrows were raised in August 2008, when two of the richest men on the planet, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, sojourned to Alberta’s tar sands patch. The Calgary Herald wrote “they took in the oilsands, apparently with awe.” According to a reliable but confidential source quoted in the story, the two men “visited the booming hub to satisfy ‘their own curiosity’ but also ‘with investment in mind.’”

And while he told the media he wasn’t interested in doing so at the time of the trip, Buffett soon became a major investor in tar sands related assets. A year after his visit to the oil sands, in November 2009, Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway purchased BNSF Railway as a wholly owned subsidiary.

BNSF Railway is the second largest freight railroad network in North America. BNSF "plans $3.9 billion in capital spending this year, an increase of 11 percent from 2011," according to a recent article by Bloomberg.

BNSF serves as a vital cog in the oil sands procurement process. In the November/December 2008 edition of BNSF’s employee magazine, “Railway,” BNSF produced a piece titled, “Alberta oil Sands: No sour deal.”

The article reveals the exact role BNSF plays in the oil sands procurement process:

Before bitumen can move through a pipeline to its destination, it must be blended with diluents (diluting agents) such as natural gasoline (not natural gas, which is a gaseous fuel) or butane, which are composed of lighter weight hydrocarbons.

For the last two years, BNSF has been moving single carloads of diluents from U.S.refineries to the Canadian border (at Superior,Wis., Noyes, N.D., Sweetgrass, Mont., and New West minster, B.C.). The inbounds are then interchanged with Canadian railroads, then moved to Edmonton, with the final move to the oil sands’ processing center via pipeline.

Last year, BNSF moved about 9,000 carloads of diluents for the project, with the majority of loads originating from the Gulf Coast,California and Kansas. This year, about 12,000 carloads are anticipated to move.

In addition to moving the diluents, BNSF has also transported turbines, other large machinery and pipes for use at the drilling sites.

Not only does BNSF haul diluent materials in its freight trains bound for Alberta for tar sands oil procurement, but it also hauls pipes and pipeline materials.

Does this include materials for the KXL Pipeline? As the prospective pipeline is not yet officially dead, this is a key question to ask.

Look no further than to BNSF’s involvement in hauling the pipeline materials for the original TransCanada Keystone pipeline for crucial evidence.

BNSF Railway and the Original Keystone Pipeline

A South Dakota state government document shows that BNSF and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP entered into a Pipeline License Agreement on August 1, 2008. The Agreement called for BNSF to carry pipeline materials from South Dakota up to the Alberta tar sands.

The Keystone Pipeline was the first TransCanada pipeline carrying tar sands crude down from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma.

BNSF Railway, the KXL Pipeline, and Railway Alternative

BNSF’s ties to TransCanada are not limited to the Keystone Pipeline — they are also on the State Department’s “Distribution List” section of the Environmental Impact Statement report released in August 2011 on TransCanada’s KXL pipeline proposal.

In its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the State Department acknowledged that railway is both a key alternative to the Keystone XL and capable of hauling dilbit around North America to vital markets through 2030, stating,

Even in a situation where there was a total freeze in pipeline capacity for 20 years, it appears that there is sufficient capacity on existing rail tracks to accommodate shipping…through at least 2030…[S]tatistics from the Department of Transportation,…conservatively estimated that the existing cross-border rail lines from Canada to the U.S. could accommodate crude oil train shipments of over 1,000,000 bpd (barrels per day).

http://www.desmogblog.com/warren-buffett-exposed-oracle-omaha-and-tar-sands



Canada to speed approvals

Government sets 2-year deadlines on major energy projects environmental reviews

Week of April 08, 2012

The Canadian government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has moved decisively on its dream to create a global energy superpower and open access to Asian markets by overhauling regulatory hearings and putting a crimp on environmental opposition.

Taking the unusual step of using its federal budget as the vehicle for change, the government imposed a cap of two years on regulatory reviews while stepping up its scrutiny of charities such as environmental organizations which are restricted to spending 10 percent of their budgets on political activities.

The immediate beneficiaries could be Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal to export 525,000 barrels per day of oil sands crude from the British Columbia coast and Kinder Morgan’s evolving plan to double capacity on its Trans Mountain pipeline to 600,000 bpd, all of the increased volumes aimed at Asia-Pacific markets.

Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan’s Canadian unit, said the changes will “move the yardsticks significantly,” while Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway said it is in Canada’s best interest to have “a thorough but efficient regulatory regime to assess all large industrial projects” that will create jobs and prosperity.

“If we can get to those decisions more efficiently, it’s got to be helpful,” said David Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “It also gives people more clarity, more predictability, more certainty about how the system is going to work.”

Asian trade ties sought

Harper has just returned from his second trip in recent months to Asia, seeking to cement trade ties with that region by attracting investment in resource development and export facilities, motivated by U.S. delays in approving Trans Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas refineries.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, in releasing his 2012-13 budget, said legislation will soon be introduced to achieve the government’s goal of “one project, one review.”

The changes will affect all major natural resource projects, with the greatest impact on oil sands development and energy pipelines along with hard-rock mining.

“We will implement responsible resource development and smart regulation for economic projects … maintaining the highest standards of environmental protection,” Flaherty said.

Threat of regulatory burdens

The budget document noted that regulatory burdens threaten the viability of C$500 billion in announced new investment over the next 10 years by creating “an increasingly complicated web of rules and bureaucratic reviews that have grown over time, adding costs and delays that can deter investors.”

“Everyone wants environmental protection, but let’s get it done on a timely basis,” Flaherty said, arguing Canada could “blow it” unless it puts an end to environmental reviews that have been dragged out over as much as eight years.

He and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver have prepared Canadians for a regulatory overhaul in recent months by pointing out delays in regulatory processes that have already lasted eight years for the C$16.2 billion Mackenzie Gas Project and six years for the joint Suncor Energy-Total Joslyn oil sands mine, costing C$6 billion and targeting eventual output of 100,000 bpd.

Oliver has campaigned across Canada against what he described as a “needlessly complex, duplicative regulatory system.”

He has estimated the oil sands could generate C$3.3 trillion in economic benefits to Canada over the next 25 years, largely based on forecasts such as the Canadian Energy Research Institute’s updated estimate that oil sands production could grow to 5.4 million bpd from 1.6 million bpd by about 2045.

The job-creation spin-off from the oil sands is also a government priority. In a new report, the Petroleum Human Resources Council of Canada forecast that in-situ oil sands operations alone will increase their payrolls to 35,000 by 2021 from 20,000 last year, plus 6,000 to replace those who retire.

Environmental protection

Oliver said the upcoming changes do not mean Ottawa will favor development of natural resources over environmental protection.

“We will ensure that no project goes ahead if it isn’t safe for Canadians and safe for the environment,” he said.

Government frustration boiled over earlier this year after environmentalists and First Nations made up the bulk of 4,500 groups and individuals who registered to speak at a joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency hearing into Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway project, underpinning Harper’s ambition to open markets for Canadian crude in Asia and threatening to extend the regulatory process to three and a-half years.

The opposition to Northern Gateway is expected to be repeated as Kinder Morgan proceeds with its own scheme to double capacity on the Trans Mountain pipeline to 600,000 bpd, also targeting Asia-Pacific markets.

Across the border funding

What infuriated the government was evidence that U.S. activists were helping finance Canadian charities and whipping up opposition to oil sands development, pipelines to tanker ports on the British Columbia coast and fast-emerging proposals to start LNG exports to Asia.

“Concerns have been raised that some charities may not be respecting the rules regarding political activities,” the budget document said.

“There have also been calls for greater public transparency related to the political activities of charities, including the extent to which they may be funded by foreign sources.”

For openers, the government said it will be more rigorous in policing the 10 percent limit on political spending by charities.

Limit on reviews

The legislation will impose an overall two year limit on environmental reviews, capping hearings by the National Energy Board at 18 months and standard environmental assessments at one year.

Project oversight will be consolidated into fewer government departments and agencies and C$14 million will be spent over two years to integrated consultations with aboriginal peoples into project reviews.

Analysts at J.P. Morgan said the new rules could “optimistically mean the (Northern Gateway) pipeline being operational by early 2016 or before. Add in the Trans Mountain pipeline and the implication is that Canada could be shipping considerable volumes of oil into the Pacific basin within four years.”

They also said accelerating project approvals would free up the supply chain where bottlenecks and limited market access mean that Canadian crude producers are receiving around 25 percent less for their crude than if it were being sold on the international market.

Fisheries Act changes

Canada’s Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield said that the Fisheries Act will also be changed to remove some obstacles facing Northern Gateway, whose planned pipeline route crosses about 1,000 fish-spawning rivers and streams.

“There is ample evidence that the policies we have in place now are infringing on the everyday way of life of Canadians,” he said in the House of Commons.

Simon Dyer, policy director at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental thank tank, said in statement the longest regulatory delays stem from companies changing their plans or failure by the government to meet its own regulatory obligations.

He said Oliver has been “trying to paint the picture of a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Shawn Denstedt, an attorney with the firm of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, said the regulatory changes are needed to end “perpetual assessments … that don’t protect the environment, help the economy or help the social fabric of Canada.”


http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/283499740.shtml


Group quits Gateway review

9-Apr-12

A B.C. First Nation group says it is quitting the federal review of the Northern Gateway pipeline project, accusing Ottawa of predetermining the outcome for negotiations and changing the rules for hearings.

The public hearings for the controversial $5.5-billion project, which would deliver Alberta’s crude oil to Asia-bound tankers on Canada’s west coast, were halted when protesters confronted the review panel in the coastal community of Bella Bella, home of the Heiltsuk First Nation, on April 1.

The panel ended up holding abridged hearings in the community.

On Thursday, the Nuxalk First Nation in the neighbouring community of Bella Coola announced they were abandoning the joint federal-B.C. review, citing disappointment with the government’s decision to delay hearings in Bella Bella and feeling the new rules for hearings will compromise the review’s outcome.

“There is no honour in the federal Crown’s approach to consulting with First Nations on the Enbridge project,” said Band Chief Andrew Andy. “Recent statements make it clear that the prime minister has already decided to approve the super-tanker project that would violate First Nations’ Title and Rights and put our coastal waters at risk of a major oil spill.”

Enbridge has been met with fierce criticism from aboriginal groups, as the planned 1,170 kilometre pipeline route snakes through traditional fishing and hunting land that has been used by aboriginals for centuries.

Many First Nations claim their consent is required for the disputed project to flow through their historical homelands. However, the federal government points to a 1997 Supreme Court decision ruling, stating that aboriginals do not have ultimate veto authority on territorial land-use decisions.

There are still 46 First Nation groups with intervenor standing, but the Nuxalk are the second aboriginal group to cancel their status. Several other First Nations refused to take part in the review, but Andy says the Nuxalk originally gave the hearings the benefit of the doubt.

“Despite our serious concern about this process, including the lack of any decision-making role for First Nations, we entered the process in good faith,” says Andy. “The government’s disrespectful behaviour these past months makes clear that our good faith is not being returned.”

The joint panel of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is scheduled to conclude hearings in spring 2013. That date is now in doubt after the federal government announced in the budget that they planned to standardize and cap timelines for major project reviews.

Hearings are scheduled to resume on April 11 in the coastal community of Klemtu, home of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais Nation.

http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3527749


Ewart: Federal budget policies no help to oilsands

4/9/2012 8:08


Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hold copies of the budget as they walk to the House of Commons to deliver the budget on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 29.

You're not helping, Mr. Prime Minister, you're hurting.

Stephen Harper is generally considered a good friend of the oilpatch, but there are times when the prime minister goes too far with his small-government fiscal conservatism and otherwise well-intentioned efforts do more harm than good.

The latest budget from Harper's government, for example, fast-tracks environmental reviews for big industrial projects, slashes spending for Environment Canada and cut the entire budget for the respected National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the current environmental review process is threatening the economy.

Predictably, opposition politicians and environmentalists were apoplectic.

"Everybody believes Harper is anti-environment and pro oil and gas and he just confirmed it for everybody," noted one observer.

Such a comment would be expected from the Green party or the Pembina Institute, but it came from an executive in the oil and gas industry.

"Laying off a thousand scientists in Environment Canada isn't how you help the oilsands," he said.

There is a reason lawmakers from Europe and the United States are looking to regulate the gasoline refined from oilsands.

It's because many people don't believe that Ottawa or Edmonton are doing a satisfactory job monitoring and addressing the environmental impacts of intense oilsands development.

The Royal Society of Canada has called the regulatory capacity for projects like the oilsands "seriously deficient."

Much of the initial media coverage from Flaherty's budget last week focused on accelerating the time lines for environmental reviews for projects, like the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, under Ottawa's new "one project, one review" policy. Ultimately, spending cuts throughout Environment Canada may have an even greater effect.

It's not as though Environment Canada is bearing the entire brunt of federal efforts to balance the books. In all, more than 19,200 public servants will be cut from the 400,000-person federal payroll over next three years as the majority Conservative government cuts $5.2 billion annually from departmental spending.

Flaherty called the cuts "common sense," but pulling the plug on NRTEE appears harsh.

Last September, NRTEE produced a report which concluded that "climate change presents a growing, long-term economic burden for Canada." It said that climate change could cost Canada $5 billion a year 2020 and balloon to as much as $43 billion annually by 2050.

Six months later, Canadians taxpayers learned one cost they won't bear is the $5.2 million that NRTEE costs them each year.

Along with sounding the death knell for NRTEE, Flaherty's budget called for $13.3 million in cuts at Environment Canada this year, growing to $31.5 million next and $53.8 million in the subsequent years. Among the steepest cuts is the 40 per cent that's designated to be trimmed from the budget for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The overall budget for Environment Canada is just over $1 billion annually

NRTEE, which is rooted in the concept a vibrant economy and environmental sustainability are closely linked, was launched in 1988 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to provide independent and rigorous analysis on environmental issues from water to climate change.

The budget made the point that NRTEE had filled an important role previously but now "a mature and expanded community of environmental stakeholders has demonstrated the capacity to provide analysis and policy advice to the government."

A lot of environmental stakeholders don't seem impressed.

"The NRTEE has been the single greatest source of constructive, third-party research and advice on climate change policy to the federal government," the Pembina Institute said.

"Wiping out this respected think-tank . . . will make it that much harder for Canada to do its fair share in addressing the climate challenge."

Environment Minister Peter Kent, who withdrew Canada from the Kyoto accord on climate change in December, said there's a simple solution to replace the organization, which brings together scientists, environmentalists and industry.

"We have the Internet," Kent said.

Presumably, federal civil servants will simply Google "climate change" for their research going forward. It makes you wonder just what exactly the 30 scientists and support people who work for NRTEE now actually do on a daily basis. Or at least what the Harper Conservatives think they do.

The budget documents said, "Environment Canada will achieve efficiencies and savings through the consolidation and streamlining of administrative functions, program management, planning, and reporting requirements."

Undoubtedly there are plenty of people in the oilpatch who like the idea of a muted Environment Canada, but be careful what you wish for. In a globalized world there will be checks and balances on environmentally controversial developments and it's better to take care of business at home than let somebody somewhere else do it for you.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Ewart+Federal+budget+policies+help+oilsands/6420036/story.html#ixzz1rZCifOTx



2012: Year of the Pipelines?





We could still update the filings while we wait!