From CBC.ca - Feb 21, 2011

Owners of B.C.'s controversial Prosperity mine have launched a second attempt to get the $1-billion project approved.

The gold and copper mine near Williams Lake was opposed by First Nations and ultimately failed an environmental assessment, released in July 2010 by the federal environment ministry.

The B.C. environment ministry had already aproved the project

On Monday, Taseko Mines Ltd., of Vancouver, submitted a revised plan for the mine that addressed the major concern of both natives and officials — the proposed destruction of Fish Lake.

The original proposal called for the lake to be drained and turned into a dump for toxic tailings from the mine, poisoning much of the watershed in which it lies.

That would wipe out 90,000 rainbow trout, according to the Tsilhqot'in and Secwepemc First Nations.

The company said there was no alternative.

Metal prices up sharply

Taseko's new proposal now would preserve Fish Lake and all its aquatic life, the company said.

What's changed is the price of gold and copper, making it possible to pay for a more expensive solution to the waste problem, said CEO Russell Hallbauer.

"Price projections for copper average about $2.50 [per pound] and for gold above $1,000 [per ounce], nearly two times the prices we used in our original assessment," Hallbauer said. "We are now able to consider and advance this new design proposal which adds construction costs and life of mine operating expenditures of approximately $300 million."

The company said in a release Monday that the proposal greatly reduces environmental impacts [and] preserves Fish Lake and its aquatics.

There is no timeline for environmental approval, but Taseko said it hoped the environmental assessment would only have to review the aspects of the proposal that have changed.

Read original article

From the Globe & Mail - Feb 21, 2011

by Ian Bailey

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government would reject high-level lobbying to revive the Prosperity Mine project.

Christy Clark, seeking the leadership of the B.C. Liberals, had promised to press Ottawa to change its decision on the $800-million mine if she became premier, but Mr. Harper told reporters on Monday that he was not interested in “political bargaining” over the fate of the project.

Mr. Harper was not referring specifically to Ms. Clark’s pledge, but rather to a question about a possible bid by B.C.’s next government to save the project. A new premier will be elected Feb. 26 by B.C. Liberals.

“The government has rendered a decision. That decision is final. That’s a legal decision,” Mr. Harper said during a news conference.

“We acted on a comprehensive federal environmental assessment that was absolutely categorical and we have invited the proponent to redesign the project if the proponent is interested in proceeding in a way that would respect the myriad and serious environmental concerns that were raised by that assessment,” Mr. Harper said.

“These kinds of decisions are made on the basis of facts – not just economic facts, but also environmental facts in this case, and proponents will have to address that. This is not a matter of political bargaining.”

Mr. Harper’s comments came as Taseko Mines Limited, leading the project, said Monday it had submitted a new proposal for the copper and gold mine.

The company said in a statement it can now save Fish Lake, near the community of Williams Lake, which was a point of concern in their previous submission. Such an effort would add $300-million to the planned $800-million project.

The company said it has been assured by the federal government that it wants to see resource projects developed, and is only opposed to the way Prosperity was originally proposed.

A provincial assessment of Prosperity supported the original project but acknowledged the controversial planned destruction of Fish Lake to store toxic waste from the mine.

B.C. was looking forward to the predicted $5-billion economic injection over the 20-year life of the mine and $600-million of revenue for various governments, in a region of the province devastated by the mountain pine beetle. The destruction of Fish Lake was vehemently opposed by local natives, who hold it to be a sacred site.

However, the project was eventually rejected by the federal government after a negative environmental assessment.

A spokesman for Ms. Clark said Monday that the former deputy premier was only ever interested in supporting the company’s efforts to make the process work.

Read full article

From The Vancouver Sun - Feb 17, 2011

by Derrick Penner

Enbridge Inc.'s proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline hit renewed waves of opposition this week.

Another group of first nations communities has publicly vowed to reject the financial benefits package Enbridge devised to encourage their participation in the project and the introduction of another privatemembers is making its way through Parliament seeking to ban oil tanker traffic off British Columbia's north coast.

On Tuesday night, a group of communities under the name Yinka Dene Alliance told Enbridge officials at a community meeting in Prince George that they "categorically reject" a financial benefits package offered by the company over their environmental concerns about the project.

"There is no amount of money that would get us involved," Geraldine Thomas-Flurer, coordinator of the alliance, which represents five firstnation communities along the pipeline's route in the central interior of B.C.

"They came to our community in 2005, and in 2005 we told them no, we didn't like what their project stood for," Thomas Flurer said in an interview, and they still oppose the pipeline, which is being designed to carry 500,000 barrels per day of Alberta oilsands bitumen to Kitimat on B.C.'s coast.

The first nations community view the risks of an oil spill resulting from the project as too high to be outweighed by the benefits package.

Last week Enbridge publicly unveiled a benefits package that included preferential financing for aboriginal communities along the proposed pipeline's route to buy up to a 10-per-cent equity stake in the project, which could earn them $280 million over the first 30 years of the projects life.

Enbridge also vowed that it would hire aboriginals to fill at least 15 per cent of project's construction jobs and work with communities on strategies for procurement of goods and services from aboriginal businesses.

In an interview last week, Enbridge Northern Gateway president John Carruthers said the company made the offer because it wants first nations to be "long-term partners" in the project.

However, the Yinka Dene group is now following the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council in voicing its rejection of the benefits package.

And in Ottawa Wednesday, Vancouver Quadra MP Joyce Murray said that her private members' bill seeking a ban on oil-tanker traffic off B.C.'s coast will proceed to debate in the House of Commons next month.

From the Times-Colonist - Feb 21, 2011

By Calvin Sandborn

The letter from the CEO of the Raven coal project raises the central issue about the proposed Raven mine: Will this be the first of a number of mines in the vast coal reserve that stretches from Fanny Bay to near Campbell River?

Skyrocketing world coal prices are accelerating B.C. coal development. Could the mid-Island turn into a miniAppalachia?

The letter states "Compliance Coal Corporation has no plans to develop other properties on Vancouver Island at this time."

The Compliance website states: "Compliance's projects in the Comox Coal Basin are the Raven Underground Coal Project and the Bear Coal Project . the Comox Joint Venture [60 per cent owned by Compliance] is focused on developing the Raven Coal Deposit and the nearby Bear Coal Deposit."

Has Compliance dropped its plans to develop the Bear project? If so, perhaps its website should be updated.

In addition, perhaps the Compliance slide show presented at its 2009 annual general meeting can be explained. It sets a target of $100 million in revenue by the end of 2012, and mentions properties such as Wolf Mountain and Anderson Lake, along with rights to coalbed methane.

Has Compliance's ambitious strategy for next year been abandoned?

If not, the Raven environmental assessment needs to be expanded to consider the cumulative environmental effects that additional coal mines could have. Provincial and federal environment ministers should appoint an independent panel of experts to hold full public hearings on this issue.

No environmental issue is more important to the people of Vancouver Island.

Calvin Sandborn

Legal director Environmental Law Clinic University of Victoria

From the Vancouver Sun, Feb 21 - 2011

Letter by Dr. Craig Orr

Re: Industry disputes fish farm sea lice is harming wild salmon, Letters, Feb. 17

The irony is likely not lost on most Sun readers. Mary-Ellen Walling, spokeswoman for the salmon farming organization running glitzy and expensive ads telling us not to believe everything we hear about farmed salmon-but giving us few facts to judge-now tells us not to worry about the impacts of lice on juvenile sockeye. Because they have scales, juvenile sockeye are resistant to lice, she claims.

She also cites one outlier study by two veterinarians associated with the farming industry as a reason not to take sea lice concerns too seriously.

Smolts with scales, and larger than juvenile sockeye, have been absolutely decimated by farm-source lice in Europe. Dozens of papers document this sad fact. Another paper on B.C. coho published before Christmas suggests lice have serious impacts on larger predatory fish (with scales no less).

And, as we pointed out in our original PLOS One paper, lice are known vectors for transmitting diseases, one of the key concerns being investigated in the Cohen Inquiry into declining Fraser River sockeye. But hey, let's keep the facts to a dull roar-and the fingers pointing elsewhere. Pump up the glitz. Everyone's eyes might just glaze over, and little will change.

Craig Orr Watershed Watch Salmon Society Coquitlam

From TheTyee.ca - Feb 18, 2011

by Christopher Pollon

There's a sucking sound coming from B.C.'s northwest corner, barely audible now, but sure to crescendo as the electrical grid is extended beyond the city of Terrace into a vast copper and gold rich hinterland after 2013.

The source is the Alaska-B.C. intertie -- a scheme planned and feverishly promoted yesterday in Juneau, Alaska -- that would connect the Alaska Panhandle to the North American power grid through northern British Columbia. (See a map here and the sidebar to this story).

Positioned by Canadian and U.S. federal governments as a green infrastructure project to combat climate change, this Alaska-driven plan is paving the way for a new resource haul road through the Iskut River valley to Alaska tidewater.

Activists and at least four northern B.C. mayors have warned that Bradfield Road will one day provide a closer and more economical route to funnel B.C. minerals and timber through U.S. ports, shifting the axis of trade away from Stewart, Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

Nathan Cullen heard all about the Bradfield Road during his first year as the federal MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley in 2004. "Some Alaskans approached me and said, 'Here's the project, and we'll put this road in for free, and we'll ship all your goods as a nice courtesy,'" he says. "If anybody offers you anything for free, especially from Alaska, you should be worried. The idea of cutting off Canadian ports from being involved in the resource sector is not on, and we'll resist it."

But the Northwest Transmission Line (NTL), (see map here) when fully built out, will extend the North American grid to within 35 miles of the Alaska-B.C. border. Once the grid connection to Alaska is established, says Chris Zimmer, a Juneau Alaska-based campaign director for Rivers Without Borders, a resource haul road to Alaska is next.

"The grid intertie is going to need a right-of-way and access roads, so the next step is formalizing that road into a resource haul road," says Zimmer. "The Bradfield Road is an Alaskan road designed to drain future resources out of B.C. at a frantic and unsustainable rate."

Alaska-BC grid connection moving forward

The B.C. right-of-way for the future Alaska grid connection is already being explored. In Nov. 2010, the BC provincial government issued an "investigative use permit" to North Coast Power Corporation to explore about 25,000 hectares of Crown land -- a long narrow strip of land extending from the future B.C. grid terminus to the Alaska border (see map. The expressed purpose of the permit was "investigating the feasibility of a utility line intertie between B.C. and Alaska."

The goal of this intertie, says the Alaska Energy Authority is to "provide the energy needed for economic development in southeast Alaska resulting in jobs for Alaskans and providing reliable, less costly alternatives to diesel generated electricity for Alaskan communities."

Read full article

From The Guardian - Feb 17, 2011

Campaigners have hailed the "people power" which has forced the government to abandon plans to privatise England's public forests.

The news that Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, would announce a halt to the consultation into proposals to sell thousands of hectares of woodland was welcomed by grassroots campaigners and conservation charities.

David Cameron heralded the about-turn at prime minister's questions yesterday, when he stated bluntly that he was unhappy with the policy.

The proposals put out for consultation last month detail measures to dispose of up to 100% of England's 258,000 hectare public forest estate, which is currently managed by the Forestry Commission, over the next 10 years.

They included a £250m sale of leaseholds for commercially valuable forests to timber companies, measures to allow communities, charities and even local authorities to buy or lease woods and plans to transfer well-known "heritage" woods such as the New Forest into the hands of charities.

But the proposals attracted cross-party opposition and sparked a public outcry, with critics arguing they threatened public access and wildlife.

Campaign group 38 Degrees started a Save Our Forests petition which attracted more than 532,000 signatures.

David Babbs, executive director, said: "Some people say signing petitions and emailing MPs never changes anything, but it did this time.

"This is what people power looks like, and over half a million of us are feeling very proud of what we've achieved together today.

"We will keep watching David Cameron to make sure he keeps his word. But right now it looks like fantastic news for all of us who want to keep our forests safe in public hands for future generations."

The Woodland Trust welcomed the U-turn but warned the campaign to protect and restore England's ancient forests must go on.

Sue Holden, chief executive of the trust, said: "While we welcome the removal of threats to public access, there is still an acute need for better protection of ancient woodland, our equivalent of the rainforests, and restoration of ancient woods planted with conifers.

"Ministers have made strong commitments over the past few weeks to increase protection for ancient woods, and we will be holding them to these commitments.

"We must not let public passion and support for our woods and forests die down and now that ownership is no longer an issue, we must not lose sight of the need to increase protection for ancient forests and restore those planted with conifers, a once in a lifetime opportunity for woodland conservation."

Read full article

In February 2010, filmmaker Damien Gillis captured the gravel mining operations on the Fraser River with a team of expert biologists and local conservationists. Now, at the 11th hour, this year's planned mining projects have been unexpectedly cancelled. The rationale given by DFO is logistical complications and low market prices for gravel, only confirming critics' position that this program is not about reducing flood risks - and all about money. Watch this video to see what these huge mining operations really look like - and why the ecologically damaging program should be scrapped altogether. Be sure to check out this new report from common sense contributor Otto Langer on the subject as well.

From the Globe & Mail - Feb 16, 2011

By Nathan Vanderklippe

Canada’s two major railroad companies have begun making regular shipments of oil, in a move that changes how Canadian crude moves to market – and opens the door to new destinations for energy exports, including Asia.

Although pipelines continue to carry the overwhelming majority of Canada’s oil production, both Canadian National Railway Co. (CNR-T70.721.582.29%) and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (CP-T67.470.470.70%) have begun using their rail networks to deliver crude, moving past technological tests into actual commercial service.

The idea of a “pipeline on rails” has been quietly pursued by both CN and CP in recent years. The railways believe their tracks can divert oil to the best possible markets at any given time, freeing energy producers from the constraints of pipelines, which are built to last for decades and as a result cannot quickly be changed to accommodate market shifts.

The idea has gained speed in the past year, as oil prices soaring toward $100 (U.S.) a barrel prompt a spike in crude output, creating new volumes that railroads, which don’t have to wait years to build new capacity, can spike. And the ability to transport oil by rail is now building a competitive threat to Canada’s pipeline companies, which have long been the dominant carriers of crude but are working to expand into markets – such as Asia and the Gulf Coast – that are already well-served by rail lines. Rail could, analysts say, prove a viable alternative to major new projects such as Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5-billion Northern Gateway, which would deliver Alberta crude to the B.C. West Coast.

Though rail deliveries remain modest for now, the ability to deliver crude by track promises to transform the way oil moves inside this continent, and how it reaches untapped customers.

“Our unparalleled market reach and flexibility, we feel, gives shippers, buyers … and refineries new options to explore and new ways to reach different markets,” James Cairns, vice-president of petroleum and chemicals with CN, told an Insight Information conference in Calgary last week.

The company has begun sending oil sands bitumen to California; heavy oil from Cold Lake, Alta., to Chicago and Detroit; and crude from the Bakken, a fast-growing play in southern Saskatchewan, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Though rail does not have the same reach into production fields as pipe – indeed, rail cars are typically loaded and unloaded by truck, which is costly – CN boasts that its tracks lie within 80 kilometres of five million barrels a day of refining capacity, which is more than double Canada’s entire U.S. exports.

For CN, the Bakken trade alone is now filling 250 to 300 rail cars a month; altogether, the company is moving roughly a unit train worth of crude per week. A unit train typically consists of 80 to 150 cars; each car can hold 550 barrels. That means CN is carrying, at most, just over 10,000 barrels per day, far less than the two-million barrels that pipeline company Enbridge Inc. hauls every day.

And both Enbridge and rival TransCanada Corp. are aggressively pursuing those areas that rail is now tapping. TransCanada, for example, recently signed commitments for 65,000 barrels per day of crude shipments out of the U.S. Bakken play. Enbridge is also spending heavily to build into the Bakken, whose lack of pipeline capacity has opened a window for the railroads. If the pipeline companies are successful, the Bakken rail exports could be temporary.

read full article

From the Vancouver Sun - Feb 16, 2011

by John Werring

Re: Alaska's salmon ranching vs. B.C.'s salmon farms, Letters, Feb. 9 Aquaculture industry advocate Vivian Krause and BC Salmon Farmers association executive director Mary Ellen Walling can't seem to agree on whether governments subsidize their industry.

Krause says they do, citing $4.6 million granted by the federal government in 2009-10. Walling adamantly says they don't.

Walling's denial is curious as she is quoted publicly in at least one source (Courier Islander, July 17, 2009) defending federal financial support for her industry.

Krause's claim is equally dubious. It includes money from only one source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. That is just the tip of the funding iceberg.

A recent academic text, (The Aquaculture Controversy in Canada, UBC Press, 2010), refers to "the striking array of direct and indirect subsidies to the aquaculture industry from Canadian governments."

It identifies several sources -like Farm Credit Canada and the Western Economic Diversification Fund -and estimates annual funding for aquaculture from the federal government at around $50 million.

Provincial subsidies also are generous, providing millions of dollars in additional support for upgrades of equipment, production increases and business promotion.

Public support for industrial development can be a good thing, but in the case of aquaculture, it should be spent advancing more sustainable uses of our public resources, like closed containment.

Other assertions by Krause and Walling -about numbers of jobs created, industry regulation and salmon biology -are equally suspect.

John Werring

Aquatic Habitat Specialist, David Suzuki Foundation