Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_26900934/rising-seas-living-borrowed-time

Rising seas: 'Living on borrowed time'
County official: Relative sea level rise on Humboldt Bay highest in state

By Clay McGlaughlin

cmcglaughlin@times-standard.com @CMcGlaughlinTS on Twitter

POSTED: 11/08/2014 09:23:20 PM PST2 COMMENTS

Click photo to enlarge

Vehicles pass through a flooded area near Liscom Slough.... (Photo courtesy of Aldaron Laird)
1
2
3
4
»
Editor's note: This is the second story in an ongoing series looking at local responses to the issue of climate change.

Climate change has been called a "long emergency," with impacts ranging from the current extreme drought in California to globe-spanning disruptions of weather patterns and ecosystems predicted for the coming decades. Here in Humboldt County, one of the many predicted impacts is sea level rise, which experts say could threaten underground utilities and U.S. Highway 101. Here's a look at what the county is doing to adapt.

RISING SEAS

As water warms, it expands. Combined with melting ice caps and glaciers, which sequester about 69 percent of the Earth's fresh water, this phenomenon is expected to lead to rising sea levels. Estimates vary as to how much the oceans are could rise, but even a "modest" increase of a few feet could cause huge problems for coastal cities.

In 2012, the National Research Council — the "operating arm" of the National Academy of Sciences — published findings that suggest California, Oregon and Washington should prepare for up to a foot and a half of sea level rise by 2050, and up to 4-and-a-half feet by 2100.

Advertisement
Replay Video
While those are the "high-end" predictions, Arcata-based environmental planner Aldaron Laird of Trinity Associates said that "all of the observations of actual tide changes and sea level changes have been higher and greater than what the models have shown we should expect."

Laird recently completed a "walkabout" inventory and mapping project of the entire 102-mile shoreline of Humboldt Bay as part of a project funded by the Coastal Conservancy.

"The main thing we learned from going out and surveying and mapping the shoreline, which had never been done before, was that we really had no idea that we've been living on borrowed time this past 100 years," Laird said. "People in the 1890s through 1910 diked off essentially 30 percent of the bay and 'reclaimed' it for agriculture, but the time has come due and the bay is ready to take all that land back."

Laird said that even without sea level rise, "You can't hold back the sea forever, and when you build 41 miles of dikes and you don't maintain them and keep them in good working order, they fall apart.

"It's like what we saw a couple of weeks ago at the wildlife refuge when a dike breached: all of a sudden 50 acres were flooded overnight," he continued. "If the dikes on Humboldt Bay fail, the bay is going to expand by 50 percent. So we're really faced with this historical legacy of failing to maintain this artificial shoreline that was built over a century ago. Then we went and built all of our critical utilities on those lands, and our critical highway structures, so we have to live with that."

Estimates based on the mapping project, published on the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District's website (http://tinyurl.com/k9jawgg), show 75 percent of the bay's shoreline as "artificial," with 53 percent made up of earthen dikes (about 21 miles) and 14 percent railroad grade (about 5 miles). About 36 percent (27.6 miles) of the shoreline is "fortified" with "revetment" (retaining walls), a process that Laird estimates costs between $900,000 and $2 million per mile.

Even with fortifications, however, "dikes will not be able to withstand projected sea level rise above 3 or 6 feet," Laird wrote at http://www.humboldtbaykeeper.org/sealevelplanning.html.

Laird said that sea level on Humboldt Bay has already risen by about 18 1/2 inches over the past century due to subsidence — "the gradual caving in or sinking of land" — and increasing tide elevation.

"Most of these old dikes, and even the railroad, are right at their limits as far as high tide," he said. "One or two feet more of sea level rise, and all those things will be overtopped. The bay will likely reclaim a lot of those 9,000 acres (of diked salt marsh)."

VULNERABILITIES

Though Eureka and Arcata have been built up to the point where they're not directly at risk, Laird said that U.S. Highway 101 and the utility lines that serve the cities are a different story.

"We've buried all of our gas lines, electrical lines and water transmission lines in the farmlands behind those dikes. All these underground utilities weren't designed to be saturated by saltwater, and we won't be able to get out there to maintain them if those areas become part of the bay again. Same thing with Highway 101. They built 101 over these low-lying areas, and over the last century a lot of that land has been compacted by as much as 3 feet. So that's where our vulnerability lies."

The cost of addressing these issues is "a huge unknown" at this point, and Laird pointed out that "we're not going to be the only coastal community that will need to relocate their gas lines or wastewater facilities, or elevate their highways. There are 76 counties and cities on the coast of California, and we're just one of them."

The NRC report notes that San Francisco International Airport could flood with as little as 16 inches of sea level rise, for instance, suggesting the scope of the problem and the massive costs that will result from any significant increase.

Adaptation planning

An Adaptation Planning Working Group formed of staff members from more than a dozen local and federal agencies is currently examining options, with the stated goal to "support informed decision-making and encourage a unified, consistent regional adaptation strategy to address impacts associated with sea level rise in the Humboldt Bay region."

Hank Seemann, deputy director of Environmental Services for the Humboldt County Public Works Department, said the group will hold a public meeting the third week of November to release its maps and reports to the community.

"For sea level rise, we're dealing with a scale that's an order of magnitude bigger than we're accustomed to dealing with in terms of the extent of the natural hazard and the scope and cost of potential adaptation measures," Seemann said. "We're entering a new age in terms of understanding and responding to sea level rise, and part of the planning group's role has been to get all the jurisdictions together to discuss options. The infrastructure all connects, and things are connected hydraulically, so we need to look at this from a regional perspective. We need a consistent, orchestrated approach so we can incorporate sea level rise into normal capital improvement planning, which is already beginning to take place."

Seemann said the region is confronted with a "double-whammy."

"We're facing sea level rise like everyone else, but also subsidence," he said. "It's still a work in progress to scientifically understand all the details, but I believe the relative sea level rise on Humboldt Bay is the highest in the state."

He said the county will be heavily dependent on state and federal funding for most of the necessary improvements, so "we're going to have to be ready, have a plan and know what we need to do so that we can fall in line with what the state and federal government develop over the next few years." He cited a recent federal call for infrastructure projects nationwide that identified more than $9 billion worth of proposals, but had only $600 million available to fund them.

"That's 15 times the available amount, so the need for improvements to current infrastructure already overwhelms the amount available. It's going to be an incremental, long-term process to find funds for adaptation," he said.

Contact Clay McGlaughlin at 441-0516.
 
Laird said that sea level on Humboldt Bay has already risen by about 18 1/2 inches over the past century due to subsidence — "the gradual caving in or sinking of land" — and increasing tide elevation.
 
Laird said that sea level on Humboldt Bay has already risen by about 18 1/2 inches over the past century due to subsidence — "the gradual caving in or sinking of land" — and increasing tide elevation.
Thanks for this additional info OBD. Yes - for "tamed" rivers that have less waterflow and less deposition of silt annually on the delta areas - subsidence is common. Not sure about the Humbolt Bay area - don't know what river is there or the induced changes in flow regimes and silt deposition.

HOWEVER, world-wide - sea levels are in fact rising. Go back a few hundred posts - and there are graphs.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...ls_alarming_communities_along_830km_pipe.html

News / GTA / Toronto Pipeline
Enbridge Line 9: W5 uncovers unreported spills, alarming communities along 830-km pipe
Investigation unveils 35 spills along Enbridge’s suddenly controversial 830-km pipeline, many not revealed to communities until now.
By: Jessica McDiarmid News reporter, Annie Burns-Pieper CTV W5, Published on Sat Feb 22 2014

An aging Enbridge pipeline that runs across Ontario has had at least 35 spills — far more than reported to federal regulators — but many municipalities along its route have never been informed of the incidents, a CTV W5 investigation reveals.

The National Energy Board, which regulates pipelines in Canada, has records of seven spills, while Enbridge told the investigative program there had been 13.

But W5’s analysis of information from the energy board, the company and Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment showed 35 spills associated with the 830-kilometre Line 9. (The Quebec government refused to provide W5 with any information).

The company is seeking federal approval to increase and reverse flow on the 38-year-old pipeline and use it to transport, in part, diluted bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.

“It’s quite alarming,” said Brian McHattie, a city councillor in Hamilton, where seven leaks over the years have released nearly 3,000 litres of crude oil at company facilities northwest of the city. “This is new information for me.”

McHattie said the information raises concern about what is shared with municipalities. Hamilton staff met regularly with Enbridge officials since the company submitted its application, but none, to McHattie’s knowledge, were ever informed of the spills.

“They just haven’t been very forthcoming with us,” said McHattie. “It just makes you less confident in their integrity as a company and their willingness to share information and be above-board.”

Companies are required only to report hydrocarbon spills to the National Energy Board that are larger than 1,500 litres — equivalent to about 25 tanks of gas in an average car — or could have a “significant adverse effect” on the environment.

Enbridge spokesperson Graham White wrote in an email to the Star that the 13 leaks and ruptures noted in pipeline engineering assessments refer to mainline spills. The remainder were spills at facilities, he wrote.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment requires all spills to be reported, both those occurring on the main line and those within associated facilities. The ministry recorded 22 spills between 2003 and 2013. Just one occurred on the main line, spokesperson Kate Jordan told the Star.

Provincial law also requires that all spills be reported to municipalities in which they occur, but there are many exceptions. Spills such as those occurring at company facilities are usually exempt.

Cramahe Mayor Marc Coombs said he first learned of five spills that together leached 1,824 litres of oil when he was contacted by a W5 reporter.
“We were not notified of any of them,” said Coombs. “It does (raise concerns), from the point of view of transparency.”

The Calgary pipeline company raised the ire of Terrebonne, just outside Montreal, when municipal officials learned of a 2011 spill of 4,000 litres at Enbridge’s local facility — more than two years later. The revelation came in the midst of controversial public hearings in front of the National Energy Board.

“Terrebonne was surprised (by) the Enbridge attitude in this file, you know, because according to us Enbridge, as a good corporate citizen, has a moral responsibility to inform the city that a spill was occurring in that sector, a sector where there is a college, professional training centre, sports complex, daycare and several more businesses,” spokesperson Joël Goulet told W5.

Goulet said the company was willing to notify Terrebonne of similar incidents in the future.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said the city isn’t usually notified when spills are contained within facilities and don’t require municipal staff to be involved in containment or cleanup. He said the city hadn’t heard about the nine spills linked with Line 9 facilities in the past decade — but it should.

“It’s just a good practice to notify, and then we can make our own judgment whether we need to do anything further,” said Bradley. “Just tell us. That’s all we want — to know.”

Enbridge spokesperson White said standards and expectations have “changed dramatically in a short period of time.”
“In the past, if there was zero impact to municipalities and leaks were able to be completely and safely maintained, managed and cleaned, on sites that had well-managed and implemented spill prevention and contingency plans, we would report it to regulators as required, but there was no requirement or stated request from municipalities to inform them of incidents that did not impact them in any way whatsoever,” White wrote in an email to the Star.

“We fully understand that expectations have changed due to the prominence that pipeline issues have achieved in recent years, and we are successfully working with municipalities and local emergency responders to inform them of any incident, regardless of whether or not it has any impact off our sites.”

Pipeline War airs at 7 p.m. Saturday on CTV’s W5.
 
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...ark-partnered-enbridge-lobbying-firm?page=0,1

Christy Clark partnered in Enbridge lobbying firm before becoming BC premier
Documents leaked to the Vancouver Observer show that Clark was a partner in a lobbying firm contracted by Enbridge Inc. that operated from her former residential address.
Matthew Millar Apr 1st, 2014
17 commentsAdd a comment
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
(Page 2 of 2)
A search based on Clark's Port Moody address of the federal lobbyist registry shows 28 registrations dating back to 1999 and as recent as 2006. In addition to Enbridge, the firm was also engaged in lobbying for a major B.C.-based mining company, then known as Teck Cominco, while still located at Clark's Port Moody address.

Established in 1998, Burrard Communications boasts a “proven track record in public policy development, issue advocacy and strategic communications”. Clark's bio as company partner in the 2006 Government Relations Plan emphasized her high public profile, as well as "political experience" among her strengths in advising clients.

Christy Clark Enbridge Burrard Communications Mark Marissen

Excerpt from Burrard Communications' Government Relations Plan

Clark left the B.C. Government in May 2005, after holding the office of Deputy Premier and Education Minister.

“She took a break from government in 2005 to spend more time with her family. She worked in the media during her time from government, including as a columnist and commentator and host of the “Christy Clark Show” on CKNW”, according to her official bio.

The federal lobbyist registry cites six registrations in which Burrard Communications lobbied for Enbridge on “Environmental Assessment, Climate Change and Energy Development” between April 2005 and December 2006.

Several federal government ministries were targeted by Burrard, including Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Privy Council Office.

Enbridge first announced to the public their intent to develop the “Gateway Project” in July 2005.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Christy Clark Burrard Communications Lobbying

Update: April 4, 2014: A version of this article on Tuesday stated that the Confidential Government Relations Plan was from 2008. The date has been corrected to 2006.
April 2, 2014: A version of this article on Tuesday stated that the documents originated from 2005-2011. The story has been changed to "the years when Clark stepped away from politics." The headline was updated on Monday from "Christy Clark partnered in Enbridge lobbying firm" to "Christy Clark partnered in Enbridge lobbying firm before becoming BC premier".
Christy Clark Burrard Communications Confidential Government Relations Plan (2008)
 
First Nations Oppose Petronas LNG Plant due to "shocking" lack of consultation
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...onas-lng-plant-due-shocking-lack-consultation



First Nations throughout the Skeena Watershed have declared their opposition to the proposed Petronas LNG project on Lelu Island, citing a lack of consultation and massive damage to salmon habitat. "When BC, the Prince Rupert Port Authority and Petronas sited a massive LNG development on the Skeena River's most critical salmon habitat, they created the legal obligation to consult and accommodate First Nations who have an interest in Skeena salmon,” said President and Chief Negotiator for the Gitanyow First Nation Chief Malii or Glen Williams.
“We have written CEAA several times since spring 2013 to express our concerns with the project and requested bilateral consultation. The Crown has refused, stating that because of the distance between our traditional lands and the terminal it is not required. This flawed reasoning does not uphold the honor of the Crown. Despite this we have continued to do our homework and we now have concrete scientific evidence that shows our salmon rely on these area and anything they do in these sensitive ecosystems need to be vetted through our Chiefs. The lack of consultation is unacceptable, industry and government have completely ignored our constitutionally protected rights and we will not stand for it."
An SFU study showed that altering or destroying crucial habitat in the estuary will significantly damage the abundance and health of Skeena salmon, which are the essential foundation of First Nations' constitutionally protected right to fish throughout the watershed. "If BC thinks it can partner with foreign oil and gas companies, pick where pipelines and plants are to be sited, all the while ignoring the science that says industrial development on the Skeena Estuary is risky and foolish, and then pretend to 'consult' with First Nations after the fact, they have fundamentally misunderstood their legal and moral obligations to First Nations," Wet'suwet'en Tsayu Clan’s Chief Na'Moks added.
On the same note, Wilf Adam, Oputt, Chief of the Lake Babine Nation asserts, "It's time to go beyond mouthing platitudes about new relationships and apologizing for past wrongs. The entire system of how major industrial development on our lands is proposed, and approved, is broken. It doesn't work for anyone. It is expensive, it creates more uncertainty and most often further erodes Canada's reputation as a civil society, or a desirable place to do business. On every level it is failing." Poor siting of the proposed facility and failure to seek First Nations consent place this $11 billion project at serious risk, according to the Chiefs.
"If the federal and provincial governments cannot protect our interests, and choose to work more closely with foreign-owned multinational energy companies than their own citizens, then we will be forced to represent ourselves abroad and tell Petronas the truth about their prospects," Chief Na'Moks continued.
The First Nations leaders are calling for Petronas as well as the provincial and federal governments to withdraw the project from the Lelu Island site immediately

What does the science say......
https://peerj.com/preprints/375.pdf
So the question is what is the trade off... Salmon or LNG? You can't have both so pick one. I know what I pick and it's not LNG. OBD what do you pick?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What does the science say......https://peerj.com/preprints/375.pdfSo the question is what is the trade off... Salmon or LNG? You can't have both so pick one. I know what I pick and it's not LNG. OBD what do you pick?
The problem with this one (besides the obvious problems with fracking) - is the location of the proposed offloading site - which really has nothing to do with LNG - and would be the same concerns with any large industrial offloading facility planned for that site. They propose to destroy a large portion of foreshore (Lelu Island area at the mouth of the Skeena), including eelgrass habitat at the site to put in jetties and the like. Many years ago - DFO said this site was a bad idea for such development - but now after Harper's sleight of hand - somehow that has changed - on paper. I think you can have some industrial development some places up to a certain amount- but not every place. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to help mitigate or approve/deny that idea - but not every idea is a solid one. One also has to look at the cumulative effect of these proposed projects - as when you keep chipping away at critical habitat - you loose numbers, lifestages, and diversity of species; while decreasing the resilience of these remaining fragmented habitats to take more impacts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with this one (besides the obvious problems with fracking) - is the location of the proposed offloading site - which really has nothing to do with LNG - and would be the same concerns with any large industrial offloading facility planned for that site. They propose to destroy a large portion of foreshore (Lelu Island area at the mouth of the Skeena), including eelgrass habitat at the site to put in jetties and the like. Many years ago - DFO said this site was a bad idea for such development - but now after Harper's sleight of hand - somehow that has changed - on paper. I think you can have some industrial development some places up to a certain amount- but not every place. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to help mitigate or approve/deny that idea - but not every idea is a solid one. One also has to look at the cumulative effect of these proposed projects - as when you keep chipping away at critical habitat - you loose numbers, lifestages, and diversity of species; while decreasing the resilience of these remaining fragmented habitats to take more impacts.

Worse yet, impacts are often judged relative to the current "normal". As we chip away at critical habitat, "normal" is slowly moving set of goal posts that allow politicians and bureaucrats freedom to keep chipping away.
 
Not additional information. It was in the original post.

Thanks for this additional info OBD. Yes - for "tamed" rivers that have less waterflow and less deposition of silt annually on the delta areas - subsidence is common. Not sure about the Humbolt Bay area - don't know what river is there or the induced changes in flow regimes and silt deposition.

HOWEVER, world-wide - sea levels are in fact rising. Go back a few hundred posts - and there are graphs.
 
You can make a difference....
[VTfgNFz1DBM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTfgNFz1DBM
 
El Niño fades without westerly wind bursts
Anthony Watts / 4 hours ago November 11, 2014
From AGU:

Pools of warm water known as Kelvin waves can be seen traveling eastward along the equator (black line) in this Sept. 17, 2009, image from the NASA/French Space Agency Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason-2 satellite. El Ninos form when trade winds in the equatorial western Pacific relax over a period of months, sending Kelvin waves eastward across the Pacific like a conveyor belt. Image credit: NASA/JPL Ocean Surface Topography Team
Pools of warm water known as Kelvin waves can be seen traveling eastward along the equator (black line) in this Sept. 17, 2009, image from the NASA/French Space Agency Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason-2 satellite. El Ninos form when trade winds in the equatorial western Pacific relax over a period of months, sending Kelvin waves eastward across the Pacific like a conveyor belt. Image credit: NASA/JPL Ocean Surface Topography Team

The warm and wet winter of 1997 brought California floods, Florida tornadoes, and an ice storm in the American northeast, prompting climatologists to dub it the El Niño of the century. Earlier this year, climate scientists thought the coming winter might bring similar extremes, as equatorial Pacific Ocean conditions resembled those seen in early 1997. But the signals weakened by summer, and the El Niño predictions were downgraded. Menkes et al. used simulations to examine the differences between the two years.

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is defined by abnormally warm sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean and weaker than usual trade winds. In a typical year, southeast trade winds push surface water toward the western Pacific “warm pool”–a region essential to Earth’s climate. The trade winds dramatically weaken or even reverse in El Niño years, and the warm pool extends its reach east.

Scientists have struggled to predict El Niño due to irregularities in the shape, amplitude, and timing of the surges of warm water. Previous studies suggested that short-lived westerly wind pulses (i.e. one to two weeks long) could contribute to this irregularity by triggering and sustaining El Niño events.

To understand the vanishing 2014 El Niño, the authors used computer simulations and examined the wind’s role. The researchers find pronounced differences between 1997 and 2014. Both years saw strong westerly wind events between January and March, but those disappeared this year as spring approached. In contrast, the westerly winds persisted through summer in 1997.

In the past, it was thought that westerly wind pulses were three times as likely to form if the warm pool extended east of the dateline. That did not occur this year. The team says their analysis shows that El Niño’s strength might depend on these short-lived and possibly unpredictable pulses.
 
OBD... Natural climate change??? Like this...

[022WICqg920]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=022WICqg920&index=6&list=PL25E95759B5BDBDD4
 
http://westcoastnativenews.com/over...d-not-one-mainstream-media-outlet-reports-it/

Over 600,000 Litres spilled and not one Mainstream media outlet reports it
DERRICK ON NOVEMBER 12TH, 2014 8:47 PM - NO COMMENT YET

Photograph by: Western Canadian Spill Services members deploying spill containment and recovery equipment in a small river.
Over the past year WCNN has reported on many Crude oil and Toxic produced water spills all over Alberta, in fact we have reported over 600,000 Litres of toxic crap that has been spilled just last month and yet not one mainstream media outlet has picked up the incidents. So lets take a look back at just the last month (October) and see just what the mainstream is not telling you.

Oct 3, 2014 – Canadian Natural Resources Limited – 11Km East of Delia – 10,000 litres of Crude oil

Oct 5, 2014 – Nexen Energy ULC – 2.5Km SouthWest of Kinosis – 5,800 litres of Toxic water

Oct 5, 2014 – Cenovus Energy Inc – 56Km East of Brooks – 9,800 litres of Toxic water

Oct 5, 2014 – Nexen Energy ULC – 41Km SouthEast of Ft. McMurray – 13,000 litres of Condensate

Oct 10, 2014 – Husky Oil – 30Km SouthEast of Vermilion – 50,000 litres of Crude oil and 25,000 litres of toxic water

Oct 13, 2014 – Arc Resources – 5Km North of Redwater – 150,000 litres of Toxic water

Oct 11, 2014 – TAQA North Ltd – 44Km SouthWest of Spirit River – 24,000 litres of Crude oil

Oct 14, 2014 – Whitecap Resources Inc – 37Km NorthWest of Sexsmith – 10,000 litres of Toxic water

Oct 15, 2014 – Penn West Petroleum Ltd -14Km SouthEast of Slave Lake – 52,000 litres Crude oil

Oct 14, 2014 – Zargon Oil & Gas Ltd – 26Km NorthWest of Vauxhall – 8,000 litres of Toxic water

Oct 17, 2014 – TAQA North Ltd – 32Km NorthWest of Rocky Mountain House – 18,000 litres of Toxic water

Oct 21, 2014 – Harvest Operations Corp – 20Km East of Galahad – 200,000 litres of Toxic water

Oct 26, 2014 – Apache Canada Ltd -9Km East of Zama City – 50,000 litres of Toxic water

Total = Over 625,000 Litres of toxic crap spilled in Alberta for just the month of October and not one Mainstream media reports about it.

If you wish to read any of the incident reports please click HERE

Source: AER
 
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=822-101

The sea level rise rate has not changed in Victoria in the last 100 years, even though CO2 levels have gone from about 290 ppm to about 380 ppm today. Most of that CO2 increase occurred in the last 50 years. You can see the danger that Victoria is in. At the current rise rate the sea will rise 8cm (about 3 inches) in the next 100 years
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top