tar sand bak

SEE keystone XL

also hvy crude and dil bitumen (ark mayflower spill exxon)

===

10/18 new

At current prices, Canadian tar sands oil producers are losing money on every barrel of oil they dig out. Despite signs earlier this year the industry would “turn profitable in 2018,” a much more likely scenario at this point is a fourth straight year of losses.

Producers are forced to keep cranking out product and selling it at a loss to cover the massive costs required to start one of these sprawling unconventional oil operations, a point made painfully clear when Alberta wildfires in 2016 forced some tar sands operators to shut down.

“I do think they'll start up quickly once the danger from the fire is gone because there is a lot of motivation to do that,” Jackie Forrest, an energy economist for Arc Financial Corp, told The Globe and Mail. “They have a lot of fixed costs so they're going to be motivated to get some revenue to pay for those costs that aren't going away.” Read more.

...

omg

he and brodbent junket? --> 100 tanker tar sand oil? kpfa 818

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/tanker-superhighway/

no lnx maps

Tar Sands Tanker Superhighway Threatens Pacific Coast Waters

Published: 06-26-2018

Download: PDF

Summary Results

The proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) would increase the number of oil tankers carrying tar sands from Vancouver, Canada through the Salish Sea and down the Pacific Coast of the U.S.

This report presents a map and analysis of 176 oil tanker and barge departures from the Westridge Marine Terminal in British Columbia from 2013 to the beginning of 2018.

Over half (94) of those departures then sailed the length of the Pacific Coast to the port of Long Beach, California, with significant numbers heading to destinations in Washington State (36), the San Francisco Bay Area (23), and various locations in Asia and Hawaii (17).

These results indicate that while the physical pipeline may stop at the water’s edge, a diluted bitumen spill remains a risk for coastal communities all along the Pacific Coast — from British Columbia to Washington to Oregon to California.

Studies have estimated a 10%-29% chance of a “worst case” tanker spill (>100,000 barrels) over the next 50 years.

The endangered Southern Resident orca population could be driven toward extinction by the increased ship noise, and risk of oil spills and ship strikes, resulting from TMEP.

Coastal communities that rely on fishing and tourism have suffered billions of dollars in economic damages following previous catastrophic marine oil spills.

The $60 billion coastal economy of Washington, Oregon and California currently supports over 150,000 jobs in commercial fishing and over 525,000 jobs in coastal tourism.

In the British Columbia Lower Mainland, industries that rely on a clean coastline employ more than 320,000 people. Studies have found that a major oil spill in Washington would cost $10.8 billion, and one in Vancouver would cost $1.2 billion (CAD).

Introduction

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline currently transports ~300,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) from Alberta, Canada, to the Pacific Coast. A majority of this oil arrives to refineries in Washington State via the Puget Sound Pipeline, but around 9-27% reaches the Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT) in Burnaby, British Columbia, where it is loaded onto oil tankers and barges for transport to refineries and other locations along the Pacific Coast and across the Pacific to Asia.[1]

The proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) would expand the capacity of this system to 890,000 bpd,[2] and would increase the number of tankers leaving WMT by a factor of almost seven — from 5 per month to as many as 34 per month, or more than 400 a year.[3] Much of the oil transported by TMEP is expected to be diluted bitumen, or dilbit, extracted from Alberta’s tar sands.

While any oil spill into water is harmful and extremely difficult to clean up, the unique properties of dilbit could make clean-up even more difficult than a conventional oil spill.[4] Furthermore, dilbit is one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, with total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions more than 30% higher than standard crude oil.[5] The tar sands are currently hampered by a lack of pipeline capacity and so the proposed construction of TMEP, Keystone XL and the Line 3 expansion pipelines could facilitate further investment in tar sands extraction and lead to greater global carbon emissions.[6]

Numerous reports have warned of the threat to the waters of the Salish Sea in British Columbia and Washington, and the Pacific Coast from increased marine shipments of tar sands oil.[7][8][9] Research has shown that since 2010, the U.S. Oil refinery in Tacoma, WA has received ~20 shipments of tar sands oil per year (>1.5 million barrels per year) via articulated tug barge (ATB)[10] traveling from WMT.[11][12] Other reports have found that much of the tar sands leaving the WMT is shipped by tanker to refineries in California that have capacity to process heavy crude oil.[13]

Greenpeace and Mosquito Fleet activists block a Kinder Morgan barge from entering the company’s Seattle facility by locking themselves to the pier and displaying banners.

A movement to oppose the construction of TMEP has arisen, led by several First Nations who have emphasized their lack of consent for the project, inadequate consultation by the Canadian government, and violations of Indigenous sovereignty.[14] Recently, Trans Mountain pipeline owner Kinder Morgan reached a deal with the Canadian government to sell the existing pipeline for $4.5 billion (CAD) and build the TMEP. This deal allows Kinder Morgan to walk away but potentially leaves Canadian taxpayers on the hook for a troubled and controversial project.[15]

In this briefing, we present a visualization of 176 tar sands tanker (and some ATB) shipments leaving WMT from 2013 to 2018, showing the paths taken by those tankers down the Pacific Coast to refineries in the San Francisco and Long Beach areas.

Oil Tanker Traffic

The goal of this report is to illustrate which areas are at risk from increased tanker traffic and which destinations have received oil shipments originating from WMT. Using ship location data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), we were able to identify 176 departures from WMT from January 2013 to February 2018.[16] In Figure 1, we map the tracks taken by those 176 departures from WMT to their next destination.[17]

...

2016

https://ecology.iww.org/node/1679

crude awak

will parrish

In recent years, oil corporations have intensified their push to make the San Francisco Bay Area and other areas of the West Coast into international hubs for refining and shipping of one of the world's most carbon-intensive and polluting fuel sources: the Canadian tar sands.

In April, that long-standing effort spilled into Santa Rosa mailboxes. Constituents of 3rd District supervisor Shirlee Zane received a letter, addressed to Zane herself, from a group called Bay Area Refinery Workers.

"As a member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District," the letter read, "you'll soon vote on a proposal that will impact our jobs, our refineries and the important work we do refining the cleanest gasoline in the world."

It asked that Zane "please remember that the Bay Area refineries provide more good-paying union jobs than any private sector employer in the region."

Twelve refinery employees provided signatures, but the letter was produced and mailed by an organization called the Committee for Industrial Safety, which is bankrolled by the oil giants Chevron, Shell, Tesoro and Phillips 66. According to state and federal records, each corporation annually provides the group between $100,000 and $200,000 to advocate on their behalf.

The letter's apparent aim was to influence Zane's upcoming vote on a little-known but potentially far-reaching Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulation called Refinery Rule 12-16 that's aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emmissions. If enacted, the measure would make the BAAQMD the nation's first regional air district to go beyond state and federal mandates in regulating refinery GHG emissions, the pollutants that fuel global climate change.

Zane is one of the BAAQMD's 24 directors, along with elected officials from nine Bay Area counties extending from Santa Clara in the South Bay to Sonoma and Napa. They will determine the measure's fate at a yet-to-be-scheduled meeting later this year.

Staff members at BAAQMD have proposed four alternative forms of Refinery Rule 12-16. But only one has the support of a coalition of environmental groups and the unions that represent refinery employees: a quantitative limit, or cap, on GHGs.

Processing the tar sands would dramatically increase greenhouse gas pollution at the refineries under the BAAQMD's jurisdiction, and advocates from groups like Oakland's Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), an environmental justice organization, say an emissions cap would turn back what they call the "tar sands invasion" from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Critics warn that without the cap, the oil industry will continue pursuing new tar sands infrastructure on the West Coast at a frenetic pace. "We've seen them come at us at a 10 times faster rate in the last few years," says CBE senior scientist and refinery expert Greg Karras. "Up and down the refinery belt, refineries are retooling for the tar sands and creating infrastructure for export of refined tar sands products overseas."

Experts have warned of the effects of a significantly expanded production of the tar sands—a sticky mixture of sand, clay and bitumen trapped deep beneath Canada's boreal forest. It would lock in dramatic increases in global temperatures and result in devastating impacts to ecosystems and human societies throughout the globe. A 2015 report in the journal Nature found that trillions of dollars' worth of known and extractable coal, oil and gas reserves (including nearly all remaining tar sands and all Arctic oil and gas) should remain in the ground if global temperatures are to be kept under the safety threshold of 2 degrees centigrade that's been agreed to by the world's nations at the Paris climate summit last year.

In an ecologically minded region like the Bay Area, an emissions cap to stop a dramatic increase in regional tar sands production (and tar sands exports from local ports) might seem like a political no-brainer. But staff and some members of BAAQMD say they are concerned that GHG emissions averted in the Bay Area would simply occur somewhere else, since the oil industry would increase production elsewhere. Doing so would render Refinery Rule 12-16 ineffectual in curbing climate pollution because other regions might not be so attentive.

Karras and other advocates believe the opposite is true. The cap offers local elected officials a rare opportunity, they say, to make a significant contribution to heading off the catastrophic impacts of global warming.

REFINERY ROW

The San Francisco Bay Area has been a core oil-refining area for over a century. In 1881, the Pacific Coast Oil Company opened California's first refinery on the island of Alameda. Pacific Coast Oil Company went on to become Chevron, rated by Forbes as the world's 16th wealthiest corporation.

In 2014, the Bay Area's five refineries, including Chevron's flagship Richmond facility, processed an average of 754,000 barrels of oil per day (45.5 percent of California's production total)into gasoline, jet fuel, propane and other products. California, in spite of its reputation as a haven for tree huggers, is the third leading oil producer among U.S. states, much of it exported to surrounding states.

The Bay Area refinery corridor in Contra Costa and Solano counties constitutes the country's second largest oil production center west of Houston. The largest is in Southern California, particularly the south Los Angeles areas of Wilmington and Carson, where the population is over 90 percent Latino, black, and Asian-Pacific Islander. Most people downwind of the Contra Costa and Solano refineries are also people of color.

As with the tar sands, some of California's petroleum sources—including the oil fields in Kern County—are much denser than more conventional, lighter forms of crude. California refineries have developed a unique capacity to refine heavy crudes.

A little over 8 percent of oil produced in the U.S. comes from the tar sands. Due to opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, however, the tar sands industry has been unable to expand its production in the Louisiana–Texas Gulf Coast. Without the pipeline, say industry experts, it's left to the West Coast to provide the infrastructure for the tar sands' specialized production requirements on a large scale.

"The tar sands are potentially very cheap, and a lot of refineries in California are already optimized to process it," says Joshua Axelrod, a policy analyst at the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC). Axelrod is a tar sands expert who co-authored a 2015 report called "West Coast Tar Sands Invasion."

Oil consumption in Central and Latin America is starting to outstrip production, another factor driving the tar sands industry's West Coast ambitions. California producers could make up the difference via shipments from nearby ports. The 2015 NRDC report concluded that West Coast tar sands refining could increase eightfold—from 100,000 barrels per day in 2013 to 800,000 over the next decade.

One argument in favor of the tar sands, repeated by most leaders of the Republican Party and some Democrats, is that greater tar sands production would wean the U.S. from oil sources in more politically hostile regions. Environmental advocates counter that the oil industry already receives more than $1.5 trillion in government subsidies, according to a 2015 International Monetary Fund study, that should instead be dedicated to low-carbon transportation and renewable energy.

OVER A BARREL

Growing public opposition has slowed the tar sands' entry into the U.S. in recent years, including the grassroots campaign largely responsible for convincing President Obama last year to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would have carried tar sands crude from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Indigenous people in Western Canada have played a decisive role in delaying two pipelines through British Columbia that would enable large-scale shipments to Washington and California via tanker, barge and train.

In 2013, Valero announced its intention to bring large volumes of tar sands crude oil into Los Angeles and the Bay Area by rail, and applied for permits to the South Coast Air Quality Management District and BAAQMD. The pipeline proposals were already in limbo, so the company saw railway shipments—up to 70,000 barrels a day, according to the company's permit application—as an alternative. Both the Bay Area and Southern California air districts have granted the permits; the Benicia City Council is set to make a ruling on the Bay Area spur of the project sometime this year.

Phillips 66 already receives a small volume of tar sands via an elaborate delivery system that involves a railroad line to Bakersfield, truck deliveries to a pumping station and a pipeline extending between its refineries in Santa Maria and Rodeo, with the latter processing it into jet fuel. The company now proposes new Southern and Northern California rail projects that would bring a far greater quantity of tar sands to each facility.

Other possible projects include a Bakersfield rail hub that would bring tar sands crude to existing California pipelines and rail-to-ship projects in Portland and Vancouver, Wash.

A coalition of environmentalists and refinery employees have opposed the oil industry's push to refine dirtier fuels. The tar sands are a major focus in their efforts, along with Bakken shale oil from North Dakota and other U.S. sources. Among the organizations are the Bay Area chapter of 350.org, the Sierra Club, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, CBE and Steelworkers Union Local 5 —which represents 80 percent of the workers at three refineries.

While climate change impacts are a major focus of this opposition, these groups also oppose the threat that increased tar sands refining poses to public health. Oil refineries have imposed an especially large pollution burden on the low-income people and people of color who have been disproportionately forced, by historical and economic circumstance, to live alongside them.

The same combustion processes that release climate pollution also emit toxic effluents that cause cancer and neurological damage, as well as particulate matter that penetrates lungs and clogs arteries, as the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state and regional air districts have acknowledged.

In a conversation at a restaurant on San Pablo Avenue in southeast Richmond, CBE community organizer Andrés Soto, who has lived downwind of Chevron for most of his life, described his community's struggles with cancer, autoimmune disorders and other health problems, and linked local struggles to eliminate pollution to the broader climate-change fight.

"You can either move and hope to get away from it, or you can try to fight back and try to help everybody's lives," Soto says. "And I'm not just talking about fighting for people in Richmond or Benicia or Martinez. Because of global warming, I'm talking about the whole planet."

This merging of climate change and environmental-justice activism solidified following a 2012 episode when a crack in a steel pipe at Chevron's Richmond refinery caused a fireball to ignite inside the facility. Nineteen workers escaped with their lives. For several hours, the flame was visible throughout the Bay Area. A toxic plume spread over Richmond and San Pablo, and prompted 15,000 residents to seek medical treatment.

In response, the BAAQMD proposed a set of refinery regulations geared toward monitoring refinery emissions and requiring further health studies. By 2014, the BAAQMD board of directors unanimously passed a resolution directing staff to "prepare a strategy to achieve further emissions reductions from petroleum refineries which shall include as a goal a 20 percent reduction in refinery emissions, or as much emissions reductions as are feasible."

Three years after the Chevron fire, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board pinpointed managerial negligence as one cause. But the main factor was the refinery's reliance on oil with high sulfur content, which caused rapid corrosion of the pipe. The tar sands contain even more toxic metals and chemicals than Chevron's existing crude sources, as well as higher concentration of sulfur, the BAAQMD notes, and thus threaten more frequent spills, fires and explosions.

Frustrated by BAAQMD staff members' slow progress, numerous environmental groups demanded last year that the agency impose a refinery-wide numerical cap on particulate matter and greenhouse gases. The tar sands are more carbon-intensive and more toxic to refine than conventional crude. Tar sand bitumen is heavy and takes more energy than conventional crude to refine into usable products. The refining process also leaves behind large quantities of petcoke, the only fossil fuel the EPA regards as dirtier than coal.

The 2015 "Tar Sands Invasion" reportnoted that tar sands oil production causes about three times the carbon pollution of conventional crude, and that 800,000 barrels per day of the sticky substance—the amount the oil industry is pushing to bring to California in the next decade—equals the annual emissions of 33.7 million vehicles.

Meanwhile, existing BAAQMD regulations have reduced smog, but have failed to reduce emissions of very fine, extremely small particles, which are greatly increased in tar sands refining. Particulate matter is already causing an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 deaths in the Bay Area—it's the region's most lethal pollutant. Refineries are the largest industrial source of GHGs and particulate matter pollution alike, with refined products—namely, gas and diesel burned in vehicles—being the biggest source overall.

Yet BAAQMD staff declined to include the particulate matter emissions-cap proposal as part of Refinery Rule 12-16. Instead, they proposed four possible means of regulating GHG pollution: a refinery-wide emissions cap; limits on GHG emissions from specific pieces of refinery equipment; restricting refinery emissions of methane; and a two-pronged regulatory structure like the one in Washington state that requires refineries either to increase their energy efficiency or reduce GHG emissions by a set amount by 2025.

At a June 1 BAAQMD committee meeting in San Francisco, executive officer Jack Broadbent acknowledged that three of the measures would take years to study and implement. The only option that could happen quickly is a cap.

But Broadbent and other BAAQMD staff members were strongly critical of the cap idea and asserted that they had no legal authority to implement it. Staff member Eric Stevenson said in an interview that the biggest flaw in the emissions-cap proposal is that it would "cause production to go somewhere else to meet the demand in California, so that you don't end up achieving an overall reduction in emissions."

About 50 proponents of an emissions cap attended the meeting and several said the BAAQMD should adopt all four of the proposals. Some noted that the cap would be a first step in meeting the air district's long-range goal of reducing regional GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050. Refineries are responsible for roughly 15 percent of Bay Area GHGs.

"It's really absurd, in the truest sense of the word, that these folks from communities alongside refineries have to be here to implore you to not allow emissions to be going up in an era of declining emissions, and given what the air district's job is," said Jed Holtzman of 350 Bay Area. "Preventing an increase is part of reducing. If you know you're going the wrong way, then arguing about how fast you're going, or whether you know everything you could about your tires, is not a smart move, and it's not what you're here for."

Greg Karras has also expressed frustration with BAAQMD staff and noted in an interview that their proposals are disconnected from the refineries' tar sands push. "We can cap refinery emissions immediately to prevent a tar sands invasion from increasing them irreversibly and take the first step toward deeper emission cuts later by setting an interim goal for significant partial cuts of 20 percent," he says. "It is unfortunate, to use a polite term, that BAAQMD staff has aligned with the oil industry in fighting us to overturn the board's direction with respect to that critical first step—the emission caps."

The danger in addressing the tar sands threat, he says, is that "the oil industry's push to rebuild for even dirtier tar sands oil could be locked into place for another generation if we fail to act now."

One episode that validates the BAAQMD's authority to impose the cap, proponents say, took place in 2014. California attorney general Kamala Harris joined Richmond residents and environmental organizations in sharply criticizing plans for an expansion of Chevron's Richmond refinery. Harris supported a greenhouse gas cap as a condition of the project's approval.

TIP OF THE CAP

Ironically, one of the main bulwarks against the emissions cap so far has been the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that implements California's climate change programs. In a letter to the BAAQMD last September, executive officer Richard Corey flatly stated that "a local cap on Bay Area refinery emissions will have no effect on overall GHG emissions . . . Any emissions reductions from a Bay Area refinery cap would likely be compensated by emissions increases (also called emissions leakage) in other parts of the state. This emissions leakage would likely be associated with shifts in business activity outside the Bay Area."

Corey's reasoning is tied to a state-level greenhouse gas reduction program that applies to stationary pollution sources like refineries and power plants: cap and trade. The program caps carbon emissions from these entities, with yearly reductions in allowable levels of pollution. From 2015 to 2020, for example, the cap is dropping by 3 percent per year.

But the program is aimed at providing maximum flexibility to the oil industry, so it allows them to buy credits, or offsets, from carbon-saving projects elsewhere in the United States, or in Quebec, or to sell credits themselves if they've reduced their own emissions.

Environmental-justice advocates have criticized the program for allowing polluters to buy their way out of reducing emissions at the source—and thereby allowing them to continue burdening communities with pollution. Chevron is a case in point. The company was California's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in 2013, according to CARB data. But it was also the largest purchaser of offsets under the cap-and-trade program in its inaugural two years between 2013 and 2014, according to a recent study by the Oakland-based California Environmental Justice Alliance.

The company used forests in Maine, Michigan, South Carolina, Willits and Humboldt County—and an Arkansas-based project to destroy ozone-depleting substances—to offset its pollution, which mainly occurred in Richmond. As a result, its emissions were undiminished. If the company were to increase emissions through full-tilt tar sands processing, it could purchase additional credits. Another state program, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, also creates an incentive to reduce at-source refinery emissions but does not require it.

The proposed Bay Area emissions cap would have no trading component.

While some sources say that CARB may be reconsidering its stance, the oil industry's chief regional lobbying group, Western States Petroleum, has seized on the agency's current position. In a statement for this story, lobby president Catherine Reheis-Boyd noted that "if BAAQMD is considering a local greenhouse gas cap on refinery emissions, [Western States Petroleum] strongly encourages the District to take into account the California Air Resources Board's concerns. CARB has clearly stated that a local cap will: (1) not reduce statewide GHG emissions; (2) reduce cap-and-trade efficiencies; and (3) undermine statewide efforts to reduce GHGs."

Environmentalists describe these arguments as right-wing and defeatist. "Cap and trade is being used as a barrier to creating a simple limit on refinery pollution," Karras says. "Tell me if their argument doesn't sound a lot like what the Republicans are saying about why we shouldn't have a climate policy, which typically goes something like, 'China will just pollute more anyway, so we might as well get the economic benefits.'"

The NRDC's Axelrod agrees. Though his organization supports California's cap-and-trade program, he called the argument that emissions' "leakage" would result from a Bay Area refinery emissions cap "far-fetched."

"Fundamentally, it sounds like the same argument that happened with Keystone XL, which we labeled 'the inevitability argument,'" he says. "The oil industry's line was that if you reject Keystone XL, the amount of tar sands it would have facilitated would inevitably happen anyway. But that obviously hasn't been the case." Not yet at least.

Cap proponents note that any increases in Bay Area refinery production are likely for export.

One of the BAAQMD's most influential directors is Contra Costa County supervisor John Gioia, a fourth-term Democrat who represents the county's westernmost urban area, including Richmond. He serves as the Bay Area representative on the California Air Resources Board, a post he received from Gov. Jerry Brown.

Following the signing of the Paris climate change pact in December, whereby 195 countries pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, BAAQMD voted to convene a regional climate change summit this October. It will explore strategies for achieving a regional 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

Gioia is taking a wait-and-see approach on Refinery Rule 12-16."The main point is that we need to keep the pressure on to keep reducing criteria pollutants, toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases," he says. "Whatever the board ends up adopting will be the most far-reaching regulation at a local air district of greenhouse gas emissions and I think that's an important acknowledgment."

San Francisco County supervisor John Avelos is among the BAAQMD directors who unambiguously support the emissions cap. Los Altos city councilmember Jan Pepper has not publicly committed to voting for the cap, but said in an interview that she is motivated to prevent the tar sands from coming to the Bay Area. A version of the same Bay Area Refinery Workers letter sent to Zane's constituents also landed in mailboxes in Pepper's district, a fact that she "didn't appreciate, although it provided a teachable moment where I could communicate with my constituents who didn't already know about these issues."

The letter also went to BAAQMD directors' districts in Alameda and Contra Costa County districts. Steelworkers Union Local 5 organizer Mike Smith said his office had received numerous calls about the letter and that he was also upset by it. He noted the union's continued support for stronger refinery regulations.

"We're the first people affected by the emissions, whether they're from catastrophic failures or longer-term emissions," he says. "Our members are a part of these communities, and we want to have the cleanest and safest workplaces possible."

Sonoma County's other BAAQMD representative, Petaluma city councilmember Teresa Barrett, is also in wait-and-see mode. "I want to make sure that what we're doing is scientifically verifiable and really will get us to the outcome that we're looking for."

Napa County's lone BAAQMD delegate, 2nd District supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, takes a similar position and emphasizes the difficulty in navigating a regulatory process with the knowledge that the air board is likely to be sued no matter what it does, and calls for "both sides" to temper their criticism of the agency's work.

Zane did not respond to a request for comment.

The Committee for Industrial Safety's most recent disclosure statement with the California secretary of state lists Walt Gill, government affairs manager at Chevron, as the organization's president; Chevron attorney James Sutton is listed as treasurer. Neither Gill nor Sutton responded to requests for comment. Gill was among those who signed in as an attendee at the recent BAAQMD meeting.

Phillips 66 spokesperson Aimee M. Lohr confirmed that the Bay Area Refinery Workers letter came from the "Committee for Industrial Safety, sponsored by energy companies."

BIG OILED

The oil industry has been California's biggest spender on lobbying and elections for years, with much of their effort aimed at climate-change legislation, California secretary of state data reveals. California mandates GHG emissions reduction by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Last year, the state moved beyond that goal with SB 350, which requires that 50 percent of electricity generation must come from renewable sources, and that energy efficiency of buildings double, both by 2030.

In the run-up to the adoption of SB 350, oil companies unleashed a gusher of cash. The industry spent more than $31 million lobbying California legislators in 2015, according to data on the California secretary of state website. The effort appeared to pay off, as moderate Democrats agreed to strip a provision from SB 350 that would have required a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by California's cars and trucks by 2030.

Gioia says he has never seen anything quite like the industry's recent Bay Area Refinery Workers mailer. At the June 1 BAAQMD meeting, he noted that it has become well-known in Sacramento that the oil industry will attempt to pass legislation to limit the authority of local air districts if Refinery Rule 12-16 goes forward.

Proponents say that a regional refinery emissions cap will enable the BAAQMD to fulfill its role in a struggle to starve the tar sands beast, and to stand up to the power of the oil industry. In that way, the agency would fill a regulatory gap not addressed by state climate programs, such as cap and trade and the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

But proponents say the cap is also a pragmatic approach to the tar sands invasion the Bay Area faces. The full BAAQMD board of directors will hear a staff presentation on Refinery Rule 12-16 at a San Francisco meeting June 15. Expect it to be well-attended. "Oil refining is the largest industrial emitter of GHG and [particulate matter] in the Bay Area," reads a recent letter from 13 regional community groups who are tracking the tar sands invasion, "and yet refineries here have no facility-wide limits on these emissions, though other industries do. Keeping emissions from increasing would not require any change in current operations of any refinery."

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Tags:

Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28062018/enbridge-tar-sands-oil-pipeline-minnesota-tribes-wetlands-watershed-route-approval

In a unanimous decision, state regulators in Minnesota approved a controversial new pipeline that will increase the flow of tar sands crude oil from Canada to refineries in the United States.

The long-anticipated ruling is a victory for Canadian pipeline owner Enbridge and a significant blow to environmental and Native American advocates who opposed the pipeline through northern Minnesota in a region rich in wetlands and wild rice lakes.

The "certificate of need" granted Thursday by the state's Public Utility Commission greenlights a replacement for Enbridge's Line 3, a 1,000-mile pipeline that runs from Hardistry, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin. The new Line 3 will have an initial capacity about twice that of the current pipeline, and that volume could be increased and also allow for other increases elsewhere in Enbridge's cross-border pipeline network

he exisiting pipeline, built in the 1960s, crosses Native American land, and a state judge recommended in April that the new Line 3 use the same path. However, the commission on Thursday approved Enbridge's preferred route instead, with some modifications.

While the Enbridge route would skirt the reservations, it would still pass through areas where tribal members harvest wild rice.

"The process kowtowed to corporate interests," said Tara Houska of Indigenous environmental advocacy group Honor the Earth. "Just because a regulatory body that is supposed to protect Minnesotans didn't do its job, it doesn't mean that this is a lost case."

The Pipeline Would Increase Tar Sands Exports

In anticipation of the decision, pipeline opponents blocked one of the streets outside the Public Utility Commission's building in St. Paul on Thursday with a sign reading "Expect Resistance."

When it became clear that the commission would approve the pipeline, Tania Aubid, a member of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, stood and shouted, "You have just declared war on the Ojibwe!" the Associated Press reported from the scene.

Enbridge spokesperson Jesse Semko declined to comment on the decision, saying the company was waiting until after the hearing.

The new pipeline would allow for a significant increase in exports of Canadian tar sands crude oil, which is difficult to extract, costly to transport and has a high carbon footprint compared to other crude oil. Currently2.5 million barrels of tar sands crude is exported from Canada each day, and the region has an oil glut exacerbated by years of opposition to building new pipeline capacity....

5/18

https://www.ecowatch.com/canada-kinder-morgan-pipeline-2573283566.html

yikes kinder morgan

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/pipeline-protest-necessity-defense-tar-sands/

AN ACTIVIST IN Montana was sentenced on Tuesday in a case that has become both a touchstone for industry-friendly legislators pushing to increase penalties for pipeline protest and a measure of the U.S. legal system’s ability to recognize the emergency presented by climate change.

On October 11, 2016, while the Dakota Access pipeline protests were in full force, climate activists approached above-ground valve sites on five tar sands pipelines in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Washington state. After calling the pipeline companies to give warning, they turned the valve wheels in a coordinated attempt to stop the flow of tar sands oil.

Tuesday’s sentencing hearing tested a Montana court’s willingness to apply the severe penalties already available for use against pipeline protesters. For halting the flow of oil through Enbridge’s Express pipeline for several hours,Leonard Higgins, a 66-year-old retired information technology manager for the state of Oregon, faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine for charges of misdemeanor trespass and felony criminal mischief. Higgins was sentenced to three years’ probation and $3,755 in restitution to the pipeline company.

“I’m relieved and actually a bit bewildered. It’s unexpected to me. I came very much prepared and expecting to do some jail time at least,” Higgins told The Intercept. “This is a case where both in terms of the severity of the charges and the large amount of claimed damages, I think they were using it to chill the possibility that others might do similar protest.”

Enbridge had initially claimed more than $200,000 in losses, a figure later reduced to $25,630, including $16,000 worth of replacement chains to secure valves along the pipeline against future tampering.

“The courts and the juries are not hammering individuals in the way these corporations would like to see, so they attempt to use the restitution process to grossly inflate their damage numbers with hope that threatening the citizen with $200,000 might chill others from committing similar acts,” said Lauren Regan, Higgins’s attorney.

“Enbridge respects the court’s decision,” said company spokesperson Michael Barnes. “It is our intention to donate any court-ordered payment in this case to local area first responders. … We believe it’s important to support the people who every day focus on the safety and wellbeing of the community and the environment.”

Although the sentence is lenient in light of the possible penalties Higgins faced, it does not represent a full win for the activists. Higgins’s legal team had hoped Judge Daniel Boucher would allow them to argue that, given the severity of the climate threat, he had no choice but to act — a strategy known as anecessity defense. But Boucher said that since Higgins appeared to fear harm to his children and grandchildren, rather than an imminent threat to his own life, the defense could not apply. In his denial, Boucher wrote, “The energy policy of the United States is not on trial, nor will this court allow Higgins to attempt to put it on trial.”

...

Risky Move: Canada Shipping More Tar Sands Oil by Rail

By Justin Mikulka

The Motley Fool has been advising investors on "How to Profit From the Re-Emergence of Canada's Crude-by-Rail Strategy." But what makes transporting Canadian crude oil by rail attractive to investors?

According to the Motley Fool, the reason is "… right now, there is so much excess oil being pumped out of Canada's oil sands that the pipelines simply don't have the capacity to handle it all."

The International Energy Agency recently reached the same conclusion in its Oil 2018 market report.

"Crude by rail exports are likely to enjoy a renaissance, growing from their current 150,000 bpd [barrels per day] to an implied 250,000 bpd on average in 2018 and to 390,000 bpd in 2019. At their peak in 2019, rail exports of crude oil could be as high as 590,000 bpd—though this calculation assumes producers do not resort to crude storage in peak months," the International Energy Agency said, as reported by the Financial Post.

To put that in perspective, however, the industry was moving 1.3 million barrels per day at the peak of the U.S. oil-by-rail boom in 2014.

...

https://www.ecowatch.com/koch-pipelines-dakota-keystone-2540819277.html

Koch Network Took Credit for Dakota Access, Keystone XL and REINS Act, Leaked Memo Shows

By Steve Horn

A leaked memorandum published by The Intercept and Documented Investigations shows that a Koch Industries' donors network, known as the Seminar Network, has taken credit for Donald Trump approving the permits for both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines during the first months of his presidency.

The memo also applauded efforts by the Koch network's Americans for Prosperity (AFP) chapter in Wisconsin to pass a deregulatory measure there known as the REINS Act. The Seminar Network, which meets secretly twice a year, is made up ofdonors who give at least $100,000 toward Koch-led political and philanthropic efforts.

Koch Industries has a business interest in both pipelines, though their approval has not been something its funded network has widely discussed. Quietly, though, Koch has advocated for the pair of pipelines in regulatory hearings in both Iowa for Dakota Access—as previously reported by DeSmog—as well as in Canada, as reported in 2012 by InsideClimate News.

The REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act, which GOP officials have been pushing in Congress since Obama's first term, passed as state law in Wisconsin in 2017. The law, long considered crown jewel legislation by the Koch front group AFP, gives legislative bodies full veto authority over regulations proposed by executive agencies. Conservative groups in Wisconsin already are using the law to sue the top state public education officer.

"State legislatures, particularly in states with a strong Network presence, have also made significant progress toward removing harmful and unnecessary regulations. For example, Wisconsin this year went so far as to enact the nation's first REINS Act, which will require legislative approval of any issued regulation that has an impact above a certain cost threshold," reads the Koch Seminar Network document.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded group of mostly Republican Party state legislators, has a REINS Act model resolution on the books, which supports the federal version of this legislation. In 2017, six states introduced pro-REINS Act resolutions: Kansas, Montana, Missouri, Georgia, Ohio and South Carolina. ALEC—which brings corporate lobbyists and state legislators together at annual meetings for networking, seminars and voting on what it dubs "model policies" —maintains close connections with the Koch network.

Koch, KXL, DAPL Business Ties

Koch Industries also owns assets in a tar sands reservoir located in Alberta, Canada, both in the form of lease holdings for land and as a company with a drilling interest. For the latter, Koch owns Koch Oil Sands Operating, which has a drilling interest in both the Gemini and Muskwa tar sands fields in Alberta.

It also owns 1-2 million acres' worth of land (the exact number is contested) in the tar sands for prospective future leasing, according to a 2013 report published by the International Forum on Globalization. Keystone XL, the pipeline owned by TransCanada and approved by Trump and his U.S. Department of State in March 2017, would bring around 500,000 currently-booked barrels per day of tar sands oil from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma, where the pipeline connects with TransCanada's Gulf Coast Pipeline.

Gulf Coast, which was approved by President Barack Obama in a 2012 election season executive order, sends the tar sands bitumen down to Port Arthur, Texas, where the substance is refined into products and then sent to market.

[map]

Koch Industries even nearly testified at a 2012 hearing in support of its development of tar sands, before backing out after signing confidentiality agreements with impacted landowners. Much of the tar sands extracted in Alberta is refined at Koch's refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota, which is owned by its subsidiary Flint Hills Resources and is the top refiner of tar sands in the U.S. at 223,000 barrels per day, as of 2013.

For Dakota Access, Koch also quietly came out in support of the pipeline via its front group, the 60 Plus Association, which purports to be a conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons for seniors. Through intermediary groups, 60 Plus had received tens of millions of dollars from the Koch network.

Koch Industries has a direct tie to Dakota Access, through a storage terminal part-owned by its subsidiary Flint Resources and located in North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin. As DeSmog previously reported, this terminal, called the COLT Hub, feeds oil into the Dakota Access pipeline.

Back in 2015 when the pipeline was hotly contested in Iowa, a representative for 60 Plus testified on behalf of Dakota Access in front of the Iowa Utilities Board.

"The Dakota Access Pipeline Project is important to seniors for several reasons. High energy prices are disproportionately impacting America's low and fixed-income senior citizens today—citizens that often have limited financial resources with which to meet their needs," the 60 Plus representative testified in September 2015. "By helping the United States to better capitalize upon its growing domestic energy resources—and affordably transport these resources to market—the Dakota Access Pipeline will help to foster stability within energy markets nationwide, and improve the availability of affordable American produced crude oil."

60 Plus also began lobbying and campaigning on behalf of the Dakota Access as the protest movement grew against the pipeline at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Around the same time those protests began in September 2016, 60 Plus deployed its chairman, Jim Martin, to begin lobbying Congressabout Dakota Access. Martin also wrote an opinion piece that month supporting the pipeline for the publication Morning Consult.

"Whether it's heating or cooling your home or putting gas in your car, the cheaper the energy, the more economically stable your checkbook will be," wrote Martin. "The 60 Plus Association's 5.5 million members know this all too well. This is why as an organization that champions free enterprise and who have championed energy issues for seniors before, we strongly support the Dakota Access pipeline."

'Whole New Level'

In the 2018 election cycle, the Koch network plans to spend up to $400 million to keep the Republican majority in Congress and GOP control over statehouses nationwide.

"We've made more progress in the last five years than I had in the last 50," Charles Koch, one of the infamous petrochemical billionaire Koch brothers, said in January at a private Seminar Network meeting held in Indian Wells, California. "The capabilities we have now can take us to a whole new level."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112017/oil-pipeline-tar-sands-banned-south-portland-maine-industry-lawsuit-home-rule

===

oct 2016 5 ppl 5 pipelines?!

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-activists-shut-down-tar-sands-pipelines-2039873407.html

USD Partners, a rail terminal operator owned in part by Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs, has signed a nearly three year deal to facilitate moving tar sands by train from where it is extracted in Alberta, Canada, to an offloading terminal in Stoud, Oklahoma, in a route mirroring that of the Keystone XLpipeline.

From Stroud, the heavy oil can be sent via pipeline to the nearby oil storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma. USD's announcement, which said the company could transport up to 70,000 barrels per day of tar sands in rail cars, came in a June 2 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The deal, centering around the purchase of the Stroud terminal, also included the acquisition of 300,000 barrels of storage space in Cushing, a town known by oil and gas industry observers as the “pipeline crossroads of the world.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/22/what-oilsands-exodus-actually-means

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22022017/exxon-mobil-tar-sands-alberta-canada-climate-change-oil-prices

Exxon Relents, Wipes Oil Sands Reserves From Its Books

Low prices force the oil giant to stop counting 3.5 billion barrels as an asset, a major turnaround in its accounting.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29092016/exxon-mobil-change-change-investigation-oil-sands-tar-sands-alberta-canada-sec

State and federal investigators are zeroing in on ExxonMobil's accounting practices as part of two independent probes, asking whether the energy giant might have misled investors about the value of its assets.

Increasingly, those assets are made up of Canadian tar sands oil, among the world's most expensive and dirtiest forms of crude oil.

An InsideClimate News analysis of the company's financial disclosures shows that Exxon's oil sands reserves grew dramatically over the past decade. Doing so has deepened the company's dependence on an oil source that some economists say should be one of the first to be abandoned if governments decide to leave much of the world's fossil fuels in the ground to stave off global warming.

Since 2007, Exxon's tar sands reserves grew to 5.1 billion barrels from 1.4 billion barrels, nearly quadrupling. As a percentage of the company's total liquid reserves, these holdings more than doubled to 35 percent from 17 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reported this month that both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and state attorneys general are examiningwhether Exxon is adequately accounting for the plunge in petroleum prices and the prospect that governments might limit the use of fossil fuels to fight climate change.

An oil company's most elemental accounting figure is its total reserves, which represents not simply a total of a company's oil and gas in the ground, but an estimate of how much is technically and economically recoverable. The complicated measurement is based on geology and the economics of oil, with high prices opening up harder-to-access stores. The calculation helps investors figure out what a company is worth.

As oil prices have fallen over the past two years, Exxon has maintained that its tar sands reserves are safe. The position may put the company on shaky ground, said Tom Sanzillo, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which favors backing away from fossil fuels.

"It is a very expensive process and that requires a very high price of oil," Sanzillo said. "So it is the least likely, if you will, of the Exxon investment portfolio to produce the expected results."

For years, activist shareholders have been pressing the company to reveal more about the risks to its business from climate change. In 2014, Exxon responded with a detailed report that largely brushed aside any concerns, saying oil and gas will remain the dominant sources of energy through 2040 and that it would be able to exploit all of the reserves on its books.

"We are confident that none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become 'stranded,'" the company wrote.

But that position may underestimate the shift to new sources of energy, according to the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a UK-based nonprofit that analyzes the impact of climate change on financial markets. The grouppublished a response to Exxon that same year warning that international efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions increasingly will turn tar sands and other high-cost projects into bad investments. In fact, the response said, this trend was already dragging down shareholder returns in recent years so that they lagged behind those of the broader stock market and some of Exxon's peers after leading them for decades.

Some analysts, including Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer and Co., defend the company's position, noting that while oil prices may be low today, they are prone to fluctuation. "Their track record has been right," Gheit said of Exxon.

Reserves are an oil company's primary asset, and they're constantly being depleted as the company drains its oilfields. In order to grow and keep investors happy, a company must relentlessly search for new reserves, a process Gheit likened to running on an ever-accelerating treadmill. Because of their size, the tar sands represent one of surest ways to stay on the treadmill. All you need is lots of money.

"It's a strategic decision that they made because investment in tar sands is very heavy, front-loaded," Gheit said, "and not many companies can make it."

Exxon did not respond to questions for this article, but Rex Tillerson, the company' chairman and chief executive, has defended the policies that are under review by the SEC. The company seeks to avoid reducing the value of, or writing down, its assets, saying it takes conservative positions from the start....

http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/11/institute-index-dirty-tar-sands-oil-flows-to-south.html

Suncor Energy Inc. (TSX: SU NYSE: SU) is Canada's original oil sands developer, having produced the first barrel of crude oil from the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta in 1967. Suncor is the world's second largest producer of oil sands crude (after Syncrude Canada Ltd.) and is the only company to currently use both mining and in-situ resource technologies.

[hide]

Financial outlook

Suncor's last big banking financing in 2007 tapped 18 banks, five of which were Canadian. On a new $3.5-billion Suncor loan package negotiated last month, TD tripled its commitment.[1]

Coal Gasification

In 2007, Suncor worked with Dow Chemical Co., Citi Sustainable Development Investments, and The AES Corp. to put together a $100 million investment for GreatPoint Energy, a coal gasification company based in Cambridge, MA.^[1] The investment was used to create a pilot gasification plant called the Mayflower Clean Energy Center, located at Dominion's Brayton Point station in Somerset, Massachusetts. This was the largest "green tech" investment of 2007, and "one of the industry's biggest venture capital rounds ever."^[2][3]

Directors

Accessed September 2009: ^[4]

John Ferguson
Richard L. George - President and Chief Executive Officer
Mel E. Benson
Brian Canfield
W. Douglas Ford
Paul Haseldonckx
John R. Huff
Brian MacNeill
Maureen McCaw
Mike O'Brien
James Simpson
Eira Thomas

Contact information

Suncor Energy Inc.

P.O. Box 38, 112 - 4 Avenue S.W.

Calgary, Alberta

Canada T2P 2V5

Phone: (403) 269-8100

Fax: (403) 269-6200

Website: http://www.suncor.com

Email: info AT suncormail.com

SourceWatch resources

External links

References

Articles

Richard Blackwell, "Greenpeace Site Admonishes Oil Sands," The Globe and Mail (Canada), June 27, 2008.

Scientists Band Together, Urge Canada to Stop Tar Sands Expansion

In a rare, large consensus, more than 100 scientists united to say expanding tar sands will be catastrophic for the climate and environment. "Continued expansion of oil sands and similar unconventional fuels in Canada and beyond is incompatible with limiting climate warming to a level that society can handle without widespread harm," the scientists wrote.

Wall Street Warned About $91 Billion of High-Risk Oil Megaprojects

Tar sands, deepsea drilling and other projects would lose money if lower demand,

CO2 restrictions or other factors forced crude prices below $95.

Critics of environmentally risky oil projects proposed for deep undersea and Canada's tar sands got new ammunition last week when a report labeled those ventures and others as the industry's most financially questionable pursuits.

The new report, published by theCarbon Tracker Initiative (CTI), identifies a host of drawing-board oil projects that would cost a combined $91 billion over the next decade—and that would lose money if lower demand, carbon restrictions or other factors forced crude prices below $95 a barrel. Many of the projects need oil prices to settle substantially higher than $110 a barrel to break even, CTI said.

It's the latest in a string of offerings from London-based CTI, a non-profit that has been highlighting climate-related risks and costs that they believe are not being addressed by fossil fuel companies or reflected in financial markets. Through a pair of earlier reports, the group helped popularize the notion that fossil fuel companies could end up with valueless "unburnable carbon," or stranded assets, if governments move to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

By highlighting the financial risk of specific mega-projects in its latest work, CTI hopes to convince more Wall Street analysts and oil company investors to pressure ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and others to justify the expenses or cancel development.

Wall Street Demands Answers From Fossil Fuel Producers on 'Unburnable' Carbon

The Most Influential Climate Science Paper Today Remains Unknown to Most People

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/environmental-free-trade-deal-could-help-tar-sands-producers/

Koch Bros. Company Files to Develop Oil Sands Project

May 26, 2014

(The Globe and Mail)

The Canadian oil arm of the conglomerate owned by the U.S. billionaire Koch brothers has begun initial regulatory work on a multibillion-dollar oil sands project after an asset-sales effort two years ago left it holding a number of leases.

Koch Oil Sands Operating LLC, the Calgary-based unit of Koch Industries Inc., has made an initial filing with Alberta regulators and has been in consultation with the nearby Fort McKay First Nation regarding the proposed development.

"We intend to develop a bitumen recovery project identified as the Dunkirk In Situ Project and have submitted the proposed Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Assessment to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development," Paul Baltzer, spokesman for the Wichita, Kan.-based company, said in an e-mail.

http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20140526/koch-bros-company-files-develop-oil-sands-project

http://grist.org/news/scientists-call-for-labeling-tar-sands-oil/

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20131205/worst-case-scenario-oil-sands-industry-has-come-life-leaked-document-shows

As environmentalists began ratcheting up pressure against Canada's tar sands three years ago, one of the world's biggest strategic consulting firms was tapped to help the North American oil industry figure out how to handle the mounting activism. The resulting document, published online by WikiLeaks, offers another window into how oil and gas companies have been scrambling to deal with unrelenting opposition to their growth plans.

The document identifies nearly two-dozen environmental organizations leading the anti-oil sands movement and puts them into four categories: radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists—with how-to's for managing each. It also reveals that the worst-case scenario presented to industry about the movement's growing influence seems to have come to life.

The December 2010 presentation by Strategic Forecasting, or Stratfor, a global intelligence firm based in Texas, mostly advised oil sands companies to ignore or limit reaction to the then-burgeoning tar sands opposition movement because "activists lack influence in politics." But there was a buried warning for industry under one scenario: Letting the movement grow unopposed may bring about "the most significant environmental campaign of the decade."

"This worst-case scenario is exactly what has happened," partly because opposition to tar sands development has expanded beyond nonprofit groups to include individual activists concerned about climate change, said Mark Floegel, a senior investigator for Greenpeace. "The more people in America see Superstorm Sandys or tornadoes in Chicago, the more they are waking up and joining the fight."

http://grist.org/news/fed-up-chicago-residents-sue-over-petcoke-ashheaps/

leftovers from processing, detroit chicago

ifg;

Wealth: Mukesh Ambani owns Reliance Industries, India’s largest private-sector conglomerate.20 His father,

Dhirubhai H. Ambani, was founder and longtime head of Reliance. After joining Reliance in 1981, Mukesh

initiated Reliance’s “backward integration” strategy, expanding the company’s acquisitions beyond textiles

into polyester fibers and then further “backwards” to control the petrochemical supplies used to make its

synthetic fabrics. Reliance has expanded into petrochemical production, petroleum-refining and oil and gas

exploration. Ambani built the world’s largest petroleum refinery at Jamnagar, India, with a current capacity of

1.2 million barrels-per-day. The Jamnagar site combines petrochemical operations with power generation that

supplies a large port and related infrastructure.21

Power Networks: Ambani enjoys tight links with Indian government and U.S. government officials. He has

met several times with President Obama, most recently in November 2010, when Obama and GE CEO

Jeffrey Immelt announced a $750 million deal in which Reliance agreed to purchase turbines manufactured by

GE. (Immelt was subsequently named Obama’s chief economic adviser.)

Ambani chairs the board of Indian Institutes of Management, India’s leading graduate business schools,

which conduct research and provide consultancy services in the field of management to various sectors of the

Indian economy.

Environment: Ambani owns a controlling interest in Canadian oil sands company Value Creation Inc. (VCI),

which has a partnership with BP Canada.22 According to the VCI website: “VCI is responsible for preparing

detailed baseline environmental studies to find out and understand the potential impacts of the Pilot Project

on the environment. Assessments will be completed in several key areas and submitted to Alberta

Environment as part of the approval process for the Pilot Project. Once the Pilot Project is approved, follow

up environmental evaluation will be conducted. VCI is committed to minimizing surface disturbance and will

Wealth: Li Ka-shing owns stock in Cheung Kong and Hutchison Whampoa (HW). Through HW, Li is the

world’s largest operator of container terminals in what is now the region through which almost all

manufacturing originates for exporting goods across oceans. He is also the world’s largest health and beauty

retailer (by number of outlets), a real estate developer and a major supplier of electricity to Hong Kong. Li is

a majority shareholder in Husky Energy, a Canadian oil firm that recently announced its third oil discovery in

the South China Sea.16 Husky Energy is in a joint-venture with BP to develop the Sunrise Oil Sands Project in

Alberta, Canada (which is proceeding despite BP shareholder concerns over its environmental impact).17

Power Networks: Li’s powerful allies include Lee Shau Kee of the Henderson Land Development, New

World Development’s Cheng Yu-tung, casino and property magnate Stanley Ho, the Kwok family of Sun

Hung Kai Properties, and Henry Fok Ying-tung. Li is regarded as one of Asia’s most generous

philanthropists, having donated more than $1.4 billion to charity and other various causes.18 Beneficiaries

include the University of California at Berkeley, which received $40 million from Li to build the Li Ka-shing

Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, a new biosciences facility set to be completed in 2011. Li also has

Oil Sands: 4,000 Environmental Infractions, 40 Punishments

Posted: 07/23/2013 5:43 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kevin-grandia/oil-sands-environmental-infractions_b_3637970.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Four recent oil spills at a major oil sands extraction site in Canada's Alberta province are still leaking oil into the ground, and officials aren't sure what caused them.

Bob Curran, a spokesman for the Alberta Energy Regulator, which is charged with regulating the oil industry in Alberta, told The Huffington that exact details surrounding the May and June spills that occurred at the Primrose extraction siteoperated by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. are still unknown.

Further complicating matters, a scientist employed by the Canadian government

told The Toronto Star the cleanup process (which has been ongoing for about six weeks) is in a state of "chaos." The whistleblower, who has been on site for the cleanup process, said that officials were "freaking out" because no one seems to know how to stop the leaks.

The scientist spoke to The Star out of concern that neither the company responsible for the spill nor the regulatory agencies involved in cleanup were properly addressing the situation.

A representative for Canadian Natural assured HuffPost via email that the affected areas have been "secured" and that the environmental impact is "manageable." He did, however, confirm the cause of the spills was not yet known.

The representative explained Canadian Natural has existing groundwater monitoring in place and is taking samples to mitigate any potential impacts. He said the emulsion does not pose a health or human safety risk.

The recent spills have led the Alberta Energy Regulator to order Canadian Natural to cease extraction at its Primrose East site and restrict extraction in other parts of its massive acreage. The agency also ordered Canadian Natural to improve its monitoring and cleanup efforts.

Both The Toronto Star and The Edmonton Journal say access to the area has been restricted because it's on a military weapons-testing range, preventing the media and environmentalists from assessing damage.

Curran also told HuffPost that the latest spill, which was reported June 24 and covers an area of 13.7 hectares (about 34 acres), is difficult to access because it is underneath a body of water, where it was seeping onto vegetation and wildlife.

The Primrose facility employs an extraction method called cyclic steam stimulation (colloquially known as "huff and puff"), a process where high-pressure steam is injected underground to loosen and extract bitumen -- the thick, sticky hydrocarbon that can be processed to make oil.

Primrose produces about 120,000 barrels of oil per day, an amount Canadian Natural plans to more than triple by 2026. In a sign of how robust its operations are, the company told The Edmonton Journal that the order to cease steam operations at Primrose will not affect its annual production guidance.

The Alberta Energy Regulator is investigating the incidents and says it will issue a public report when the probe is complete. Canadian Natural says it is involved in the investigation and remediation efforts and is working with the Energy Regulator "to minimize the risk of future occurrences."

http://www.prwatch.org/print/12133

ALEC Tours Tar Sands, Works with Industry Groups to Block Low-Carbon Fuel Standards

by Nick Surgey [1] — June 17, 2013 - 7:20am

Projects: ALEC Exposed [6]

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) recently adopted a "model" bill from an oil-industry lobby group, that would limit the ability of states to negotiate regional "low-carbon fuel standards" (LCFS), a mechanism designed to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. If agreed by states, LCFS could have a significant impact on the sale of fuels derived from Canadian tar sands in the United States, regardless of any decision the Obama administration makes over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

ALEC's interest in the tar sands is increasingly active. It organized a tour of the Alberta tar sands for its members in October 2012, and as previously reported [8] by CMD, at least seven states introduced resolutions in 2013 calling for the approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas. The resolutions contained language from an ALEC "model" bill and from a set of talking points by TransCanada, the proposed pipeline operator that was also listed as a sponsor of the most recent ALEC conference that took place in Oklahoma City in May 2013.

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Partner with ALEC

The new ALEC "model" bill, called "Restrictions on Participation in Low-Carbon Fuel Standards Programs [9]," was sponsored at an ALEC conference in Washington, DC in November 2012, by Steve Higley, a lobbyist from the U.S.-based industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, both of which are represented on the ALEC Private Enterprise Advisory Council, are members of AFPM and have executives sitting on the board of directors.

The ALEC bill is intended to block environmental LCFS agreements. The implementation of LCFS poses a threat to the continued U.S. market for oil derived from the Canadian tar sands. Following the passage of the California LCFS law in 2006 -- so far the only state to have such a standard in operation -- the president of AFPM stated it would "harm our nation's energy security by discouraging the use of Canadian crude oil." [10]

ALEC made similar claims in a 2010 email to members of its Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force, in which it made the case that LCFS would shift consumption away from Canadian crude derived from the Alberta tar sands and towards "non-North American sources." ALEC cited a 2010 study [11]by Barr Engineering Company, called "Low Carbon Fuel Standard 'Crude Shuffle' Greenhouse Gas Impacts Analysis." The study was commissioned by [11] none other than AFPM, albeit under its previous name, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. The report asserts that the implementation of LCFS would create a "shuffle" of global crude supplies, as crude from the Canadian tar sands moves to other parts of the world more willing to take such a dirty fuel.

"Tar sands are fueling climate change no matter where it is used because its extraction and processing causes more carbon pollution." Luke Tonachel, senior vehicles analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) told CMD. "The argument that the LCFS will cause tar sands to be shuffled is specious. Tar sands producers are already targeting far away markets. Tar sands producers supporting Keystone XL are trying to get their product to Gulf of Mexico refineries so it can be exported as finished product."

Koch-Backed New Hampshire Bill Becomes ALEC "Model"

The ALEC bill is modeled on a 2012 New Hampshire law, designed to limit the ability of the state governor to enter into regional LCFS agreements with other states.

LCFS would place a limit on the amount of carbon released as a result of using certain fuels, measured over that fuel's entire lifecycle from when it's taken out of the ground to when it's pumped at the gas station. This poses a particular challenge for oil derived from Canadian tar sands, which is dirtier than other sources of oil and requires more processing to turn it into a usable fuel.

On December 30, 2010, governors of eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont -- signed a Memorandum of Understanding [12], committing to develop a regional LCFS, designed to lower the levels of damaging greenhouse gas emissions from the use of transportation and heating fuels. The response to the governors' plan in New Hampshire was an industry supported bill -- HB1487 [13] -- backed by a campaign [14] led by the David Koch funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP), aimed at undercutting the ability of the eleven state governors to negotiate LCFS. That bill is precisely the one now being promoted by ALEC.

ALEC Tours the Tar Sands, "Too Much Industry Influence" says Former Legislator

According to documents obtained by CMD, AFPM, the group behind the new ALEC "model" bill also co-sponsored an ALEC-organized three-day trip for state legislators to visit the Alberta tar sands in October 2012, just a month before they brought the "model" bill to the ALEC conference in Washington, DC. The trip was described in the obtained documents as an "ALEC Academy," which according to a pricelist of ALEC events [15] typically carries an $80,000 sponsorship price tag.

During the trip, while dining on expensive steaks at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse in downtown Calgary, AFPM lobbyist Steve Higley gave a presentation to the ALEC legislators on the 'threat' of LCFS. Just over a month later, Higley presented on the same issue at the ALEC conference, calling for the introduction of the New Hampshire law as an ALEC "model" bill. He would have been surrounded by lobbyists from many oil companies with interests in the Canadian tar sands.

"I was struck by how much industry having a prominent role within ALEC is just taken for granted," Rick Russman told CMD in a telephone interview. Russman, a former Republican state senator from New Hampshire, attended the ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting in Washington, DC at which the LCFS bill was passed.

"These ALEC events are put on to benefit industry, not to serve the environment or to serve the interests of the country." Russman, who co-founded the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, is a former chair of the National Conference of State Legislators Committee on the Environment. "At NCSL we always tried to have speakers from different sides of a debate, to try to have a balance, but that isn't at all the case at ALEC. It's not geared to be a fair debate," he said.

Consumer Energy Alliance Fights "Discrimination" Against Gasoline and Diesel

One of the other Alberta ALEC Academy sponsors was the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), an oil industry front group that has campaigned against LCFS for several years, and which has close connections to AFPM, ALEC and the Alberta government. A top lobbyist for the group has played a key role in the coordinated fight back against the LCFS initiative.

In a 2011 article for Salon.com [16], Canadian reporter Geoff Dembicki exposed email communications between Michael Whatley and then Alberta government diplomat Gary Mar, in which Whatley pitched the Alberta government on a campaign to oppose LCFS in the U.S. at the state and federal level. In the emails, Whatley warned that the northeast state governors' plan needed "a very serious response on all levels."

In a later email, Whatley told Mar that his plan was to work to oppose LCFS with "affiliated energy coalitions and trade associations, thought leaders, elected officials, unions and key allies."

Soon after, CEA began vigorously campaigning against LCFS. According to the group's 2011 [17] and 2012 IRS filings, it devoted about one quarter of its entire budget in both years to an anti-LCFS campaign, amounting to $882,890 in 2011 [17] and $730,607 in 2012. After the New Hampshire law passed, Whatley took the opportunity to slam LCFS, bemoaning that it would inevitably "discriminate against traditional fuels like gasoline and diesel."

CEA is organized as a non-profit group and its list of funders is unknown, but on its website it does list "affiliates," [18] including a large number of oil companies with interests in the Canadian tar sands such as BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Devon Energy. The list also includes industry lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the AFPM, both of which have proven financial ties to CEA.

In its 2011 IRS filings [19] (the most recent to be publicly available), AFPM noted that it was seeking "contribution pledges from specific member companies to introduce a public relations campaign to educate and inform target audiences about the adverse impacts of low carbon fuel standards." The same year it provided more than a million dollars to CEA in consulting fees.

The Exploitation of the Canadian Tar Sands Means "Game Over" for the Climate

The tar sands of Alberta, containing an estimated 169.3 billion barrels of oil, are estimated to be the third largest reserve of crude oil on the planet, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. But the tar sands are also the most polluting source of energy on earth, requiring heavy processing to release oil from sticky tarlike bitumen. The extraction and refining process releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than conventional oil drilling, and by some estimates is leaving behind a legacy of devastation in the Alberta environment -- destroying forests, poisoning water and polluting the atmosphere with toxic byproducts.

The world's most prominent climate scientist, former NASA scientist James Hansen, recently warned that the continued and expanded use of Canadian tar sands would be "game over" for the climate. Interviewed in The Guardian [20], Hansen said: "Oil from tar sands makes sense only for a small number of people who are making a lot of money from that product. It doesn't make sense for the rest of the people on the planet."

According to Luke Tonachel of NRDC, who maintains that the ultimate market place for the tar sands derived oil is not the U.S. but abroad, the reason industry is so scared of LCFS is that it might be seen as a positive model that would be adopted elsewhere. "The advancement of policies in the U.S. that require the fuel supply to get cleaner in terms of carbon instead of dirtier can be a model for other countries to adopt, which would reduce the demand for tar sands-derived fuels in export markets," Tonachel told CMD by email.

The idea that the United States might present a positive global model on the environment may surprise some, but it will come as no surprise that a significant obstacle to such positive change at the state level has been ALEC and its allies.

Comments

7 Jun 2013 7:58 PM

How fracking companies exploit Amish farmers

By Claire Thompson

Arthur Chapman

It's no secret that fracking companies engage in some shady behavior. But a report in *The New Republic* reveals just how low they'll sink in the rush to exploit natural gas: Energy companies in eastern Ohio -- home to the world's largest Amish population and billions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves -- have been convincing Amish farmers to sign away drilling rights to their land for far less than they're worth, knowing that because their religious tradition frowns on lawsuits, the landowners will have little recourse for justice once they realize they've been duped.

Lloyd Miller, for example, an Amish farmer near Millersburg, Ohio, said an agent from Kenoil offered him $10 an acre to drill for shale gas on his 158 acres, promising it was the best deal around. Strapped for cash at the time, Miller and his wife said yes, figuring, “Hey, that’s $1,500 we didn’t have,” Miller explained. But they soon found out many non-Amish farmers in the area were leasing drilling rights for as much as $1,000 an acre. Miller consulted with a lawyer, who told him the agent had committed fraud by promising that $10 an acre was the best he could get. The Millers had grounds to sue -- but that's something that, in accordance with their Amish beliefs, they'd never do. Of the Kenoil agent, Miller said: “He’s got to live with his conscience.”

The New Republic explains:

Their prohibition on the courts derives from the portion of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus instructs his followers to turn the other cheek, and if they are sued for their coats, to give up their cloaks, too. The Amish interpret this to mean that the court is no place to right wrongs. In 2011, for example, after the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a local man, Monroe L. Beachy, with running a Ponzi scheme that wiped out nearly $17 million in Amish retirement savings, a committee representing his some 2,500 Amish creditors asked a judge to dismiss his bankruptcy case so that they could resolve his debts amongst themselves.

Lest you're tempted to give fracking companies the benefit of the doubt, a lawyer for Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. told The New Republicthat the Amish restriction on litigation is “a known fact to us.”

One local father-and-son law firm said it had consulted with dozens of Amish landowners in the area who had been misled by energy companies in a manner similar to the Millers.

this story continues

Canadian power plant is buying up Detroit’s pile of tar-sands waste, burning it

xl pipeline whisleblower and

Alberta Oilsands Cleanup Harder Than First Thought: Industry, Regulator

**CP** | By Bob Weber, The Canadian Press:{Posted: 06/11/2013 1:52 pm EDT | Updated: 06/11/2013 5:50 pm EDT:(style="display:block"):}:

Follow:

Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta Business, Alberta Energy Regulator Oilsands Cleanup, Alberta Oilsands Cleanup, Alberta Tailings Ponds Cleanup, Energy Resources And Conservation Board, Energy Resources And Conservation Board Oilsands Cleanup, Alberta Oilsands, Alberta Oilsands Environment, Alberta Tailings Pond, Cp, Oilsands Cleanup Alberta, Canada Alberta News

EDMONTON - Alberta's energy industry has found that cleaning up oilsands tailings is much harder than it thought.

The province's energy regulator says all oilsands companies affected by tailings reduction rules missed what were supposed to be legally binding targets — some by wide margins. All were given extra years to meet reductions that should have been done by now.

"It's tougher than they thought," Terry Abel of the Energy Resources Conservation Board said Tuesday. "It's tougher than we thought, too."

Reclaiming mine tailings has been one of the industry's major environmental challenges. Much of that waste material is composed of particles so fine they take years or even decades to settle out of tailings ponds. Without a way to hasten the process, oilsands tailings ponds have grown from 50 square kilometres in 2006 to 176 square kilometres now.

In 2009, the board released regulations that were developed in consultation with industry and were designed to force energy companies to produce fewer tailings. By this year, operators were supposed to be removing at least half of those fine particles from their waste water and storing them so that they'd be firm enough to support a vehicle within a year.

But a recent report, which covers up to the end of 2012, found that none of the four licensed operators that so far come under the regulation was on track to meet that goal.

Suncor (TSX:SU), supposed to be removing 30 per cent of its particles, was capturing 8.5 per cent of them. Syncrude's (TSX:COS, TSX:SU, TSX:IMO) Mildred Lake project was removing 8.8 per cent of the 12 per cent required — although it exceeded targets in previous years.

Exxon Damage Assessment: If Not the Feds, Then Who?

For now, two state agencies will little experience in dealing with major oil spills are in charge of surveying and counteracting the ecological damage.

Read the story.

Greg Palast: Koch brothers could save two billion dollars a year if they can replace Venezuelan heavy crude crude with Canadian tar sands – one of the dirtiest sources of carbon emissions on the planet.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/02/koch-brothers-driving-keystone-xl-pipeline-from-canada-to-cut-out-venezuelan-oil/

kpfa 1/12/13 idle no more.ca two bills undermine treaty and eco law "talkies" yes mag 12/6. harper says cda will be powerhouse driven by tar sand; may put in nuke plant to power the extraction.

refugees; http://www.alternet.org/environment/meet-tar-sands-pollution-refugees

Oilsands study shows need for research lakes, author says

Toxic lake contamination from Alberta oilsands development is worse than previously believed, a new study suggests. The research, conducted by scientists at Queen's University in...

abboud sock puppet twitter

http://understory.ran.org/2011/08/04/breaking-tar-sands-pipeline-backers-resort-to-fake-twitter-accounts-to-show-grassroots-support/

wolves poisoned http://grist.org/list/tar-sands-development-pushes-canada-to-poison-wolves/?fb_ref=hv1

At the National Resource Defense Council, Danielle Droitsch writes:

An Alberta government sponsored report criticizing the European Union’s own independent analysis of climate emissions from tar sands has created a political debate but misses the science. A study released yesterday by the Jacobs Consultancy paid for by the Government of Alberta tries to crunch numbers to make tar sands less of a climate problem but in fact cherry-picked certain facts to make tar sands production

seem “cleaner.” In fact, NRDC has shown that multiple independent studies have confirmed that Canada’s tar sands emissions are some of the most carbon-intensive oil on earth and a new study can’t change that fact.

There isn’t any secret about why the Alberta government commissioned this “new” study. They are directly engaged in aggressive lobbying effort to European Union government who is considering whether to treat tar sands as different from conventional crude oil. The EU is developing a clean fuels policy aimed at reducing the climate emissions from transport fuels by six percent by 2020. As part of the development of this policy, they are identifying the climate emissions from different types of oils (or feedstocks) including tar sands. In short, the European Union’s own independent research (which found tar sands is 23 percent higher than a standard conventional fuel in the EU) threatens Canada’s efforts to export its carbon intensive fuel overseas. My colleague Simon Mui reported on this EU sponsored study which reinforced how tar sands is among the dirtiest forms of crude oil anywhere on earth.

Unfortunately, the Government of Alberta study was initially released to reporters who were forbidden from soliciting a critique of the study. The Edmonton Journal said“reporters who agreed to the embargo’s terms were barred from seeking advance third-party comment on the report before its release.” An advance third-party comment on the report would have revealed serious concerns about the data used in the report as evidence the EU was overstating the carbon impact of tar sands. In essence, journalists—and therefore the public—were misled about the performance of tar sands extraction process prompting one-sided stories.

TransCanada is a Canadian corporation that owns pipelines in Canada and the United States.

"With more than 50 years experience, TransCanada is a leader in the responsible development and reliable operation of North American energy infrastructure. Founded in 1951 and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, TransCanada has approximately 3,550 employees and is the general partner and a common unit holder of TC PipeLines, LP." ^[1]

Contents [hide] <ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Tar_Sands.2C_2011">1 Tar Sands, 2011</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Closing_Sundance_units_1_and_2">2 Closing Sundance units 1 and 2</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Iroquois_Pipeline">3 Iroquois Pipeline</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Directors">4 Directors</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Contact">5 Contact</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Resources_and_articles">6 Resources and articles</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#Related_Sourcewatch_articles">6.1 Related Sourcewatch articles</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TransCanada#References">6.2 References</a></li></ul></li></ul>

Tar Sands, 2011

In 2011, TransCanada requested permission to build a 1,661 mile pipeline from Canada's tar sands oil fields to U.S. refiners in Texas. The so-called Keystone XL Pipelinewould import as much as 510,000 barrels per day. Koch Industries is responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil tar sands crude that is imported into the United States, and are one of the biggest refiners of Alberta oil sands crude oil. ^[2] Some speculated that Koch Industries would benefit significantly from the project. ^[3]

The proposed pipeline is highly controversial due to the anticipated environmental harm the project would have and groups in opposition to the pipeline have held large protests to prevent its construction.^[4]

Closing Sundance units 1 and 2

In February 2011, TransAlta said it will be closing operations at two of the Sundance coal-fired units because repairs would be too costly. The Sundance 1 and 2 units have been down since December 2010. The units comprise 560 MW of the 2,126 MW Sundance power plant, which operates as a baseload facility for the Alberta electricity system.^[5]

The closing of the units could cost consumers more than $200 million in unrealized refunds through Alberta’s Balancing Pool. The agency that oversees power purchase agreements would have to pay that amount to TransAlta as net book value of the plants and to TransCanada as partial payment on the remainder of its contract. TransCanada holds the Sundance units' power purchase agreement and expects reimbursement.^[5]

Iroquois Pipeline

TransCanada held the largest ownership share of the Iroquois Gas Transmission System, a natural gas pipeline that brings gas from eastern Canada to the New York City area. Iroquois was constructed over substantial environmental opposition. The construction methods did not comply with Iroquois' proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. As a result a number of supervisors, as well as Iroquois' President were convicted of crimes.^[6][7][8]

Directors

Accessed September 2009: ^[9]

S. Barry Jackson - Chair

Harold N. Kvisle - President and CEO

Kevin E. Benson

Derek H. Burney

Wendy K. Dobson

E. Linn Draper

Paule Gauthier

Kerry L. Hawkins

Paul L. Joskow

John A. MacNaughton

David P. O'Brien

W. Thomas Stephens

D. Michael G. Stewart

Contact

Web: http://www.transcanada.com

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

ConocoPhillips

Portlands Energy Centre

Russell K. Girling

References

↑ About, TransCanada, accessed September 25, 2009.

↑ Koch Industries Handles 25 Percent of Canada Tar Sand Oil, Sustainablebusiness.com, May 23, 2011.

↑ David Sassoon, Koch Brothers Positioned to Win Big if Keystone XL Pipeline is Approved, Reuters / SolveClimate, Feb 10, 2011, accessed July 11, 2011.

↑ Tarsands Action, organizational website. November 16, 2011.

↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 "TransAlta issues notice of termination for Sundance units" Power-Gen, Feb. 10, 2011.

↑ Berger, Joseph (October 17, 1996). "Pipeline Supervisors Charged With Harming Environment", New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-11-17.

↑ Berger, Joseph (March 27, 1995). "Hazard Underground: A special report.; 375 Miles of Suspected Short Cuts Fuel Fears of Northeast Pipeline", New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-11-17.

↑ Berger, Joseph (May 17, 1996). "Builder of Pipeline For Canadian Gas Said to Admit Guilt", New York Times. Retrieved on 2011-11-17.

↑ Directors, TransCanada, accessed September 25, 2009.

Categories:

United States

Environment