Keep natural gas plants out of Northern York Region

Keep natural gas plants out of Northern York Region – SIGN ON!

The following statement has been submitted to Northern York Region Council urging them to support a unanimous resolution by East Gwillimbury council which turned down Ontario Power Authority’s proposal to build a natural gas plant in their township. Please sign onto the statement – scroll down for contact information for Northern York Region Council – also feel free to customize the statement and cc it to ontarioenergy@gmail.com; post it or forward it far and wide.

Re: proposed Northern York Region simple cycle peaking 350MW natural gas plant – Town of East Gwillimbury

I strongly encourage Northern York Region Council to support East Gwillimbury council’s unanimous resolution “making it clear that we do not support this type of development in our municipality or anywhere in Ontario for that matter.”

Without environment, there is no economy. The current type of “economy” is eating away the basis for existence from under itself and moving on to eat up the left-overs.

Is Northern York Region (NYR) one such left-over to be consumed?

Looking at the “green” portfolio of natural gas, which is promoted as a replacement solution for coal, this may be difficult to swallow.

But the reality is that natural gas has nothing to do with green environmentalism or phasing out of coal-fired plants in Ontario. There is not one sign to dissuade us from affirming that Ontario is not only keeping its coal-fired plants but is on top building more than a dozen new natural gas plants.

There is no doubt that Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is pursuing united fossil fuel burning economy in Ontario and feeding local Ontario communities to the transnational corporations operating natural gas chain of mining, shipping/piping/storing and burning.

To really understand such strong push for natural gas plants in Ontario, it would be helpful to examine the relationship between OPA and large corporations such as EnCana, Shell, Petro-Canada, TransCanada etc.

Natural gas burning necessitates natural gas mining, and this is what Encana (shale gas mining, coal bed methane, natural gas), Shell, PetroCanada and TransCanada (liquified natural gas – LNG; coal bed methane) among others are abuzz with locally and internationally.

Discussion on natural gas plants in Ontario should be informed by the knowledge of where this type of fossil fuel comes from and under what conditions. Natural gas comes from shale gas mining, coalbed methane mining, liquified natural gas imports and other sources.

Shale gas tends to cost more to produce than gas from conventional wells, because of the expense of massive hydraulic fracturing treatments required to produce shale gas, and of horizontional drilling.

The fracture fluid can be any number of fluids, ranging from water to gels, foams, nitrogen, carbon dioxide or even air in some cases [resulting in] leakoff – the loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surround permeable rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

Unsuspecting property owners around the country are getting trampled in an old-fashioned land rush by natural gas companies and speculators trying to lock up long-ignored drilling rights quickly and cheaply. Stories of fast-talking industry representatives using scare tactics to strong-arm people into signing lowball leases are popping up in rural areas and suburbs from New York to West Virginia to parts of Indiana and Texas. Barnett shale – Arlington Texas; Marcellus shale – W.Virginia; New Albany Shale – Illinois basis; Utica shale- Quebec… (Landowners getting trampled in gas rights rush26/05/08 The Associated Press) http://dailymail.com/News/200805260068

Coal bed methane (CBM) extraction is a method of extraction from a coal deposit. The methane is absorbed into solid coal matrix (coal macerals) and is released when the coal seam is depressurized. To retrieve reserves of methane, wells are drilled. The process has resulted in the drilling of tens of thousands of gas wells, and extensive support facilities, such as roads, pipelines, and compressors. The technology being used to produce coal bed methane requires pumping large volumes of water to the surface, where it is stored in huge wastewater impoundments… This practice, which is designed to evaporate and infiltrate the waste into shallow aquifer, not only removes hundreds of acres of ranch land from production but also is a blatant waste of valuable underground water reserves. (Coal bed methane discovered in Wyoming, US: Destroying the land for the sake of fuel) http://www.helium.com/items/386132-coal-bed-methane-discovered-in-wyoming-us-destroying-the-land-for-the-sake-of

Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is created by cooling natural gas into a liquid state, making it easier to store and transport. Once a regional commodity, natural gas can now be moved to overseas markets by tanker. In the Canadian project, frozen liquid gas would be turned into gas again and be fed into the Canadian pipeline system operated by TranCanada which runs from Alberta to Quebec City. (Scrapping Gazprom will delay, but may not kill Quebec LNG venture: analysts. The Canadian Press08/02/0

The commercial development of liquified natural gas (LNG) is a style called value chain, which means LNG suppliers first confirm the downstream buyers and then sign 20-25 year contracts with strict terms and structures for gas pricing. Only when the customers were confirmed and the development of a greenfield project deemed economically feasible could the sponsors of an LNG project invest in their development and operation. Thus, the LNG liquefaction business has been regarded as a game of the rich, where only players with strong financial and political resources could get involved. Major international oil companies (IOCs) such as BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BG Group; and national oil companies (NOCs) such as Pertamina, Petronas are active players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas

The Russian natural gas giant Gazprom has agreed to … supply 100 per cent of the Rabaska LNG project in Levis across the St. Lawrence from Quebec City. A final agreement, linking Gazprom Marketing & Trading USA Inc. with the other three Rabaska partners – Gaz de France, Enbridge Inc and Gaz Metro – is to be signed by the end of this year and LNG deliveries would begin in 2014. … Gazprom would match Rabaska with its Shtokman natural gas field under development in the Barents Sea. (Russian gas giant to supply Rabaska project 15/05/08 Montreal Gazette)

Plans are also underway for terminals near Saint John harbour in New Brunswick and in the Strait of Canso in Nova Scotia, as well as in Kitimat and Prince Rupert on the northern coast of British Columbia. (TransCanada, Shell plan LNG terminal 09/11/04 Toronto Star)

New York Gov. David Peterson said the state would not approve a planned $700 million (U.S.) floating LNG terminal in Long Island Sound. Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell is also against the “Broadwater” project, a joint venture between TransCanada Corp. and Shell PLC. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said last week he would sue the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if it tired to impose an LNG terminal on the state without an environmental and safety review. (Is LNG flame burning out? 12/04/08 Toronto Star)

TransCanada’s plan to build the Fairwinds liquified natural gas re-gasification plant in Maine were thwarted earlier this year when nearby residents voted against the company and partner Conoco Phillips Co. (TransCanada, Shell plan LNG terminal 09/11/04 Toronto Star)

In February, TransCanada and partner Petro-Canada suspended a $1-billion regasification facility planned for Gros Cacoiuna, Que. The decision came after Russian oil giant OAO Gazprom scrapped the LNG plant from which the companies had hoped to get their supply. TransCanada’s 59,000-kilometre ANR pipeline … stretches all the way from northern Texas, up to the midwest and back down to the Louisiana coast .. (With 2 LNG setbacks, TransCanada could look to Gulf of Mexico next: analysts 10/04/08 The Canadian Press)

Natural gas plants in NYR or anywhere else in Ontario, would drive fossil fuel burning necessary to power multiple-site mining for natural gas and its transportation from distant mine sites. Such operations destroy environment and contribute to Global Warming, endangering our planetary survival. http://www.earthjustice.org/library/maps/oil-gas-development-in-the-rockies-back.pdf

Approving of natural gas plants in NYR or anywhere else in Ontario would amount to approving of conflict which arises from natural gas mining and burning and affects lives of people on both ends of the natural gas chain. We should visit natural gas battlegrounds in British Columbia, U.S. and the Arctic among many other places before making decisions regarding proposed natural gas plants in NYR or anywhere else in Ontario.

British Columbia

“Almost wherever coal-bed methane goes there’s opposition to it because it’s such a destructive type of fossil fuel extraction,” says Swanson. And there’s plenty of opposition in B.C. South of the Sacred Headwaters, the residents of the Bulkley Valley, including the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, have waged an effective campaign against a proposed coal-bed methane field adjacent to the village of Telkwa. Demonstrations against the project have seen over 600 protesters take to the streets of Smithers, a town of only 5,000 people. “Native group opposes mining on sacred site” 7-13/12/07 http://www.madaraka.com/North-America/30.html

Opposition to Shell Canada’s proposed coalbed methane extraction project was loud and clear during the weekend as 400 Northwest residents packed Gitanmaax Hall in Hazelton, British Columbia on Saturday. The Sacred Headwaters Summit brought together members of the Gitxsan, Tahltan, Wet’suwet’en, Tsimshian, Haisla, Carrier-Sekani, and Nisga’a nations, as well as guide outfitters, anglers and other concerned citizens, all united in their opposition to the prospect of coalbed methane drilling at the shared headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers. Coalbed methane foes pack heated meeting 28/05/08 The Daily News http://www.canada.com/cityguides/princerupert/story.html?id=bcb3cc88-282d-4094-b90a-6640971ff58c

The Citizens Concerned about Coalbed Methane is a community group based in Fernie, BC. The group consists of many citizens and citizens groups that share a common concern about the development of coalbed methane mining in the East Kootenays of British Columbia, Canada. http://www.cccbm.org/fgalleryhttp://www.cccbm.org/fgallery

Montana/Wyoming/Colorado…

The short term, boom bust methane gas development will affect and most likely permanently change the Wyoming’s open space landscapes, economy, lifestyles, quality of living, water resources, and wildlife resources. The State expects development to be somewhere around 100,000 wells.

“Additional Information and Concerns over Coalbed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin”

http://powderriverbasin.org/Attch_Cats/additionalinfocbm.pdf

“My family has invested five generations in protecting our land and our way of life,” says Eric Barlow, a rancher near Gillette, Wyoming. “The gas companies could ruin it all for a few years’ worth of profits.”

…the Bureau of Land Management’s plans for 51,000 CBM gas wells in Wyoming won’t protect crops and soils from the billions of gallons of salt-laden wastewater that accompany CBM. “Wyoming Ranchers Enter Federal Court Battle to Protect Land” http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/002/wyoming_ranchers_enter_federal_court_battle_to_protect_land.html

Kent Smith hasn’t drawn a drop of water from his well in a year. But the well has produced plenty of methane, an explosive and poisonous gas that, at one point, blasted from his well head with the roar of a car engine. “When you have water taken away, it changes everything,” said Smith, 64, a retired teacher who moved here from Castle Rock to be a self-described “cowboy” and keep horses amid the splendor of the Sangre de Cristo mountains. http://www.ourcolorado.org/media-center/news/methane-growing-into-a-big.html

Take action Now! make the energy industry clean up its messes—BEFORE IT MAKES MORE! http://www.clarkresourcecouncil.org/takeaction/letter.php

Alaska

Shell Oil and the Minerals Management Service have provided a geographically specific vision for development in Bristol Bay that calls for subsea pipelines to run through Nelson Lagoon and Herendeen Bay, directly adjacent to the Port Moller State Critical Habitat area. Onshore pipelines would run across the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, and terminate at a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant and terminal that would be located in the southern (Gulf of Alaska) side of the peninsula near Pavlof Bay. Risk of Oil and Gas Drilling -Impacts from Oil and Gas Infrastructure http://www.akmarine.org/our-work/protect-bristol-bay/risks-of-oil-gas-drilling

The administration proposal opening up 5.6 million acres off the Alaska coast to energy development …[in] the area, which had been protected from drilling since 1990, … north of the Aleutian Islands near Bristol Bay. The administration lifted the ban last year. Under the leasing proposal, the North Aleutian Basin lease sale would be held in 2011. Exploratory drilling could begin the next year. “Feds move toward drilling in right whale territory”08/04/08 http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/369734.html

Test drilling for coalbed methane near the village of Wainwright on the Chukchi Sea coast is underway. CBM drilling starts at Wainwright.. http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/991113879.shtml

There is no need for NYR to feed into the destructive and conflict-provoking natural gas chain. Nor is there need to give NYR’s environment, its people’s health and realistic possibilities for sustainable economy as fodder for a handful corporations aspired to by OPA.

We must question the absence of renewable energy developers from the competition process for energy procurement for NYR.

We must question OPA’s pre-made decisions which give preferential treatment to fossil fuel burning corporations.

Unlike natural gas plants, which create business for large corporations, but eliminate the rest of us, the renewable energy economy heralds employment opportunities across the Province of Ontario.

It would take a large and diversified workforce to turn all existing infrastructure in Ontario into 100% green buildings and construct new infrastructure meeting the same 100% green standard. Why keep such needed transformation in check while giving a free ride to fossil fuel burning industry?

We urge NYR Council to examine those possibilities which are completely erased from the current planning process for NYR energy. Possibilities such as pursuing:

energy systems which do not compromise environment and human health and lives
energy which is not dependent on mining for fuels and transporting
energy which does not create deadly waste
energy which is least-cost option
energy which can be brought on-line in shortest time frame
energy which would create a vibrant economy
energy which would be on par with current concerns with Global Warming
integrated renewable energy systems striving to achieve 100% green building standard for all existing and new infrastructure.

The problem of natural gas plants is province-wide. We urge NYR Council to work in solidarity with other regions facing the same problem. There are about 20 natural gas plants in Ontario either in operation, in construction phase or in a proposal stage.

OPA’s lists of natural gas plants (two websites):
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=236 http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=174

Together, we must demand full public subsidies for renewable energy and phase out subsidies counting in billions of dollars for nuclear and fossil fuels burning industry.

In short, NYR should pursue renewable energy sufficiency, making sure that the energy produced in NYR is for NYR benefit. This means ensuring that NYR residents and businesses would have access to energy produced in their region at affordable prices, and that energy produced in NYR would not compromise people’s health or environment locally, nationally or internationally.

Ivona Vujica

Ottawa, ON

Green Energy Only

ontarioenergy@gmail.com

Northern York Region Council:

regional.chair@york.ca, pmorris@e-aurora.ca, jyoung@eastgwillimbury.ca, rgrossi@town.georgina.on.ca, dwheeler@town.georgina.on.ca, mayor@king.ca, fscarpitti@markham.ca, jjones@markham.ca, jheath@markham.ca, twong@markham.ca, glandon@markham.ca, mayor@newmarket.ca, jtaylor@newmarket.ca, officemayor@richmondhill.ca, bhogg@richmondhill.ca, vspatafora@richmondhill.ca, mayor@vaughan.ca, joyce.frustaglio@vaughan.ca, mario.ferri@vaughan.ca, gino.rosati@vaughan.ca, mayor.emmerson@townofws.com , mayor@king.ca , cleve@kingcentric.ca , jeff@laidlawlistens.com , janeunderhill@sympatic.ca , csomerville@king.ca ,
billcober@aol.com ,