Trade

Thermal coal is being increasingly shipped out of BC ports. The vast majority of this thermal coal originates in mines outside of our province: primarily in the Powder River Basin in the US and from a few mines in Alberta. American mining companies such as Cloud Peak Energy, Arch Coal, and Peabody Energy, are attempting to get their product to Asian markets and are desperate to do so as US power plants have increasingly displaced coal with natural gas. Facing stiff opposition from increasing coal exports through Washington, Oregon, and California, these companies have shifted their attention to BC.

The shipping of this thermal coal is completely inconsistent with BC’s climate strategy and yet the provincial government has done nothing to impede it. In fact it seems like the opposite is true, BC, it appears, is open for business.

While it is true that the operation of Port Authorities (and any expansions) falls under federal jurisdiction there are significant opportunities for the province to step in and take an active role in opposing the expansion of thermal coal exports.

The most controversial coal expansion project is currently the Fraser Surrey Docks Terminal Expansion. Using this example, the province could undertake a number of initiatives:

1. Texada Quarries has applied for a permit amendment to increase their Coal Storage limit and this is a key link in the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal. The permit amendment process runs through the ministry of Energy and Mines. Under both the Mine Act and the Environment Management Act this permit could be refused because of concerns around Health and Environmental Impacts. As part of its permitting process the province could also call for a Health Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment as a prior condition to granting the amendment.
2. The Minister of Health could order a Health Impact Assessment being called for by both the Local Medical Health Officers and the Provincial Health Officer with the Fraser Surry Docks Terminal Expansion.
3. The Ministry of Environment could also order its own comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, as opposed to the one that was commissioned by FSD that has received heavy criticism.

Clearly the province has powers that could delay, impede and derail this specific expansion. For a province that claims to be a leader in climate change action, the expansion of thermal coal exports through our ports is deeply hypocritical. Significant opposition around this project exists. Municipal councils, health officials, school boards, environmental groups and concerned citizens have all voiced their opposition to a project that does little to benefit our province yet showcases the hypocrisy of the BC Liberal position on climate change.

In comparison, our southern neighbors take climate change seriously when considering new projects. For example, in Washington, as part of its Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Gateway Pacific Coal Port project, the Department of Ecology is actively considering the impacts climate change in its assessment. The EA includes an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project site and construction, transportation from mine to market, and the end-use burning of exported coal in Asia!

The government claims that jumping head-first into the race on LNG is the single best thing that the province can do to address climate change. I frankly think that actively opposing the expansion of the dirtiest fuel on the planet would do a lot more.

Media Statement: February 12th, 2014
Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver USes Motion to Open Coal Debate
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Andrew Weaver tabled a motion to amend the throne speech today in the Legislature, opening a debate on thermal coal exports from British Columbia. The motion, should it pass, would amend the throne speech to include the following:

Notice to Amend a Motion – And that this, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest issues facing our Province and that this government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is inconsistent with the current expansion of United States-sourced thermal coal exports coming through British Columbia’s harbours, and therefore calls upon this government to follow the lead of our Pacific Coast Action Plan Partners, Washington, Oregon and California, and explore all means by which the government may halt the further expansion of thermal coal exports in British Columbia.

BC is expected to increase coal exports to 65 million tonnes by the end of 2015, The province only produces around 30 million tonnes of which the majority is metallurgical coal used for steel manufacturing in Japan, Korea and China. The other roughly 40 tonnes is a mix of thermal and metallurgical coal, mostly originating in the US and Alberta.

The vast majority of thermal coal is trans-shipped from mines in Alberta and the Powder River Basin in southern Montana and northern Wyoming. Over the last decade the amount of thermal coal being shipped through BC has risen dramatically. Thermal coal now accounts for somewhere between 30 to 40% of all coal exported through BC ports, and the number is expected to rise.

“In Tuesday’s throne speech the government stated LNG exports would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China. Increasing thermal coal exports through BC is completely inconsistent with that message. We need a debate here in the Legislature, and a conversation around the province on our energy future, the impact that will have on climate change here in BC, and around the world.” Said Andrew Weaver

The United States has signalled its intent to reduce dependency on coal fired power generation, moving to natural gas and renewable energy sources. California, Oregon and Washington State have asked regulators to include the impact of greenhouse gas emissions both in the US, and internationally, before approving export licenses.

In October BC signed on to a new Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy with Washington State, Oregon and California. A provision in the plan requires the signatories to cooperate with national and sub-national governments around the world on climate action.

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
1 250 216 3382

With today’s Throne Speech, the BC Liberal Government once again positioned LNG development as its moon-shot saving-grace for the economy, the climate and B.C.’s future. Yet, according to Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party, while the government’s throne speech offers lofty goals, it falls far short of positioning B.C. as a leader in the 21st century economy.

“The BC Government is talking about making an economic plan and sticking to it and yet they still have no plan for what to do once LNG runs out or if it never takes off,” says Dr. Andrew Weaver. “We are still not using LNG to transition ourselves to a low carbon economy. And we still have no back-up plan for our economy if LNG fails to deliver. ”

The USA, China, and EU are all heading into renewable energy and knowledge based economies. Instead, B.C. is doubling down on its hope to become a super highway for non-renewable exports.

British Columbia has the potential to be a clean tech powerhouse but for this to happen we need a specific and actionable economic and skills training plan to position B.C. as a leader in the new global clean tech economy.

As the 2014 legislative session begins, Andrew Weaver will be looking for MLAs who are serious about building an economic future based on access to clean renewable energy, the innovative potential of British Columbians, and our desire to ensure fiscal, environmental and social sustainability for future generations.

In making this challenge, Weaver says: “To those politicians who claim to be so concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, where are your voices in opposition to the proposed expansion of thermal coal exports? To those politicians who are concerned about a strong economy, where are your backup and transition plans? ”

In an earlier post I noted that British Columbia presently mines, transports and ships metallurgical coal used in the steel industry in Asia.  However in recent months there has been a push to expand our coal exports to include vast amounts of US thermal coal used to produce electricity. Washington, Oregon and California have all said no to the export of this excess thermal coal through their ports. So why do we think its okay to ship the coal through British Columbia ports? There are very few jobs associated with coal export and we know that coal combustion is the dirtiest way to produce electricity. In fact, North American markets are drying up for this thermal coal due to an explosion of shale gas production and shale gas burns much cleaner and more efficiently than coal. Even China recently announced plans to significantly reduce their use of coal.

In order to increase our export capacity for thermal coal, Fraser Surrey docks have proposed the creation of a Direct Transfer Coal Facility. This facility would transfer coal from trains to barges for transport to a handling facility at Texada Island. There coal would be stored and loaded onto ships destined for the Asian market.  I understand the desire of Fraser Surrey docks to expand their operations, but is coal really the only option? I think not.

According to Port Metro Vancouver “Container traffic through the west coast of Canada is expected to double over the next 10 to 15 years and nearly triple by 2030“. In my earlier post mentioned above, I pointed out how the Port of Prince Rupert seized upon some of their natural geographical advantages to host a modern container facility. Presently their container facility does not have a capacity for destuffing and restuffing containers upon their arrival from Asia. But by adding such a capacity, hundreds of local jobs would be created.

This week I toured the Alberni Inlet and the port in Port Alberni to get a sense of what potential for growth existed there. The CEO of the Port Authority, Zoran Knezevic, together with the Port Authority directors that I met, shared a vision that has enormous potential for both local job creation and the environment. It sure looks like a win-win proposition for industry, the citizens of Port Alberni, their Huu-ay-aht First Nation partners, Fraser Surrey docks and Vancouver as a whole.

At present, container ships entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Asia and elsewhere will first head to Seattle to unload/load. There they will typically spend a day before moving on to either Deltport or facilities on the south shore of the Burrard Inlet. Another day or so will be spent in the Vancouver region before the ships head back to Asia. Many of the containers unloaded/loaded in the Burrard Inlet are put onto or taken off trucks which drive across the city to the existing distribution and industrial centres largely located on the south arm of the Fraser River. The trucks — more than a million of them a year — add to traffic congestion in the Metro Vancouver area.

So what’s the solution? Port Alberni is proposing to build a container trans-shipment terminal in partnership with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation about 35 km down the inlet from the town of Port Alberni. The facility would be used to unload container ships from Asia and reload their cargo onto barges that would head to either Seattle or Vancouver. The shipping industry wins as their large container ships only unload/load once and save the ~4 day trip to Seattle, Vancouver and back out the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Vancouver wins as the barges can now travel up the south arm of the Fraser River directly to the industrial/distribution sites thereby eliminating more than a million truck trips a year off Metro Vancouver roads. Fraser Surrey Docks win as they can grow to include an expanded container handling facility which would allow them to load/unload trains with cargo instead of coal. And with the expected doubling of container traffic in the next 10 to 15 years, there is indeed a need for additional container handling capacity.

Let’s hope that Fraser Surrey docks, the Port of Metro Vancouver, the Port Alberni Port Authority and the BC Government can all get together to work this out. After all, we all win as the power basin thermal coal stays in the ground.

Media Statement December 19, 2013
BC Greens call for sixth condition for heavy oil pipelines
For immediate release

Victoria BC – In response the NEB Joint Review Panel’s final decision to approve Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, BC Green Party MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Andrew Weaver, and BC Green Party Leader Adam Olsen are calling on the BC Government to establish a 6th condition for support of heavy oil pipeline projects: A moratorium on dilbit transport along the B.C. coast.

“We are quite disappointed with the JRP report in respect to the risks related to dilbit,” says Andrew Weaver. “The key issue is dilbit because it’s different from refined oils that float on the surface–up to 50% of dilbit sinks making clean-up significantly more difficult if not impossible. We have no way of knowing what would happen if dilbit were to spill on our coast. The science isn’t there to allow for effective spill response and this was not reflected in the report.”

According to the report “Northern Gateway and other hearing participants did not agree on the behaviour of diluted bitumen spilled into water.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has made it clear that “Behaviour models specific to dilbit spills do not exist, and existing commercial models for conventional oil do not allow parameter specific modifications.”

“Clearly the report did not do an adequate job of addressing the risks of dilbit on our coast.” says Adam Olsen. “We have a choice as British Columbians: We can continue to play Russian roulette with our pristine coastline, or we can stand up for British Columbia and put a moratorium on dilbit transport along our coast.”

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA

mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

1 250 216 3382