Coastal Concerns

As I wrote earlier this year, I have pledged not to visit the United States until, at the very least, the Donald Trump presidency is history. That does not mean, however, that my attraction to the west coast, in particular, California, has diminished. Were these better times, I likely would have paid a second visit to a state that appeals to me on many levels.

It is therefore heartening to see that there is no lessening of resistance in the Golden State to Trump and his mad policies of unleashing more fossil fuels to generate economic growth. Long known for its progressive environmental policies, California has no intention of acquiescing in the Orange Ogre's mad plans:

President Donald Trump painted a golden future of “great wealth” and “great jobs” powered by oil pumped from the ocean floor as he signed an executive order on Friday to consider new offshore drilling around the country.

But his efforts could splash harmlessly against the hardened barricades that California has been fortifying for decades with regulation and legislation to prevent additional drilling along its treasured coast.

Traumatized by past oil spills, Californians are in no mood for Trump's disdain for the environment:

“We will fight to the end,” said Susan Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network, an environmental group. “They will not get any new oil on these shores."

“Californians will not stand for this,” said Jennifer Savage, a spokeswoman for the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit conservation group. “We love our coast. It's our playground, the driving force of our economy, the place where we find solace, joy and sustenance.”

California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, along with Gov. Jerry Brown and top lawmakers, promised to fight any oil drilling.

“Instead of taking us backward, the federal government should work with us to advance the clean energy economy that’s creating jobs, providing energy and preserving California’s natural beauty,” he said.

State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) quickly announced new legislation Friday that would bar state commissions from allowing any new oil infrastructure along the coast, from piers to pipelines.

The legislation, scheduled to be introduced next week, would buttress opposition to offshore drilling from the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, who have jurisdiction over the coastline and the waters stretching three miles into the ocean.

"California’s door is closed to President Trump’s Pacific oil and gas drilling,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is chairman of the state’s lands commission.

While others, including our prime minister, suggest that exploitation of fossil fuels and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive, Californians, it would seem, are in no mood for either hollow rhetoric or risk-taking.

The Dangers Are Only Too Apparent And Predictable

I was taking a bit of a break from blogging today when this came up, a sobering object lesson in the environmental disasters that we flirt with on the West Coast:

A 135-metre container ship laden with bunker and diesel fuel is adrift off the west coast of Haida Gwaii, the Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Victoria is reporting.

The Russian container ship Simushir is about 25 kilometres off Tasu Sound, according to the centre.

The Council of Haida Nations has issued an emergency alert in case the ship makes landfall, in part because the ship is reportedly carrying 500 tonnes of bunker fuel and 60 tonnes of diesel.

Something To Be Thankful For This Weekend

The National Energy Board inspires little confidence in many of us, often appearing less an independent regulator of the energy industry and more an extension of the Harper regime's tarsands' agenda.

It is therefore both a surprise and a delight to read that they are actually showing a bit of backbone when it comes to Enbridge's Plan 9 line reversal to bring tarsands crude to the East for refining:

The National Energy Board has slammed the brakes on Enbridge Inc.’s plan to start shipping western oil to Montreal this fall through its reversed Line 9 pipeline, saying the company failed to install shut-off valves around some major waterways.

In a sharply worded letter to Enbridge this week, NEB secretary Sheri Young said the board is not convinced the company has met the safety conditions which the regulator set when it approved the plan to reverse the pipeline’s direction of flow last March, and that Enbridge cannot begin shipping crude until it addresses those concerns.

Infamous for the Michigan spill four years ago that saw 3.3 million litres of diluted bitumen go into the Kalamazoo River, a spill whose repercussions are still being felt, Enbridge has proven itself less than a sterling protector of the public good, and appears to have learned little from the disaster, as evidenced by the Line 9 concerns:

At issue is the company’s approach to safety when the pipeline crosses “major water crossings.” Once it designated a river or stream as a major water crossing, Enbridge was required to install valves on both banks so the flow of crude could be quickly shut off in the event of a pipeline break.

The regulator said Enbridge had failed to provide clear justification for why it designated some streams as major water crossings but not others. It must now go back to identify which waterways involve major crossings, based on whether a spill would pose significant risk to the public or the environment.

And here is a sobering statistic:

Currently, only six of the 104 major water crossings it has identified have valves within a kilometre of the banks on both sides, the regulator noted.

Adam Scott, project manager with Toronto-based Environmental Defence, appears to have taken an accurate measure of the company's integrity:

“They clearly just figured they could get this thing rubber-stamped, and push through without actually improving the safety of the pipeline. So we’re happy to see the NEB has said no.”

Mr. Scott said it appears from the NEB letter that Enbridge will be required to reopen construction on the line to install valves at all the major water crossings that it identifies.

A small victory in the overall scheme of things, perhaps, but one sufficiently sweet to savor.

A Tale of Intimidation At TransCanada Corporation

Despite the best efforts of the Harper government to make its own addiction to the fossil fuel agenda the Canadian people's as well, increasing numbers are voicing their concern and opposition to the expansion of the Alberta tarsands through new pipelines. And evidence is mounting that those concern are wholly justified and not simply the hysterical reaction of 'lefties, eco-terrorists and the enemies of growth' that the Harper cabal would have us believe.

The 1,047 pipeline incidents in Canada between 2000 and 2011, although only a small part of the tale, provide ample reason for that wariness and suspicion.

Now there is even more reason to worry. As reported in the Toronto Star, there has been an ongoing and concerted effort by TransCanada Corporation, the country's preeminent pipeline company, to silence employees raising safety concerns about the company’s existing and brand new North American pipeline infrastructure:

They include warnings on the original Keystone pipeline, plagued by at least 35 incidents in the U.S. and Canada since it launched commercial operations in June 2010, and they also raise questions about the company’s testing and welding procedures on its infrastructure in Ontario as well as other lines that have reported at least four separate ruptures and four separate leaks to the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, in recent months.

Records released by the Senate energy and environment committee show cases where engineers were told in internal emails to stop searching for potential pipeline defects.

Reminiscent of the O-ring alerts ignored prior to the doomed Challenger shuttle mission, the records tell a sordid but hardly surprising tale of corporate intimidation, suppression and termination. Only one target, engineer Evan Vokes, responded to Star requests for comment:

“Please stop the investigation you seem to be doing on your own,” wrote David Taylor, a TransCanada manager of materials and engineering, in a June 27, 2011, email to Vokes. “This discussion has been going on for over a month, you need to accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company.”

Vokes, a man of obvious integrity, refused to heed the increasingly threatening tone of the emails, and he was ultimately fired in 2012 without cause after he informed the company he would complain to authorities. Before his termination, however, he did what any man of deep conscience would do. He persisted:

... a few months before he lost his job, Vokes sent out a written warning to managers about the dangers of allowing the installation of a pressure vessel — a pipeline component generally used in compressor stations — on a natural gas line serving the oilsands industry near Fort McMurray.

A few weeks earlier, his manager, David Taylor, warned Vokes that there could be consequences if he continued to critique safety oversight weaknesses of TransCanada operations.

Taylor had issued other warnings previously:

“Also there is no need to comment about other projects and infer that they did something wrong,” said Taylor in an email to Vokes on Aug. 10, 2009. “As we chatted on Friday those things can and generally do come back to haunt you down the road!”

You can read the full story of TranCanada's corporate malfeasance and how it thwarted the efforts of some of its other employees to promote greater safety by clicking on the Toronto Star link provided at the start of this post.

What The Harper Oil Enthusiasts Don't Want You To Think About

This and this:

More on Drilling for Oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence

As noted recently, the Harper regime, in its bottomless contempt and disregard for the environment, recently opened up the possibility of drilling for oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, another unpleasant fact hidden deep within the arcana of Omnibus Bill C-38. Happily, this fact was brought to the public's attention by the Toronto Star, whose readers invariably offer some insights worth preserving and spreading through the blogosphere.

Here are two from today's edition:

Re: Drilling for oil without a clue, Editorial Aug. 6

Thanks for drawing our attention to yet another major concern about the current federal government’s budget bill: highlighting the potential for oil exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and amendments to the Coasting Trade Act that give oil companies greater access to exploration.

An oil spill in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would be disastrous as Green Party Leader Elizabeth May warns. The spill would not only affect the five eastern provinces of Canada but also the eastern U.S. states.

And it would become an additional potential threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem on which all of us on both sides of the border depend for water, for fish and for recreation. If citizens on both sides of the border were to unite around this concern, would Stephen Harper listen?

Anne Mitchell, Toronto

Once again, more surprises are oozing out of the federal omnibus bill. This time, it’s the potential for ecological and economic disasters as a result of drilling for oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Through amendments to the Coasting Trade Act and the removal of the requirements for environmental assessments for experimental offshore drilling, this backdoor approval of the federal budget bill has left Canadians astonished, bewildered and decidedly uneasy.

One can only imagine what other surprises are lurking down the road.

Bill Wensley, Cobourg

Exposing More Harper Lies

Those who believe the Harper propaganda that the changes to environmental oversight contained in Omnibus Bill C-38 are simply 'housekeeping' and 'streamlining' measures may find this notification from the National Energy Board of interest:

As a result of the amendments to section 118, the Board no longer requires applicants for oil and gas export licences and gas import licences to file the following information under the Part VI Regulations:

12. (f) information respecting the potential environmental effects of the proposed exportation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects;

Information to be Furnished by Applicants for Licences for Importation

13. (e) information respecting the potential environmental effects of the proposed importation and any social effects that would be directly related to those environmental effects;

The full notification can be read here.

H/t Bill Hillier

On Pipeline Safety

Given Calgary's recent designation as the "greatest city in Canada" and the entire province enjoying sainthood status under the current Prime Minister, it is with some trepidation that I draw your attention to a story that could get me labelled as divisive and an environmental terrorist.

In a column that challenges government 'truth' on the safety of oil pipelines, The Star's David Olive has the temerity to suggest that there might be something not quite safe or environmentally sound about plans to enrich Alberta even more through the transport of tarsand oil.

Read discreetly. Be aware of who may be looking over your shoulder.

Happily, in my present location I at least need not fear the long arm of the Edmonton police.