Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[GLG]

Science said that it was going to be a global cooling, read the articles.
The press blew it all out of proportion.

So, the public has seen by all the projections made that the press and the scientists are not to be believed.
Guess we will find out now as the US will not be doing much and China is going ahead full force.

So your logic is since a science article, based on a paper, about global cooling from 1975 turned out to be wrong now 30,000 science papers and 100's of thousands of articles about global warming are wrong. Critical think does not work that way.

Regardless lets play your game....
Perhaps we should use your logic with this video. I see your 1975 science article and raise you a 1956 science radio broadcast based on a science paper.
Your turn.....
[sdALFnlwV_o] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdALFnlwV_o&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w

 

[GLG]

 

[OldBlackDog]

And the cool part is you believe everything you read.

Bet you were there when they were calling for global cooling.

I see they are projecting the pipeline will be passed via the republicans.

Guess the people are more interested in making a living than stories that the world is ending.

It is interesting that the governments are not that upset. They have meetings with people who own houses on the ocean and tell the not to worry. They allow new houses to be built every day.
Guess they did not get the message.
Next time you are in your boat you might want to stop off on the islands and tell them to move?

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/06/G...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=071114

Give Gas a Pass on Toxic Spill Clean-up, Says BC Official

Emails reveal government wants to exempt sector from spill fund.

By Andrew MacLeod, Yesterday, TheTyee.ca

Snowy natural gas


The BC government is promoting a major expansion of the natural gas sector. Gas photo via Shutterstock.


British Columbia government officials, who were in discussions to set up an oil and gas sector-funded pool of money to pay for cleaning up toxic spills, suggested granting the natural gas sector an exemption, according to emails released through the province's freedom of information process.

The suggestion was made in an email exchange last March between a provincial environment official and two assistant deputy ministers. They were discussing which type of industries would be required to contribute to the proposed clean up fund. In one email, an official suggested that the natural gas sector be exempt from paying into the fund.

The official described the exemption as a "pass for natural gas." The gas sector would be exempt through a system that redefined what substances would be described as toxic.

"We are doing a redraft to suggest that contributing to the spill contingency fund and membership in the response organization would only be required for materials that are of high toxicity and persistence," wrote Jim Hofweber, the executive director of the Environment ministry's Environmental Emergencies and Land Remediation Branch in a March 11, 2014 email recently released through the province's freedom of information process.

"This takes [natural gas] off the table for these elements (and possibly coal – need some work on coal)," Hofweber wrote in the message to Fazil Mihlar, the assistant deputy minister for oil and strategic initiatives in the ministry of Natural Gas Development, and Jim Standen, an assistant deputy minister in the Environment ministry.

In 2012, companies produced 3.5-billion cubic feet of natural gas in B.C., making the province the second largest producer in Canada, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. CAPP says the industry is rapidly growing in B.C. and the provincial government is promoting a major expansion of the sector to provide liquefied natural gas for export.

B.C. operators of natural gas pipelines and compressor facilities would still need to respond to spills and report them, but they would be excused from paying into the proposed fund that would be used to clean up spills, wrote Hofweber.

The emails were written about one month before the province launched a public consultation process into its land-based response to spills. The public comment period ended in July. The environment ministry's website says a summary of responses will be posted shortly.

Same rules urged for every sector

An Opposition New Democrat said the emails suggest the government is considering letting some sectors off the hook.

"You can't let any company skate away from their responsibilities," said NDP environment critic Spencer Chandra Herbert.

Natural gas and coal may be less toxic than oil, Herbert said, but they can still have a big environmental impact depending where and when they are spilled. Last January, a freight train carrying coal derailed in Burnaby, sending seven cars into a tributary of a lake.

Herbert said the government's approach to "polluter pay" appears to be leaning towards making some sectors pay, but letting the public pick up the tab for the rest.

In the email exchange between with Hofweber and Standen, Mihlar appeared unclear on what materials could be described as toxic and asked for elaboration.

"Will [gas-to-liquid] products and value added chemical products like methanol, ethanol or urea still come under the definition of 'high toxicity?' or could we just go with the definition of Petroleum under Petroleum Act? Could we define petroleum as 'crude petroleum that are or can be recovered from oil sand or oil shale.' "

Mihlar continued, "I am not having much luck with coming up with any other language that will clearly protect the natural gas sector and the value added activities that the government is contemplating."

Hofweber responded: "I think we are in good shape with a pass for natural gas with our wording... As far as defining a toxicity threshold to evaluate other candidate materials, that will take work and consultation later on. I suspect most [gas-to-liquid] products would not make the grade on both toxicity and persistence."

In one email, Mihlar said he wanted to remove the proposed spill contingency fund -- which the Union of B.C. Municipalities and others had been pushing for -- from the table, but Hofweber said it had to remain part of the discussion.

"There is no way to justify that with stakeholders at this time," Hofweber wrote. "Even those who might oppose it need the opportunity to comment on why and what might serve in its place."

Nikki Skuce, the senior energy campaigner for Forest Ethics Advocacy, said natural gas should be fully included in the spill response regime. "This is supposed to be all encompassing," she said.

Skuce said the officials' subtle shift in wording when suggesting the natural gas sector be exempted from the fund is hard to detect even for those closely following the public consultation process.

"I missed that," she said. "To me that was an illuminating thing."

Public wants a clean-up plan

Environment Minister Mary Polak said the debate on spill response is looking at how various materials should be treated.

"We are trying to explore basing our response plans on risk, and of course the risk with respect to natural gas is very different, in fact much lower, than any other petroleum product," Polak said in an interview.

The government is trying to find a fair way to connect what's required of each sector to the level of risk it presents, she said.

However, Herbert said the public simply wants to know if there is a plan in place to respond to a spill.

He said the government emails considering a "pass for gas" reveal the degree of dealing that goes on behind the scenes.

"It's pretty galling, but not surprising given they've been saying one thing and doing another around 'cleanest LNG in the world' and 'world-class spill response,' " Herbert said.

 

[GLG]

 

[OldBlackDog]

I see you love the way your governments are spending your tax dollars.

 

[GLG]

[UvEiSa6_EPA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvEiSa6_EPA

https://copower.me/en

[h=1]Opportunity[/h]Clean energy is great for your investment portfolio and for our environment. Being able to power our world without needing to buy and burn fossil fuels has made clean energy a rapidly-growing investment sector.
In 2013, Warren Buffett and Goldman Sachs were among those who invested $250 billion dollars globally to build new clean energy infrastructure projects. This amount included over $6 billion dollars in Canada.
However, the high upfront costs make it difficult for individual investors to access these investments, leaving most people out of the picture.


[h=1]The CoPower Solution[/h]CoPower's online platform allows you to pool money with like-minded investors and access clean energy investment opportunities. This is how it works:

1. Select a project on CoPower’s platform, and pool your money with other investors.
2. The project reaches its funding goal and gets financed.
3. Clean power is generated and sold.
4. You get paid back, with interest.

Using CoPower's platform, you can also monitor the performance of your investment, including your investment returns and your positive impact on the environment and the local community.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Who are the Real Deniers?

BigMoney was spent trying to prop up support for the falsified CAGW hypothesis during the US

Tom Steyer
Half Term elections. At the head of the list, Liberal Tom Steyer donated $58 million to Political Action Committees (PACs)
The California billionaire and climate-change activist gave $16 million more to his NextGen Climate Action Committee in the first two weeks of October, bringing to $57.6 million his aggregate donations to his organization. (link)
Despite the donated Billions, the US voters turned their collective backs on the Alarmist candidates.

The "whackos are inconsolable in their grief" and are spewing out hate language including "denier" - the hateful reference to the holocaust. The Alarmists had previously lost the scientific argument and now find they have also lost the political argument...hence the hatred.

Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks believes "that we most effectively discredit that term by turning it back on those who use it against us."

He previously wrote a column on this blog -see HERE - which is reproduced below:


Who are the Deniers?


by Dr Gordon J Fulks


Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:

Who denies natural climate change?
Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?
Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?
Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?
Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?
Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?
Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?
Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?
Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?
Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?
Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?
Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?
Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?
Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?
Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?
Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?
Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?
Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?
Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?
Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?
Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?
Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?

 

[GLG]

OBD .. you cancel your fire insurance policy yet? After all the chance of a fire is only .05% and you seem to think that gambling with the future is a wise policy. Let us know when you have done that.... till then I would say your last post is a rant from someone who clearly has lost his marbles. Could it be he has evidence to prove his theory and if so why has it not been accepted by science and a nobel prize been awarded?

http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/

 

[OldBlackDog]

http://www.theprovince.com/business...dict+meteorologists+admit/10365943/story.html

 

[agentaqua]

Anyone still think we are doing a good job in creating wealth for our country - extracting our limited and one-time resource?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...alberta-earthquakes-study-indicates-1.2829484

Fracking linked to Alberta earthquakes, study indicates
The most recent earthquake in the province was recorded in Peace River on Nov. 2
By Kim Trynacity, Alicja Siekierska, CBC News Posted: Nov 10, 2014 6:00 AM MT Last Updated: Nov 10, 2014 8:05 AM MT


Jeff Gu, a seismologist at the University of Alberta, is one of the authors of a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research that looked at four years of earthquake data around Rocky Mountain House. (CBC News)

2.7-magnitude earthquake confirmed near Banff
Power restored after 4.3-magnitude earthquake hits western Alberta
Earthquake hazard linked with deep well injection in Alberta
Alberta researchers to listen for fracking quakes
Alberta minister says urban drilling can be done safely
Fracking to blame for well blowout near Innisfail

Carmen Langer had just left his bed to grab a drink of water when he felt his house northeast of Peace River, Alta., begin to shake.

“At first I thought I wasn’t feeling very good that day... and it was just my blood sugar, but no, it shook pretty good,” Langer said about the Nov. 2 incident.

Power restored after 4.3-magnitude earthquake hits western Alberta
Earthquake hazard linked with deep well injection in Alberta
Alberta researchers to listen for fracking quakes
Moments after the shaking stopped, his neighbours were calling, asking if he had felt what they just felt.

“After a few minutes, I realized it was an earthquake,” Langer said.

Peace River
There was a small earthquake on Nov. 2 in Peace River, just northeast of Peace River. The recently published study involving Alberta researcher Jeff Gu indicates fracking may trigger earthquakes in the province. (earthquakes.nrcan.gc.ca)

Natural Resources Canada (NRC) registered a small, 3.0-magnitude earthquake that was “lightly felt” from Three Creeks to St. Isidor in northern Alberta at 11:14 p.m. MT. NRC said on its website there were no reports of damage, and that “none would be expected.”

Jeff Gu, a seismologist at the University of Alberta, said the earthquake could have been caused by shifting rock formations in the region — but added there could be another possible explanation.

“Certainly that region is not immune to earthquake faulting, but I would say having actual earthquakes in that area is relatively recent, relatively new,” he said.

Gu is one of three authors of a recently published study in the Journal of Geophysical Research, a peer-reviewed publication that looked at four years of earthquake data around Rocky Mountain House. The study concludes that waste-water injection into the ground is highly correlated with spikes in earthquake activity in the area.

It is the first study of its kind conducted in Canada that links industrial activity to induced earthquakes.

“The conclusion was that the industrial activities could, in some cases, potentially trigger or facilitate earthquake occurrences,” Gu said.

Alberta earthquakes increasing

Since 1985, fewer than 15 earthquakes above a 3.0 magnitude have been recorded anywhere in Alberta, according to the Alberta Geological Survey's website. There has been an increase in earthquake activity since the 1960s, the organization says.

The Peace River earthquake is not the only one that has shaken the province in the past few months:

In October, a 2.7-magnitude quake was recorded about four kilometres southwest of Banff.
In August, a 4.3-magnitude earthquake was registered near Rocky Mountain House, causing about 500 customers in the area to lose power for several hours.
Gu said the research into whether waste-water induction and fracking are related to earthquakes is still “really a work in progress.”

“There has been more and more evidence, increasing evidence, in the last few years in particular — in Arkansas, in Texas and actually more recently here,” Gu said.

But he said there is nothing to fear right now.

“I’m not worried until we get a conclusive answer on whether these are caused by industry or not, whether they are naturally occurring,” Gu said.

Langer, however, is worried.

“With all the stuff that’s going on in my community, I’m feeling quite concerned about it,” he said. “We’re having all kinds of environmental problems in the community… Something has to give here.”

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...untain-pipeline-benefits-questioned-1.2829911

Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline benefits questioned
Simon Fraser University study claims company overstates employment, downplays costs
The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 10, 2014 10:27 AM MT Last Updated: Nov 10, 2014 10:27 AM MT


A Simon Fraser University study challenges Kinder Morgan's estimate of the number of jobs the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion will create. (Kinder Morgan Canada)


A new report says Kinder Morgan is overplaying the economic benefits, and downplaying the costs of its proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Simon Fraser University's Centre for Public Policy Research teamed with The Goodman Group Ltd., a California-based consulting firm, to examine the estimated impacts of the project.

The authors dispute Kinder Morgan's claim that 36,000 person-years of employment would be created in British Columbia during the project's development.

More like 12,000, tops, they say, which is less than 0.2 per cent of total provincial employment.

"We correctly anticipated that the benefits from the pipeline would be small in the context of the overall B.C. economy and mostly short-term," said Ian Goodman, president of the Goodman Group.

"But we were very surprised that the company has exaggerated the short-term jobs associated with building the pipeline by a factor of three."

The long-term jobs are also overstated, according to the report.

Kinder Morgan has projected 50 direct full-time jobs once the pipeline is up and running, with 2,000 resulting from the project's spinoff benefits. The report pegs the spinoff jobs at closer to 800.

BC coffers to get 'tiny benefit'

The report's authors say B.C. government coffers will get a "tiny" benefit from the Trans Mountain expansion, with Alberta and oilsands producers the main beneficiaries.

Property tax benefits for B.C. communities along the route would average less than one per cent of current total municipal revenues.

On the cost side, the report also takes issue with Kinder Morgan's numbers. The company's most expensive spill scenario puts the cost at $100 million to $300 million. Goodman and Simon Fraser figure it would be in the "multibillion-dollar range" if oil spills in a populated area.

"KM has vastly underestimated the worst-case costs for a catastrophic pipeline rupture. Contrary to KM's findings, damage and cleanup costs for major accidents are highly correlated with population density," said Brigid Rowan, Senior Energy Economist at The Goodman Group, Ltd and co-author of the report.

"So a worst-case scenario for TMX would involve a major accident in a more densely populated area (such as Metro Vancouver) damaging and disrupting key infrastructure, and possibly resulting in a spill to water and losses of human life."

Project 'highly questionable'

Doug McArthur, director of the graduate school of public policy at SFU, said the project is "highly questionable from a public policy point of view."

"These findings, along with the increasing evidence from interveners in the NEB pipeline hearings that Kinder Morgan is not providing accurate and complete data and information about the pipeline, make it difficult to see how the NEB can approve this pipeline while fulfilling its obligation to uphold the public interest."

The Trans Mountain pipeline currently ships 300,000 barrels of petroleum products per day from the Edmonton area to the West Coast.

The $5.4-billion expansion would nearly triple its capacity to 890,000 barrels a day.

Past research by The Goodman Group has taken aim at other projects' stated economic benefits, such as Enbridge Inc.'s Line 9 reversal between southern Ontario and Montreal and TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline to the U.S.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...read-of-dead-zones-in-oceans-rivers-1.2829987

Global warming increasing spread of dead zones in oceans, rivers
Fertilizer runoff and warming clog waters with nutrients and deprive marine life of oxygen
The Associated Press Posted: Nov 10, 2014 1:07 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 10, 2014 1:07 PM ET

A duck swims in Lake Michigan's Green Bay near an accumulation of algae. The bay is one of the many bodies of water that have developed dead zones, areas where fertilizer and wastewater runoff has created excessive levels of nutrients that build up microbes but deprive marine life of oxygen. A new study has found that global warming is a making the problem of dead zones worse.
A duck swims in Lake Michigan's Green Bay near an accumulation of algae. The bay is one of the many bodies of water that have developed dead zones, areas where fertilizer and wastewater runoff has created excessive levels of nutrients that build up microbes but deprive marine life of oxygen. A new study has found that global warming is a making the problem of dead zones worse. (Jim Matthews/Press-Gazette/Associated Press)

Global warming is likely playing a bigger role than previously thought in dead zones in oceans, lakes and rivers around the world and it's only going to get worse, according to a new study.

Dead zones occur when fertilizer runoff clogs waterways with nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. That leads to an explosion of microbes that consumes oxygen and leaves the water depleted of oxygen, harming marine life.

'We've underestimated the effect of climate change on dead zones.'
- Andrew Altieri, lead study author
Scientists have long known that warmer water increases this problem, but a new study Monday in the journal Global Change Biology by Smithsonian Institution researchers found about two dozen different ways — biologically, chemically and physically — that climate change worsens the oxygen depletion.

"We've underestimated the effect of climate change on dead zones," said study lead author Andrew Altieri, a researcher at the Smithsonian's tropical centre in Panama.

Biggest warming is in St. Lawrence River

The researchers looked at 476 dead zones worldwide — 264 in the United States. They found that standard computer climate models predict that, on average, the surface temperature around those dead zones will increase by slightly more than two degrees Celsius from the 1980s and 1990s to the end of this century.

The largest predicted warming is nearly 4 C where the St. Lawrence River dumps into the ocean in Canada. The most prominent U.S. dead zones, the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay, are projected to warm 2.3 C and nearly 2.7 C, respectively.

Dead Zones
Global warming exacerbates the problem of oxygen depletion caused by runoff because warmer waters hold less oxygen. The excess of microbes and lack of oxygen in dead zones harms fish and other marine life. (Andrew Altieri/Smithsonian Institution/ Associated Press)

Warmer water holds less oxygen, adding to the problem from runoff, said co-author Keryn Gedan, who is at both the Smithsonian and the University of Maryland. But warmer water also affects dead zones by keeping the water more separate, so that oxygen-poor deep water mixes less.

"It's like Italian dressing that you haven't shaken, where you have the oil and water separate," Altieri said.

When the water gets warmer, marine life's metabolism increases, making them require more oxygen just as the oxygen levels are already dropping. Other ways that climate change affects dead zones includes longer summers, ocean acidification and changing wind and current patterns, the study said.

Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland ecologist who wasn't part of the study and works at a different department than Gedan, said there is not enough evidence to say that climate change has already played such a big role in the spread of dead zones. But he said the study is probably right in warning that future warming will make the problem even worse.

© The Associated Press, 2014

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106132313.htm

Denying problems when we don't like the political solutions: Why conservatives, liberals disagree so vehemently
Date: November 6, 2014
Source: Duke University
Summary: There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime. A new study finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.

There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime.

A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don't, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.

"Logically, the proposed solution to a problem, such as an increase in government regulation or an extension of the free market, should not influence one's belief in the problem. However, we find it does," said co-author Troy Campbell, a Ph.D. candidate at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. "The cure can be more immediately threatening than the problem."

The study, "Solution Aversion: On the Relation Between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief," appears in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The researchers conducted three experiments (with samples ranging from 120 to 188 participants) on three different issues -- climate change, air pollution that harms lungs, and crime.

"The goal was to test, in a scientifically controlled manner, the question: Does the desirability of a solution affect beliefs in the existence of the associated problem? In other words, does what we call 'solution aversion' exist?" Campbell said.

"We found the answer is yes. And we found it occurs in response to some of the most common solutions for popularly discussed problems."
For climate change, the researchers conducted an experiment to examine why more Republicans than Democrats seem to deny its existence, despite strong scientific evidence that supports it.

One explanation, they found, may have more to do with conservatives' general opposition to the most popular solution -- increasing government regulation -- than with any difference in fear of the climate change problem itself, as some have proposed.

Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming.

When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.

But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.

For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.

"Recognizing this effect is helpful because it allows researchers to predict not just what problems people will deny, but who will likely deny each problem," said co-author Aaron Kay, an associate professor at Fuqua. "The more threatening a solution is to a person, the more likely that person is to deny the problem."

The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins.

"We should not just view some people or group as anti-science, anti-fact or hyper-scared of any problems," Kay said. "Instead, we should understand that certain problems have particular solutions that threaten some people and groups more than others. When we realize this, we understand those who deny the problem more and we improve our ability to better communicate with them."

Campbell added that solution aversion can help explain why political divides become so divisive and intractable.

"We argue that the political divide over many issues is just that, it's political," Campbell said. "These divides are not explained by just one party being more anti-science, but the fact that in general people deny facts that threaten their ideologies, left, right or center."

The researchers noted there are additional factors that can influence how people see the policy implications of science. Additional research using larger samples and more specific methods would provide an even clearer picture, they said.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by Duke University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference: Troy H. Campbell, Aaron C. Kay. Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014; 107 (5): 809 DOI: 10.1037/a0037963 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037963

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/04/M...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101114

Fed Up with 'Captured' Regulator, Exec Quits Kinder Morgan Review
Marc Eliesen speaks on his decision to resign.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 4 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca

Marc Elieson
Economist Marc Eliesen addresses the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel at hearings in Vancouver on Jan. 16, 2013. Photo: Metro Kate Webb.

Marc Eliesen, a senior energy executive who once served as CEO of BC Hydro, has quit his role as an intervenor in the federal review of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline and oil tanker expansion project, calling the National Energy Board "a truly captured regulator."

Eliesen has worked in the nation's energy sector for 40 years. In addition to running the nation's largest hydro utilities, he served in a variety of senior positions in both federal and provincial governments of all stripes, including as Ontario's deputy minister of energy.

Now retired and living in Whistler, B.C., the 73-year-old Eliesen resigned from his intervenor responsibilities after the board repeatedly demonstrated what he called a "lack of respect for hearing participants," as well as a disregard for "the standards and practices of natural justice that previous boards have respected."

His criticisms are detailed in his letter of resignation, which you can read here.

The National Energy Board, set up in 1959, has a mandate to regulate more than 70,000 kilometres of pipelines that cross provincial borders. Now based in Calgary, it is chaired by Peter Watson, a former deputy energy minister for Alberta.

The former chair of the board, Gaétan Caron, once said that "If we're not fair, we're nothing. We're everything because we're fair."

But First Nations, pipeline whistleblowers, and landowners such as the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations have questioned the board's fairness for years.

In 1991, the board moved to Calgary and changed its funding formula. Ninety per cent of its $50-million plus budget comes from corporate levies. Appointed members of the board exclusively come from legal, corporate or engineering backgrounds.

In 2012, Canada's oil and gas industry lobbied then Natural Resources minister Joe Oliver for significant changes on how the board operated its public hearings.

In Bill-38, the Harper government delivered a series of reforms that limited public participation and timelines for environmental assessment in pipeline hearings.

The omnibus bill, which changed 70 pieces of legislation, also gave the chair of the board new powers to expedite pipeline and power line applications. The chair also has the power to remove other members from decision-making and issue a recommendation unilaterally. In addition, the federal cabinet -- not the board -- now has the final authority to say yes or no to pipelines.

These changes partly explain why Eliesen believes the Kinder Morgan review has become "a waste of time and effort."

To date, intervenors have asked that Kinder Morgan answer 2,000 questions on the costly and complicated expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline to transport bitumen to foreign markets. According to Eliesen, the board compelled the company to answer five per cent of the questions and rejected the rest.

The Tyee got in touch with Eliesen to ask him more about why he quit the federal review process.

Tyee: As a senior energy executive, you dealt with lots of regulators over four decades. What distinguishes an effective and accountable regulator from what you call a 'captured' one?

Eliesen: "I think the main aspect is the importance of being independent from political influence. Everyone knows people appointed to be the regulator are order-in-council appointees. The government decides whom to appoint. The most effective regulators show independence from the political pressures that normally take place.

"When the [National Energy Board] was based in Ottawa, it was a solid regulator. There wasn't a scintilla of evidence they were too close to industry. But when they moved to Calgary in 1991, the board changed. It developed over the years an attitudinal bias that wouldn't be there. If you live and breathe in the oil and gas atmosphere (and board members must live there), you can't help but be influenced by that.

"Now [the board] has a difficulty separating the industry's best interests from the public's best interests. Their stated objective is to ask what is in the public interest? But now they want to facilitate the transportation infrastructure. They are making judgments now more in favour of big oil companies."

Why would the board surrender its objectivity at this time, as you claim?

"I think amendments to the board's legislation that the Harper government brought in have played a role. The amendments limit participation and shorten time period for hearings. There is now pressure to get the whole process over as quickly as possible. These constraints force them to make judgments, such as they've done with Kinder Morgan, saying, 'There are no more issues'; 'Here is the schedule, and there will be no oral cross examination here.' That put them on a slippery slope.

"Even though there was dissatisfaction with the [Northern Gateway review] process, the board was more open. There was a three-month period to put forward issues and there was oral cross-examination. They considered the views of people participating in the process. The Kinder Morgan process has been bullying in nature since day one."

What sort of questions has Kinder Morgan refused to answer, and why would the board allow that?

"I wish I had an easy answer to that question. My background relates to energy and economics. Kinder Morgan refused to answer my economic questions, or they answered them flippantly. Even when the board was requested to compel Kinder Morgan to answer the questions, the board refused and sided with Kinder Morgan.* Questions about the environment, marine risk, energy economics and pricing have not been answered. Questions from the provincial government have not been answered. I wish I could give you an answer why the board would allow this. If most of the questions from the province are being rejected, what does that say about the process?"

The impact of bitumen pipeline projects on oilsands expansion or the nation's climate change commitments has been excluded from public discussion by the board, too. Why?

"The board publicly declares that those decisions are already being made by Alberta. The board doesn't have any regulatory response for marine operations, yet it is part of their overview. The board should have included those issues. You can't include the economic benefits, and then ignore the costs. The board made that decision, and they made the wrong one, and the public knows that. How can you make a judgment in the public interest by excluding the project's impact on greenhouse gas emissions? It has to be considered for evaluation."

Former National Energy Board members have consulted for Enbridge, or worked for industry lobby groups. What does this say about the board?

"There are limited legal requirements which restrict people who work for regulators. There is a time limit. But whenever you see people who act as the face of the regulator or when you see the staff change over to work for industry, this only suggests the regulator is not an effective watchdog, but more of a facilitator. Admittedly, these people know the industry, but it raises a lot of questions about this interplay between government and industry. We are eroding the appearance of independence with this kind of interchange."

You have questioned the claimed economic benefit of the Kinder Morgan project. Why is the business case questionable?

"There are a number of factors. The number one thing was they put forward a case that there would be significant oil price uplifts over the next 20 years. I questioned the accuracy of the whole forecast. But more specifically, the company presented the opposite argument at their hearing on tolling over the prices the shippers pay for their oil to go through the pipeline. Normally, the tolling application goes along with the need application, but with Kinder Morgan, the board separated the two.

"In the tolling application, the same economic experts made arguments that contradicted the company's economic forecasts during the needs application. Moreover, they refused to put forward their data. Why isn't the board asking questions about energy economics? They don't seem to be interested. A very unusual thing is taking place in this hearing. No economic questions have been advanced by the federal government or the provincial government. Isn't that in the public interest?"

What should Canadians do?

"I can't speak for the country. But I think when it comes to this project, the province of B.C. needs to exercise its authority. It has the ability to do its own independent environmental assessment. The province has to uphold the public interest now on behalf of B.C., and that's what citizens should encourage their MLAs to do."

This interview has been condensed and edited

*Story corrected Nov. 4 at 8 p.m.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...out-the-energy-east-pipeline/article21518545/

BARLOW AND ABBOTT
Three myths about the Energy East pipeline
MAUDE BARLOW AND MATT ABBOTT
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 10 2014, 7:41 AM EST
Last updated Monday, Nov. 10 2014, 7:43 AM EST

Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and Matt Abbott, Fundy Baykeeper.

We just completed a two-week tour in Atlantic Canada along the proposed Energy East pipeline route. Along the tour we met not just the usual suspects – environmental activists – but ranchers, fishers, baykeepers and ordinary folk who could see their livelihoods threatened by the pipeline. A wall of opposition to Energy East is growing.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

KONRAD YAKABUSKI Quebeckers aren’t being shown the pipeline big picture
FRANK MCKENNA Energy East is truly in the national interest
Energy East pipeline starts its long uphill climb
TransCanada, which filed its Energy East project last week with the National Energy Board, will face many challenges in obtaining the social licence to operate a 1.1 million barrel per day pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick, effectively the largest oil pipeline in North America.

Here are the three common myths about Energy East:

Myth #1: Energy East would displace Eastern Canadian dependence on “foreign crude” imports.

TransCanada continues to claim Eastern Canadian refineries import 86 per cent of their daily needs from overseas sources like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Algeria. This is used to help justify the pipeline, which would purportedly replace these expensive imports with Western Canadian crude.

According to a new data on oil imports, no more than 14 per cent of the refineries imports come from these four countries. More than 50 per cent of the imports are, in fact, from the U.S.

In addition, Energy East is first and foremost another tar sands export pipeline. The three refineries along the route don’t even have the necessary equipment to refine the heavy diluted bitumen from the tar sands.

As the Alberta Federation of Labour concludes in a recent press statement, Energy East is another in a long line of projects aimed at perpetuating the “rip it and ship it” approach that has characterized the Canadian resource sector. Up to one million of the 1.1 million barrels per day is likely destined for export, unrefined from two new export terminals: one in Cacouna, Que., and the other in Saint John, N.B.

Myth #2: Energy East would generate good long-term jobs

The vast majority of jobs promised would be short-term, in construction and secondary industries.

The Cornell Labour Institute found not only would TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. create fewer jobs than promised, but could actually kill more jobs than it creates.

A spill from Energy East could also be a job killer. The pipeline crosses more than 900 waterways, used for drinking water, fishing, recreation, and sustaining farmland.

In Hampton, N.B., the pipeline dissects the properties of organic farmers. One farm employs 100 people in mostly year-round, living wage jobs, and feeds the community with healthy local food.

The Bay of Fundy sustains 2,500 direct jobs in fishing on the New Brunswick side alone. A spill in the Bay’s fast moving waters would easily spread to Nova Scotian shores, also home to a thriving fishing industry. And this doesn’t consider the jobs associated with tourism.

Given the sheer volume of the pipe, up to 1 million litres of crude could spill in just 10 minutes. Diluted bitumen from the tar sands is unlike conventional oil. It sunk when spilled in the Kalamazoo River, costing Enbridge more than $1-billion to clean up, yet submerged oil still remains on the river bed.

An approval of the pipeline would also mean expansion of the tar sands, so more Atlantic Canadians travelling to Alberta for work.

Myth #3: Energy East would slow dangerous oil by rail traffic

The tragic Lac-Mégantic disaster that killed 47 people was a stark wake-up call. This was quickly followed by more train derailments including last January in Plaster Rock, N.B.

There are very serious risks with transporting oil by rail, which has seen an unprecedented rise in recent years. Canada’s regulations lag woefully behind.

Building the Energy East pipeline would not stop dangerous oil shipments from travelling through communities by rail. It would only add to the risks and allow an up to 40 per cent increase in tar sands production, generating more climate pollution than any single Atlantic province.

The dramatic rise in oil by rail is primarily to export Bakken fracked oil, which is what exploded in Lac-Mégantic. Most production is from North Dakota, but the Bakken shale extends into Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Transporting Bakken fracked oil by rail is likely to remain attractive to industry whether or not Energy East proceeds. The quick production and decline peak of fracked oil makes the distributed, flexible and faster transport by rail desirable.

The booms happening in the tar sands and U.S. fracked oil mean the North American oil industry would need every single pipeline and oil by rail project currently planned in order to meet its production targets.

In other words, if Energy East is built, Canadians are likely to face the risks from both the pipeline and the continued use of oil by rail tankers.

But pipeline versus rail is the wrong question.

More to the point, it’s past time for our governments to strongly commit to seeing through a just transition off of fossil fuels.

There are already examples of communities and countries making great strides in reducing fossil fuel dependency. Investing in public transit, energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors generates far more jobs than pipeline and fossil fuel development.

This type of job creation looks like the 1,200 permanent, full-time jobs created by Efficiency Nova Scotia over four years, rather than TransCanada’s own number of 1,087 permanent full-time jobs over 40 years across the country for Energy East.

This is where our future actually lies, not in picking our poison – or in the case of Energy East, shouldering the risk and enabling someone else’s poison.

 

[GLG]

Interesting project. Tide / Current power to supply Dent Island & Sonora Resort with clean renewable energy. Beats the heck out of diesel generators.
http://wwturbine.com/

 

[GLG]

[IVP7vldkcVY] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVP7vldkcVY

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/11/E...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=111114

Judge Rules Landowner May Sue Gov't in Landmark Fracking Case
Decision 'reaffirms the power of the people,' says plaintiff Jessica Ernst.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
ErnstRosebudProperty_600px.jpg
Jessica Ernst stands in front of Encana compressors in Rosebud, Alberta. Photo by Tor Lundberg Tuorda.

Related
Alberta Landowner Takes Fight with Energy Regulator Back to Court
Jessica Ernst's appeal of previous ruling in fracking case starts Thursday.
Alberta Moves to Strike Down Ernst's Fracking Lawsuit
Landmark case could spark a flood of litigation against the province, lawyer argues.
Fracking Fighter Jessica Ernst Appeals Court Ruling
Oil patch consultant challenges decision granting Alberta Energy Regulator immunity from damage claims.
A landmark lawsuit that challenges the lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Canada has just scored a major victory.

In a lengthy decision, Alberta Chief Justice Neil Wittmann dismissed all key arguments made by the government of Alberta against the lawsuit of Jessica Ernst, including the fear that it may unleash a flood of lawsuits against a government that is heavily dependent on hydrocarbon revenue.

The Alberta government argued that Ernst's $33-million lawsuit had no merit; that the government owed no duty of care to landowners with contaminated water; and that the government had statutory immunity.

IN OTHER FRACKING NEWS...
In related fracking news, 59 per cent of the electorate voted to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Texas town of Denton last week due to concerns about property devaluation, toxic air pollution and industrial noise and traffic.

The town sits in the Barnett Shale where Mitchell Energy pioneered the use of horizontal drilling and slickwater fracks to exploit deep shale deposits.

The vote prompted an immediate legal backlash from the oil and gas industry. Both the Texas General Land Office and the Texas Oil & Gas Association have filed lawsuits against the town in Texas courts. The lawsuits contend that state law overrides local law.

Meanwhile, fracking of shale formations in Pennsylvania over the last decade has resulted in more than 200 cases of documented water contamination, while the fracking of coal seams in Colorado's San Juan basin has resulted in exploding homes, massive methane seeps and scores of contaminated wells. -- Andrew Nikiforuk

But Wittmann's ruling disagreed on all major counts and ordered the lawsuit against the government to proceed.

"While this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care," Wittmann wrote.

Seven years ago, oil patch consultant and landowner Ernst sued Alberta Environment, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (or ERCB, now known as Alberta Energy Regulator) and Encana, one of Canada's largest unconventional gas drillers, over the contamination of her well water in Rosebud, Alberta and the failure of government authorities to properly investigate the contamination.



The lawsuit alleges that Encana was negligent in the fracking of shallow coal seams near her property, and that the regulator breached Ernst's freedoms by banishing all contact with the landowner on the grounds that Ernst was a terrorist.

Hydraulic fracturing, a brute technology, uses massive amounts of horsepower, water, sand, gases or chemicals to crack open both shallow and deep rock formations often as tight as granite.

In particular, the Ernst lawsuit alleges that Alberta Environment's investigation into the contamination of her well was botched. A legal brief filed by her lawyers details a list of alleged incompetencies.

The Alberta government made an application to strike the entire claim after Wittmann ruled last fall that the lawsuit against Encana and Alberta Environment could proceed, but that the energy regulator was exempt from civil action due to its immunity clause.

But Wittmann's most recent decision firmly denies that application.

In addition, Wittmann argued that legislation governing Alberta Environment's regulatory responsibilities are not the same as the rules for the provincial energy regulator, which successfully claimed immunity.

The laws guiding Alberta Environment only protect individuals but not the government as a whole, and only cover actions made in good faith, Wittmann said.

Ernst's case "alleges bad faith, and the statues only provide protection for actions taken in good faith," Wittmann added in his ruling.

'A very large victory': lawyer

Ernst, something of a folk hero in communities battling fracking from Ireland to Texas -- her website often gets more than 400 hits a day -- called the ruling significant.

"This judgement reaffirms the power of the people. It's a very positive development," said the 57-year-old consultant.

Murray Klippenstein, one of Ernst's legal team and a high-profile Toronto lawyer who spearheaded the 12-year-long Ipperwash lawsuit in Ontario, said the ruling "clarifies the issue of where the government can be sued, which has had legal professors talking for a long time."

The fact that the Alberta government has now failed in three separate applications to stall the lawsuit is also important, he said.

"These kind of tactics and obstacles are used by government and corporations to grind down ordinary people to nothing," said Klippenstein. "Jessica Ernst has not only survived but sailed through. It is invigorating. It is a very large victory in many ways."

Cory Wanless, an Alberta-born member of Ernst's legal team, said it will be interesting to see how the government reacts to the ruling and if it appeals.

"They [the government] wanted immunity and exclusion from private duty of care. But Wittmann says that's not the state of the law."

Ernst, who vows not to settle out of court, has just filed more than 2,000 documents to support allegations made in her lawsuit against Encana, one of the nation's most powerful energy companies.

Encana says on its website that it "has always firmly believed that Ms. Ernst's claims are not supported by the facts and her lawsuit is without merit."

The company has until Dec. 19 to file its documents for the case.

Wittmann's recent judgement follows what Ernst describes as "two heartfelt failures in the courts."

They include Wittmann's decision to exclude the ERCB (the energy regulator) from the case in 2013 on the basis of statutory immunity, and a Court of Appeal ruling last year upholding that decision.

Ernst's lawyers are appealing the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada this week. It is a long and lengthy process, and only a small percentage of applications are ever heard.

According to Canada's top groundwater expert, John Cherry, no oil and gas jurisdiction in the country has set up a proper monitoring program to protect groundwater from contamination by methane or from toxic fracking fluids.