Debate has been about how best to export raw, virtually unprocessed bitumen — as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the eastern half of Canada depends on imports of foreign oil from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and Norway. As Gordon Laxer of the Parkland Institute tried to point out to a Parliamentary committee (before the Conservative chair ordered him to stop talking and stormed out of the room), Canada has no energy security.

I feel some responsibility for this shift in debate, as I was the first political leader to point out that there was something wrong with the picture.

RELATED: Sign the petition for an oil-free coast.

Unlike the US, we have no Strategic Petroleum Reserves. If there was a blockade of foreign oil or an economic embargo, those in Eastern Canada would have to wait for tankers to bring them bitumen for processing through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard. As bizarre as that sounds, it was the solution offered by a Suncor executive when asked in committee about the vulnerability of eastern Canada to embargos.

Oppositional Canada

The irony is that the dividing line of foreign oil to the east and Alberta oil for the west was the result of deliberate government policy—aimed at helping the Alberta oil and gas sector. Back in 1961, the National Oil Policy decreed that eastern Canadians (east of the Ottawa River) would only receive imported oil while those in the West had to purchase Alberta product. By deliberate policy, Eastern Canadians became dependent on foreign oil, while Alberta oil was consumed by those in western provinces and exported to the US. Now it is time to think like a country.

The Solution: Shipping East?

However, the current proposal also makes no sense. Former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna has proposed shipping unprocessed bitumen to St John, New Brunswick, to put it in tankers to export it from there. Others are proposing refining it in New Brunswick.

The first decision point is Enbridge’s application to reverse its Number 9 pipeline. This pipeline was built in the 1970s and had originally flowed west to east. It was reversed in the 1990s as the markets favoured cheaper foreign oil.

Now, Enbridge is applying to reverse it once again, running a different product, dilbit, from west to east. The request to the National Energy Board is being considered in two stand-alone applications; Line 9A (Sarnia to North Westover) and Line 9B to Montreal.

From there the bitumen would likely go south through New England. When I was in Washington DC, I heard from quite a few Congressmen and Senators that they do not want those pipelines over their territory.

Bitumen

The nature of bitumen and diluents in pipelines is a critical issue in why the Green Party oppose pipelines of unprocessed product to either coastline. So, before talking about the direction of pipelines, we need to talk about the product.

Even after the extensive and intensive process of extracting the viscous material known as bitumen from the soil in which it is found (generally about 10% by volume), it is still not processed to even the level of crude oil. Crude oil can flow. Bitumen cannot. It has the consistency of peanut butter, so needs to be mixed with something else to flow. That something else is called ‘diluent’—a mix of undisclosed chemicals. The most commonly used diluent is a natural gas condensate, similar to Naptha. The public does not know the make-up of any particular diluent. Some have more benzene than others—benzene is a well-documented carcinogen.

The resulting so-called dilbit product is about 30% diluents and 70% bitumen. We do know a lot more about dilbit than we used to. And we did a lot of that learning through the 2010 Enbridge dilbit spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. We know it both floats and sinks; that it is far harder and far more expensive to clean-up than unprocessed conventional crude. The Kalamazoo spill is still not cleaned up.

Meanwhile a debate rages about whether dilbit is more likely to cause pipeline failure. Cornell University found that between 2007 and 2010 pipelines carrying dilbit had a spill-rate three times higher than pipelines carrying conventional crude. Oil sands products have a higher sulfur and a higher acidic content than conventional crude and those properties could explain its increased corrosive nature.

This finding led to the Department of Natural Resources to commissioning a study by a group called Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (ATIF). That study compared dilbit and conventional crudes and concluded the types of corrosive compounds between the two products were comparable. So we have labwork versus the real life rate of spills in US pipelines. At the moment, despite what Harper’s Cabinet ministers claim, the science on the corrosive nature of dilbit is not settled.

Meanwhile, if local residents along the Number 9 pipeline wish to speak before the NEB hearings, or even submit a letter, they are required to fill out a 10-page form, and are also encouraged to submit references and a resume! This is an NEB effort to meet the new requirements imposed by the horrific overhaul of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that took place last year in the Omnibus Budget Bill (C-38).

Unlike the previous CEAA, which was premised on a fundamental commitment to rights of public participation, the Harperized CEAA restricts access to only those ‘directly affected’. The NEB has made this restriction even worse by demanding that any citizens who want to make comments, fill out the forms and apply within a two-week period—which will close before this article will be in print.

Refineries In Alberta

So, what should be done? The best environmental, economic and climate outcome would be to slow down the boom-and-bust cycle of constant expansion in the oil sands. What the late Peter Lougheed used to describe as the ‘traffic jam’ of feverish expansion in the oilsands prevents the construction of ancillary infrastructure, like upgraders and refineries.

The hyper-inflationary bubble that sits on northern Alberta is what makes it cheaper for Big Oil to build a $7 billion pipeline to Texas, rather than build facilities in Alberta. Any reasonable carbon plan would set a level of managed growth for oil sands production—say 2 million barrels of oil a day (more than the current 1.7 million barrels, but less than Harper’s goal of 6 million barrels of oil a day). That level of production could cool down the capital and labour markets enough to build upgraders and refineries near the resource. Then, we could be talking about shipping—by pipeline, truck or train—a finished product whose properties are better understood. Shipping a product with a far lower risk of environmental impact in the event of spills.

If we are thinking like a country, we should get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada, but we should not ship bitumen + diluents.

The post Pipelines to the east? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Now that the Senate of Canada, the corporate lobby in the Council of Chief Executives, and the premiers are all willing to talk about the need for a national strategic energy vision, perhaps there is some hope that we can, at long last, have a plan. For years, Canada has been the only country in the OECD with no energy strategy. That failing has meant that, de facto, our energy strategy was whatever the oil patch wantedor more precisely what foreign owned energy multinationals decreed.

No wonder we still import foreign oil at world prices to half the country while shipping out Canadian oil at lower prices to the U.S. market. No wonder we have no climate plan, subsidize oil and gas, and have no carbon pricing (other than due to provincial action in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec).

Nationally, despite the Prime Minister’s crowing about Canada being an “energy superpower,” we are establishing ourselves as a compliant resource colony for the United States and China.

Now that we are talking about having a national energy plan, what are those core principles that could form the beginning of a national consensus?

Let’s start with energy sovereignty. We should ensure that we control our own resources. Foreign state-owned corporate control over Canadian energy resources should be scrupulously vetted for national security and sovereignty risk. Such scrutiny is particularly important when the state-owned enterprises are attached to undemocratic regimes. China’s brand of Capitalistic Communism, with human rights repression and downward pressure on environmental regulations, requires particular review.

When we look at our energy future, a key goal should be to structure planning around demand-side management. We need to develop our energy planning with the goal of doing more with less. Canada’s built infrastructure, whether residential, business or institutional, is woefully wasteful and in need of retrofits. We are literally heating and cooling the outdoors. And energy policy should be about more than drilling and scraping out new supply. We need a strategy for wise use of resources.

Next, can we all agree that energy security makes sense? Should we not ensure that Canada has adequate energy resources for our own use before shipping exports overseas? The dependency of Eastern Canada on oil imports from Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan makes no sense. Nova Scotia imports coal from Venezuela for its dirty electrical grid. To build energy self-sufficiency, we need to diversify and build capacity in renewable energy for the long-term.

Another principle that would take us out of the resource colony trap will be to ensure that we build “value-added” into our energy exports. Canadian crude should be processed and refined in Canada, at least in sufficient amounts for domestic markets, but for export as well. We have been allowing promising energy developments in renewable energy to be commercialized in other countries. We have export opportunities in value added in petroleum products and also in renewable energy that we are abandoning.

Another key element for a viable energy future is found in diversifying our energy portfolio. Canada has huge potential in renewable energy – wind, solar (both passive and photovoltaic), geothermal, district energy, small scale hydro, tidal and, where sustainable, biomass. So far, our energy conversation seems limited to fossil fuels.

A national energy plan must be designed to meet climate objectives. Any viable energy strategy must start by eliminating all subsidies to fossil fuels and placing a price on carbon. An energy strategy must set out a reasonable plan for capping and reducing greenhouse gases throughout the Canadian economy.

All of this is possible. The largest missing ingredient at the moment is federal leadership. Thus far, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has displayed no enthusiasm for any energy plan other than more than tripling oil sands production to six million barrels of oil a day. While B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford clash over Enbridge’s proposed risky pipeline and supertanker scheme to Kitimat, Harper is firmly on the side of one governmentthe one in Beijing.

If we are to have a national energy strategy, it has to start with an effort to build consensus. Ideally, it will provide a vision that advances the needs and aspirations of all parts of Canada. An energy plan should have at its core that it meets the needs of all of Canada while building our common wealth. That might just get everyone around the table.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post National energy strategy possible, federal leadership missing appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On paper this looks like we should have energy security, but the oil is not distributed evenly.  Oil from Hibernia on the East Coast is exported, as is Athabasca bitumen crude.  Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces rely on oil from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia.  In fact, 100% of the oil used in Quebec and the four Atlantic Provinces is imported.

In hearings before the House Natural Resources Committee, I heard executives from the oil industry say that if there was a disruption of supply to get oil to Eastern Canada, they could send tankers down through the Panama Canal to get to Eastern Canada. The U.S. also has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure security of supply.  Does anyone find it odd that Canada does not?  I think we should have a plan to ensure energy security for Canada.  To do so, we would need to reverse some existing pipeline flows and invest in upgrading some of the existing pipeline infrastructure.

The post Is Canada an Energy Superpower? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The irony is that if Canada continues to ship out bitumen crude as fast as humanly possible, it is Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that must continue to depend on imports from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan. Fifty-five per cent of the oil used in Canada is imported. Meanwhile, bitumen crude is shipped to other countries for processing.

Every barrel of crude shipped out of Canada ships out jobs with it. The distortions from the Conservatives on the question of oilsands expansion, raw product export and risky tanker traffic keep trying to limit discussion to environment versus economy. The truth is that it is not in Canada’s interests — in terms of energy security, the environment or the economy — to follow the Harper agenda.

Elizabeth May
MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands
Leader, Green Party of Canada

View the full original article >>

The post Harper agenda not good for country appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Yesterday, US President Obama denied the construction permit for the 1,700-mile Keystone pipeline, which was heavily opposed due to potential risks of contamination along its route. “We now have an opportunity to rethink our ad hoc energy policy.  Lacking any explicit policy, the implicit policy appears to be to expand the tar sands as fast as possible while shipping out unprocessed bitumen crude for value added-elsewhere,” said May.

“While the Harper government tries to portray the issue of pipelines as the environment versus the economy, the reality is that these pipelines do not make economic sense.  There is more potential for jobs if we keep and refine the existing bitumen in Canada.  It is critical to freeze any new growth of the oil sands allowing value-added processing.  The reason oil companies don’t build refineries near the tar sands now has been described by former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed as due to ‘the traffic jam.’ Due to the hyper-inflationary situation created by unconstrained growth in the Athabasca region, labour and capital are in short supply and very expensive for other installations.” said May. “We need to begin the shift away from fossil fuels. Slowing the tar sands, shutting down coal-generated electricity, and diversifying our energy resources by expanding geo-thermal, solar, wind, tidal and small scale hydro, as well as investing in intensive energy efficiency improvements will create more jobs across Canada than the pipeline proposals, while giving us greater energy security and reduced greenhouse gases.” 

The Green Party is advocating increased environmental responsibility of oil sands developers and placing a moratorium on further oil sands development (i.e. increases in annual production).  Slowing the over-heated economy will allow refineries to be built in Alberta.  The major energy union operating in the Athabasca region, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, has estimated that the Keystone Pipeline represents the export of more than 40,000 Canadian jobs. “Canadian jobs in upgrading and refining will literally go down the pipe to the U.S. with the 900,000 barrels of unrefined bitumen,” said Dave Coles, CEP President. “Meanwhile, Canadian refineries are closing.”

The proposed Keystone Pipeline would have run to the US Gulf Coast to refineries there.  “We have a chance here to focus on building a secure energy economy.  Fifty-five per cent of the oil used in Canada comes from Venezuela, Nigeria and other OPEC nations. From parts of Ontario east, Canadians have no access to the oil our Prime Minister is so keen to pump south to create jobs in Texas.  What’s wrong with this picture?” asked Elizabeth May.

The post Keystone cancellation a boon for Canada appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On December 22, in The Guardian ran free-lancer Mark Lynas’ assessment: ‘How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room’ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/marklynas. But even being ‘in the room’ in the bizarre, last minute, non-UN process to force a deal doesn’t give the full picture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

One starts with the host government. Much was at stake, but Denmark’s diplomatic efforts contributed to failure. The poisoning of the negotiating climate began on Day 2 with the leaked draft Danish text—a rich countries’ agreement to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Further problems were the bizarre logistics and security mess. It was egregious enough to accredit 40,000 participants for a space that accommodated 15,000 (and the UN Climate secretariat must answer for much of this mess), but when security barred members of country delegations from the building, the negotiating climate worsened. China’s head of delegation was reported to have been denied access for the first few days. At times, Brazil’s senior negotiator was unable to get in the room.

As soon as the High Level segment began and Prime Minister Rasmussen took over chairing duties from Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard, things went from bad to worse. The negotiators had worked all night agreeing to a new text on the Kyoto Protocol. As Minister Hedegaard left the chair, she noted a new text would be circulated soon from the Presidency. The question hanging in the room was ‘where is the text we negotiated all night?’ As she retreated, Prime Minister Rasmussen refused to allow the question to be answered, so keen was he on keeping the set speeches to take centre stage and run on time. In this brief public display the extent of the hostilities was clear. The head of the Chinese delegation spoke of the issue being a ‘matter of trust with the host country.’ Brazil and India agreed, the head of the Indian delegation still being quite flustered by the problems he encountered getting through security. South Africa and the Sudan, speaking for the group of 130 developing countries, also spoke of a lack of transparency in denying the primacy of the negotiated text in favour of some new text from the chair. Prime Minister Rasmussen ploughed ahead, ignoring the flag of Venezuela, cutting off none other than Hugo Chavez who had already joined his negotiators in the room.

The diplomatic gaffes continued the next night as leaders from around the world were invited to attend dinner with the Queen of Denmark. In an effort to get key leaders in the room for an informal chat, Prime Minister Rasmussen invited what he considered were the most important countries. Rumour has it he forgot to invite China. So, I do not doubt that what Mark Lynas saw looked like China wrecking a deal, but the wrecking started with a bizarre number of affronts to China before the world leaders arrived.

Blame also goes to Canada. In spring 2006 when Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was President of the COP, post Montreal’s hosting of COP11, Canada made itself the ‘bad boy’ of climate talks. With Canada actually chairing the negotiations, Ambrose announced Canada was not going to even attempt to reach our Kyoto target. Ever since, Canada has expanded the space for bad behaviour. Countries could be very uncooperative and counter-productive and still not be as bad as Canada. At the same time, in negotiation after negotiation, we laid down our square brackets (in international negotiations, applying square brackets to a draft text indicates disagreement with a phrase or section), blocking consensus on multiple issues. The reason Canada kept winning the Fossil of the Day award in negotiations, at COP 12, 13, 14 and 15, was that we were actively obstructing progress. And we continued being counter-productive right through the COP15 talks, winning, once again, the Colossal Fossil of the Year award.

On top of that, the US let everyone down. If there had been any hope, it was that President Obama would bring some flexibility to negotiations. Instead, he delivered a speech that had elements of Gary Cooper in ‘High Noon.’ It led to a forced, back-room effort to achieve something that could be used to appease a domestic US audience. So too was the United Nations hijacked to the US Senate and Obama’s desire to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. What now? Thanks to the round of all-night negotiations after the leaders had climbed on their jets for home, the so- called Copenhagen Accord was not the decision of COP15. Through the UN fudge of saying COP15 ‘took note’ of the five country deal, the commitments by China to allow verification of its reductions, and the financial commitments of wealthy countries, have been preserved as somehow meaningful. At the same time, the COP15 process did not allow the back-room accord to kill the Kyoto Protocol.

Copenhagen was a disaster, but it was not an unmitigated one. The negotiations continue. Civil society has found its champions, in the small low-lying island states, in African nations that argued that 2 degrees was too much in global temperature rise. We have a hellish hard task ahead to achieve the real carbon cuts that are urgently needed. Copenhagen was supposed to be the end of the road. Instead, it was a nasty pot hole.

This report was previously published in Embassy Magazine, who have kindly granted permission for its inclusion in Island Tides.

Elizabeth May, OC, is the author of Losing Confidence—Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy (McClelland and Stewart, 2009) and is the federal leader of the Green Party of Canada. ShelivesinSidney,BC.

The post Copenhagen Reflections: was anything accomplished? appeared first on Elizabeth May.