Watson Island "Burn Rate" estimated at 50 to 60 thousand per month

The public comment portion regarding the City's 2013 Annual Report of Monday's Council meeting provided for a brief glimpse into some of the financial obligation of the city when it comes to maintenance issues at Watson Island.

The review of recent developments at the industrial site and disclosure of the cost of ongoing maintenance costs came as part of Council's Open Forum section of Monday nights session, which saw  Mr. Larry Golden once again take to the microphone.

This time he asked Council members how much money was currently being spent on maintenance issues at the Watson island industrial site and how the city planned to cover those costs.

As part of the answer to Mr. Golden's question, Mayor Mussallem provided some background on the nature of those costs, highlighting how they had been reduced from their previous totals of 80 to 100 thousand dollars per month.

Those costs apparently reduced after Council had tasked City Manager Robert Long to reduce some of the ongoing burden from the industrial site, mainly through the removal of some of the monitoring concerns from the site.

As for the current "burn rate" on Watson Island maintenance, the Mayor turned the proceedings over to the City's Financial Officer Corinne Bomben.

She explained that the current rate of maintenance costs were in the 50 to 60 thousand dollar range and that it was hoped by the City that those costs would be addressed by way of rental income from the site.

While it's quite helpful of Mr. Golden to seek out such information from the city, questions of this nature should actually be the domain of the Council members, who collectively should be more proactive on behalf of the city's residents.

Not only should the city's council members be raising those kinds of questions of staff in public forum as part of their duties on Council, but they should also be seeking out ways to have such details made more accessible to the city's residents, perhaps making better use of the city's website.

Through the trials and tribulations that have been the Watson Island file through the years, few if any details have ever really been delivered in public forum by council members. For many residents developments both past and current remain very much a mystery.

Instead it seems that we have to wait for someone to take advantage of a public question period, in this case, a comment on the Annual report to seek a little clarity on events.

Clearly the flow of information on Watson Island could use a little improvement from Council.

You can review this short review of the Watson island file of Monday night from the City's Video Archive, the discussion starts at the 43 minute mark and continues on for five minutes or so.

For more background on developments at Watson Island see our archive page for the industrial site.

More background on items of note from City council can be found on  our archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Lot 444 becomes a talking point at Council

Monday's public comment opportunity as part of the City Council session, provided for an interesting review of how Prince Rupert Council believes they are handling the issue of potential development of a parcel of land along Tuck inlet.

As we outlined on the blog last month, Part of Lot 444, features a section of land that is adjacent to the City's Watershed and was recently proposed as a potential site for an LNG terminal development.

That prospect became the theme of of discussion as part of the Public Comments portion of the Committee of the Whole session of Monday evening. With Larry Golden, a frequent observer of much of Council's work approaching the microphone to make a few inquiries of council over their plans for
the land in question.

The first being a note that so far in the process, there has been no outline of public meetings and other features of public overview of the proposal.

During the course of his questions of council it seemed that at times, some Council and staff members were approaching Mr. Golden's efforts with something a little less than with enthusiasm.

Though through the course of the discussion, he finally seemed to break through to gain some insight into the process ahead for the proposed development of the parcel of land around Tuck Inlet.

One of the more interesting observations on the theme came from City Manager Robert Long, who provided Mr. Golden with a bit of a backgrounder on the nature of the wholly owned Legacy company that the city will operate regarding the land in question.

Suggesting that the nature of the company's operations could be considered similar to the way that CityWest has been created, something that may or many not provide much in the way of reassurance for some in the community.

Particularly when you consider some of the more recent discussion points from Council when it comes to the City owned tele-communication company and the financial return to the city that it has provided for in recent years.

Councillor Thorkelson observed that she wasn't quite sure what Mr. Golden was trying to get at through his line of questioning.

She then however did offer up some comments on the topic of the proposed project and stated that Council is dealing with that, explaining that there would be a zoning meeting put in place to rezone the land to LNG only.

She also outlined up her thoughts on the nature of the wholly owned company and its role in the process ahead, with money gained from any land sale to be allocated towards public use such community infrastructure such as streets, fixing the dam and such.

She reinforced that the whole process would be thorough and public.

The Mayor also highlighted the city's plan to hold public meetings, and introduction of the rezoning process and the public comment that goes with it.

He also reviewed the intention of the city to hire a third party, who will be tasked with a  review of the proposed project and to do an analysis as to how the development may impact the surrounding water, surrounding land and the air shed

Councillor Ashley outlined her talking points on the theme, advising that while dates have not been set up as of yet, all the stages of the process ahead would be made public and council would be seeking as much public engagement as possible.

Councillor Cunningham provided his take on Mr. Golden's points of concern, a outlining that Council wants this to be totally transparent to the community.

Highlighting how the city owns the land and that the community will have a big say with what the City does with it, adding that it will not be like any other land on the waterfront.

Councillors Garon, Kinney and Carlick-Pearson offered up no thoughts or comments on the nature of Mr. Golden's questions, or on the process ahead for the question of Lot 444 development.

As a whole Council seems to be reacting with a bit of consternation as to why some residents may be more concerned about the process than Council members appear to be.

For the most part there is some basis for such concern, beginning with how the land became available for development.

As we remember, Lot 444 came to be placed within the municipal boundary after Council sought  approval to expand the boundary, outlined at the time as a way to bring the watershed to be within the civic boundary.

At that time and during the process in place to seek comment from the public, no mention of developing the land into an LNG terminal location was declared.

Then there's the nature of that process Council used to secure that approval, using the Alternate Approval Process to seek the comment from the public.

That consultation process is one that both Councillors Ashley and Thorkelson had expressed concerns over in the past. So to use that method to expand the municipal boundary and then to also turn around and announce that the land will be offered out for development certainly raised a few eyes in the community.

Perhaps much of the concern over the city's plans for the Tuck Inlet land parcel stems from the lack of information that the City and Council delivers on issues of this type.

They have been slow to provide any public notices on their plan ahead when it comes to Lot 444 and have not made much of an effort to provide background information on the proposal on the city website. A portal that should be used to much more effect by Council, so as to avoid some of these controversies.

Beyond that, the frequent use of special closed sessions by this Council, (12 so far in 2014) doesn't provide the community with the impression that much information is to be expected from Council in their twice a month public sessions.

And if one goes through the archives of past Council sessions, there's really little in the way of discussion between councillors and staff on issues such as this one that take place in those public sessions.

The fact that a resident had to raise questions in one of the few public opportunities available to discuss issues with Council, should be an indication that the City and Council needs to be more engaged with the community on such issues.

Through their talking points at Monday's public session, Council members seem to be floating the always popular theme of transparency, a very much over used word by politicians.

Mr. Golden's comments weren't particularly critical, more to the point he was simply seeking some basic information on a topic of which little information has been provided.

Considering the tone and content of their commentary and follow up remarks to Mr. Golden's very basic questions, the community no doubt will be looking for Council and the City to provide prompt notification, frequent updates and much more in the way of information on any proposed developments that involve Lot 444.

You can review the full discussion from the Committee of the Whole session through the City's Video Archive page, the conversation starts at 14:30 and continues on until 23:30 .

For further items of note from Prince Rupert City Council see our archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Councillor Ashley to seek rezoning of industrial land within Prince Rupert, with an eye towards a ban on oil refinery development in the city

While the talk of oil refineries on the North Coast is still very much a far off idea, proponents may soon learn that any idea of placing one on industrial land within the City of Prince Rupert boundaries just won't be on.

On Monday evening, Councillor Anna Ashley advised Council that she plans to serve a motion of notice at the next Council session.

A discussion point that would seek to have all industrial land within the city's boundaries rezoned, so as to not allow for development of an oil refinery within the city boundaries.

The prospect of such activity in the region, would at the moment seem very much the thing of a far off proposal, rather than fact. Indeed, for many observers of the political and economic scene in British Columbia the prospect of such developments ever getting off the ground is doubtful.

However, with her notice of further discussion to come on the topic, Councillor Ashley is apparently not inclined to wait to see how those proposed developments may or may not progress.

Towards her theme on banning oil terminal development within municipal boundaries, the Mayor tasked the Corporate Administrator, City Manager and City Planner to all put together a report for Council.

An Information package Designed to provide Council Members some guidance as to what steps would be required to provide for such an industrial banishment on city land.

The two most often mentioned proposals for an oil refinery in the Prince Rupert area have been Eagle Spirit Holdings and Pacific Future Energy Corporation , both of which have provided mainly for press releases on the theme, but little else as far as a development plan.

You can review what information we have assembled on both proposals from the links below:

Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings
Pacific Future Energy Corporation

Should either of those two proponents ever find some forward momentum on their proposals, it would appear pretty clear that should Councillor Ashley find support among her council partners, that Prince Rupert won't be putting out a welcome mat for developments of that nature.

However, before Council gets around to banning any form of industrial development option, one might wonder if they should not at least investigate a bit just what is being proposed?

The prospect of an outright ban on any kind of industrial development, particularly one at such an early stage of the proposal process seems baffling.

There are two sides to every particular story and without having sought out further information on what either of the two most public proposals are all about, Council runs the risk of making pronouncements without knowing any actual facts about them.

Beyond the added workload that Council has once again suddenly deposited on staff members, a collective that Council admits are already overworked, there's the apparent theme here that the current Council members will somehow know what's best for the larger community.

Something as declarative as an outright ban of the development of any industry, is an issue that perhaps the entire community should have a say on, not just the six elected councillors and their Mayor.

If anything, this might be an issue best settled by a vote by public referendum. And by public vote, we suggest not by using Council's preferred version of consultation of late, that of the Alternate Approval Process.

For the moment, the idea of issuing a ban on any oil refinery proposal (particularly ones which have not  even been earmarked for Prince Rupert) seems to be an attempt to attach Council to a rather a topical item of the news cycle these days.

It's a rather curious move at this point in time, and one that seems to be thing of a spontaneous whim, without making for much thought as to the optics such a decision might deliver for other investors of different proposals beyond those of oil refineries.

Once again, Council seems determined to introduce topics to their Council deliberations seemingly out of far left field,  a path which doesn't appear to give much thought to the larger message that such actions tend to deliver beyond the city's boundaries.

You can review Councillor Ashley's heads up to Council through the City's Video Archive, her discussion points start at the 1 hour 26 minute mark.

For more items of note from City Council see our Archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Woodside LNG looking at two options for Grassy Point LNG development

Monday night was presentation night for the Australian based energy company Woodside, as John Litchfield, the Manager of Indigenous Affairs for the company outlined at what stage their proposed LNG development for Grassy Point is at and what kind of timeline the company was looking to follow in their early stages of review.

He opened his review of the company by providing some background on the work of Woodside in Australia where the company has been operating for over 60 years and operating LNG facilities across the country for over 25 years.

During the course of his twenty minute presentation, Mr. Litchfield provided a glimpse of the two options that the Australian company is considering for their parcel of land at Grassy Point that they are examining on land north of Prince Rupert near Lax Kw'alaams.

He outlined the nature of the agreement between Woodside and the Provincial Government, providing for a three year window to investigate the feasibility of developing any terminal project in the region.

The main focus of their initial review is to determine if it makes financial sense for the company to move forward with the project and that any decision to move on that prospect is a few years in the future.

As for the actual proposals for Terminal development, Mr. Litchfield highlighted the two concepts that Woodside is reviewing for the site, should the project prove feasible.

One a on onshore facility and the other one which would be a floating terminal located offshore of Grassy Point. He offered up a bit of background on the differences between the two options.

The floating proposal would be constructed offshore and floated to the North Coast, requiring less of a construction work force to put it in place. Litchfield estimated that number of workers required on that proposal would only be in the range of 1,000 workers.

The onshore proposal would have a much larger impact on the region, requiring a much larger construction work force, numbering near 6,000 workers.

Both proposals would provide full time operational jobs numbering around 300 over the minimum 25 years of operation for the terminal. He also outlined some of the indirect employment opportunities associated to the operations of the terminal.

The theme of engagement in social investment was also reviewed, with Woodside using their work in Australia with aboriginal people as a template as to a potential path they would follow in British Columbia.

The timeline of the process moving forward was outlined, with the first of the Environmental Assessment engagement to be put in motion as early as July of this year, with a final Project Description to be delivered in the second half of 2014.

In closing he stressed their desire to engage in extensive consultation with First Nations, Governments and the public in the region.

Following the presentation, three Council members offered up some thoughts on the project with questions and suggestions for the Woodside representative.

Councillor Ashley led off the queries, outlining the nature of these developments tend to be those of development outside of the municipal boundaries, but impacting communities that act as service centres, wihtout tax benefits to the communities that host those services.

Mr. Litchfield outlined that it was an issue that Woodside would have to consider further, but that he was aware of the nature of the question of service agreements and that they are familiar with the idea of general land use agreements and how benefits need to be spread more broadly.

Councillor Thorkelson followed up on the theme of development of the project and where Woodside would see workers living during both the construction and permanent operational periods.

Mr. Litchfield returned to the two options they are considering and how they may factor into those numbers. He also highlighted the engagement that Woodside intends to develop with Aboriginal communities in the region.

Councillor Garon offered up some observations on the near shore version of the LNG terminal, calling attention to the nature of our occasional severe weather of the North Coast and the impact that may have on such a structure located off shore.

The Mayor closed the presentation with an inquiry as to whether Woodside would be setting up an office in the community to provide further review of their proposals as they move forward.

It all made for an interesting review,  Woodside however, would appear to be more of a long game proponent.

As Mr. Litchfield outlined for Council, that Woodside anticipates a three year window to examine the feasibility of their proposal, while any announcement of moving forward would appear to be a few years down the line just yet.

You can review more on their proposal from the City Council Video Archive, Mr. Litchfield starts his presentation at the twenty six minute mark, it continues through until the 

For more background on the Woodside proposal, see our Industrial Development archive page for the project.

Those looking for more items of note from City Council can find them posted to our City Council Discussion Points page here.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

Council approves draft resolutions for UBCM travels of the fall

As we outlined on the blog on Monday, Prince Rupert Council has put together a list of seven potential discussion points for their travels to Whistler at this years UBCM conference. Among those issues of concern to Council were items on port taxation, tax caps and other items related to industrial development on the North Coast.

Council provided for some tweaking of the wording on a few of their suggestions, but for the most part approved the list of draft resolutions as part of their Monday evening session.

After a short review from the City's Corporate Administrator, Council voted on each individual resolution and added them to their wish list of topics to be forwarded to the UBCM convention planners.

Later in the Council session, they also added on other item, one not  previously highlighted in the Council agenda for Monday.

With Council deciding to add concerns over Social Housing to the list of items that could be considered by UBCM members

From the City Council Video Archive you can review the full discussion on those resolutions they will submit to UBCM, the discussion starts at the 1 hour 16 minute portion and continues on until the 1 hour thirty eight minute mark.

Draft resolutions are only suggestions for discussion however and whether any of the eight prospective Prince Rupert resolutions make it to the final Agenda for the fall gathering will be determined later this summer by UBCM conference organizers.

For more items on Prince Rupert City Council discussion points see our archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review

City to take taxation and industrial development issues to UBCM in the fall

When the city's council members head off to Whistler for this fall's UBCM gathering they will be bringing a list of concerns that they hope other communities will take up as their own.

At tonight's Council session, council members will review the draft of the resolutions that the City of Prince Rupert hopes to add to the UBCM agenda.

Many of their recommendations for review and approval will be on familiar themes for council observers. Dealing for the most part with the desire to find ways to access more revenues through industrial taxation and payments.

With those lengthy discussions on the payment in lieu structure of port development in the city still fresh in their minds from the spring budget sessions, the Port issue will be one of their main resolution points for September's UBCM.

On that topic of the Payment in lieu process currently in place, the City will be putting forward the resolution that the BC Assessment Authority valuation be used for the purposes of PILT as it applies to Port Authority properties.

As for the tax cap, the City will be asking that UBCM support their resolution that the provincial taxation caps be repealed, highlighting how a temporary measure became a permanent one.

We outlined some of Council's concerns on those two items of concern back in March, during the heated moments of discussion on revenue issues for the city.

They also will offer up a resolution to seek Funding assistance for large scale Project Proposal Evaluations on project proposals.

Council also is targeting concerns over tax exemptions on Berth corridors, seeking to have those
exemptions eliminated from the Community Charter.

Other items that they hope to bring to UBCM for inclusion in their final discussions will be items of note on Flexible matching grants, Unconditional grants and the need for the provincial government to create and implement a poverty reduction plan.

Their draft presentation provides a fair bit of background on those items, you can review it all from the Agenda for Tonight's council session, it can be found on pages 38 and 39.

For more items of interest on developments at Prince Rupert City Council see our archive page.

Cross Posted from the North Coast Review

Northwest Institute delivers LNG concerns to your door step

As part of their ongoing engagement on issues of LNG development, the environmental watchdog group the Northwest Institute has delivered another in a series of householder updates across the Northwest.

The Spring edition of their work calls attention to their concerns over Terminal development on the North Coast, in particular they focus on the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project for Lelu Island.

Among their concerns, the location of the terminal on the Skeena estuary and the volume of dredging that will be required should the project move forward.

They also call into question some of the forecasts on job creation and the impact that temporary workers   from outside the region may have on the community during any construction phase.

Their final point involves their concerns over LNG development and air pollution in the region, particularly in the Terrace-Kitimat region which they observe is already facing an increase in air emissions owing to the Alcan Modernization project.

They offer up the opinion, that adding pollution from LNG plants could saturate that air shed making it unhealthy for human health.

The household mailers provide more or less a snapshot of what they want to deliver to Northwest residents, more detailed background on their talking points can be found on their LNG issues website.

They also have taken to social media with a facebook page designed to increase awareness of their campaign.

You can review the household mailer delivered last week from the items listed below.

And while they did make mention of a number of LNG proposals in the region, they clearly went to press before the City of Prince Rupert's most recent announcement on LNG development.

As Council outlined in May they making moves to designate land along Tuck Inlet for further LNG development, with Exxon/Mobil the prospective LNG terminal operators.

Considering that location's proximity to the city's watershed, we imagine at some point the Tuck Island inlet proposal will also be a featured item on future mailings and website offerings from the Northwest Institute.

We have a full overview of LNG development items and issues on the North Coast on our archive page.

Cross Posted from North Coast Review.

Northern Gateway Project gains approval... construction process far from assured

“Today constitutes another step in the process. Moving forward, the proponent must demonstrate to the independent regulator, the NEB, how it will meet the 209 conditions. It will also have to apply for regulatory permits and authorizations from federal and provincial governments. 

In addition, consultations with Aboriginal communities are required under many of the 209 conditions that have been established and as part of the process for regulatory authorizations and permits. 

The proponent clearly has more work to do in order to fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route.” -- A portion of Tuesday's Announcement of Approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline project by the Federal Conservative Government of Stephen Harper. 

The official nod of approval for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project was provided by the Federal Government on Tuesday afternoon ( a nod dependent on Northern Gateway proponents meeting the 209 Join Review Panel conditions), though considering the nature of previous Government announcements the work of the day wasn't exactly the thing of trumpets blaring.

The Northern Gateway approval was made in the middle of the afternoon by way of a short announcement on the Government website, with no follow up press conference and no Ministers available for talking points.

Contrast that to some of the past announcements by the Federal Conservatives with their Jobs for Canada banners and slick media presentations and the work of yesterday had the feel of one of those late Friday announcements. Something designed to bury the news that Governments are not too anxious to share with anyone.

However, with the media attention that has been provided to the topic, the Tuesday announcement delivered much opportunity for those in opposition to the project to share their thoughts and share they did.

From NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau the response was quick and focused on the theme that Government had made a bad decision and that they would choose a different path.

Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen, spoke to the issue even before the announcement was made, rising in the House of Commons on Monday to try and sway the Government's decision.




Once the Conservatives made their announcement, the long standing opponent of all things Northern Gateway delivered his declaration of disappointment.  In scrum after scrum following Tuesday's announcement,  Mr. Cullen was the featured speaker on much of the national news networks coverage, with many reporters seeking his opinion on what he saw ahead for the Northern Gateway process.

Mr. Cullen also provided more on his position on the Northern Gateway approval through his website. Offering up his rallying cry for those that oppose Northern Gateway.

I truly believe this pipeline will never be built. I think the resolve and the passion of the people of the northwest will overcome it. The final decision on this project does not rest with Mr. Harper - it rests with the people who live here, and we will continue to stand together in opposing this bad project. -- Part of Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen's Northern Gateway statement

North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice offered up a few thoughts on the topic of the day (brief as they were), she was quick to her twitter feed and facebook page following the announcement, highlighting her opposition to the path chosen by the Conservatives.

So, while the Federal Government gave the nod towards Northern Gateway the process of a pipeline ever getting delivered to the coast near Kitimat would seem still a far ways off, if ever delivered.

In the notice of approval, the need for Enbridge to meet the 209 conditions of the Joint Review Panel was mentioned frequently, something which no doubt many opponents will be marking down on a list, eager to remind the Government of any mis-steps along the way.

There are still the five conditions required by the Provincial Government and the need of Northern Gateway to provide a much better approach of engagement. Something that they weren't very good at in the preamble to the Northern Gateway proposal.

Mary Polak, British Columbia's Minister of Environment, addressed that aspect of the work ahead in a statement issued shortly after yesterday's Federal announcement.

“Today’s decision from the federal government is not a surprise, given their regulatory responsibilities and the recommendation from the Joint Review Panel. "However, our position on the Northern Gateway Pipeline is unchanged. Northern Gateway still has a lot of work to do to meet British Columbia’s five conditions. "So far, this project has only met B.C.’s first condition - the successful completion of the federal environmental review process. "There are four more conditions set by B.C. that have not been met."  -- BC Environment Minister, Mary Polak on the Northern Gateway announcement of Tuesday.

There will be a Federal election in short order, with both opposition parties stating that they would stop the proposed pipeline in its tracks. Success today for Enbridge, could be followed by a reversal by the time they may be planning to put any shovel in the ground.

The debate over whether we should not be refining the product before shipment will also resume, which could change not only the dynamic of the Northern Gateway project, but shift any potential path of a pipeline and shipment terminal further to the west.

There remains strong opposition to the project among many First Nations and a range of communities across Northern British Columbia, as well opposition to the project remains task number one among environmentalists across the province.  With that, the prospect of further protest and a string of court cases to come will also provide the backdrop to the plans of Northern Gateway's proponents.

"Today, we unequivocally reject the Harper Government’s decision to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway tanker and pipelines project and First Nations will immediately go to court to vigorously pursue all lawful means to stop the Enbridge project." -- A portion of a Statement from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs regarding the Northern Gateway approval of Tuesday.

Considering the volume of opinion on the announcement and the vows to stop the project in its tracks, it would seem that like many contentious plans of the past, the path ahead suggests that the final word on Northern Gateway has not yet been delivered.

Some items of note from yesterday's approval notification can be found below:

CFTK-- Enbridge Says Project Approval is just One More Step in the Right Direction
CFTK-- Gitga'at First Nation Intends to Fight Feds Decision in Court
CFTK-- Harper Government Approves Northern Gateway, Subject to JRP Conditions
Terrace Standard-- Terrace Mayor says Pipeline project a threat to northern way of life
Terrace Standard-- Northwest leaders react to federal approval of Northern Gateway pipeline
Vancouver Sun-- Northern Gateway pipeline approved by Harper government
Vancouver Sun-- Doubts about Northern Gateway in two capitals
Vancouver Sun-- Northern Gateway: Approval unlikely to hurt Harper much when B. C. votes
Vancouver Province-- Federal OK to pipeline sets the stage for a classic B.C. style scrap
Victoria Times Colonist-- Despite OK, Northern Gateway pipeline to B.C. coast still faces hurdles
Victoria Times Colonist-- Northern Gateway: "We will not let this be built" says Green Leader
Victoria News-- Conservatives walk fine line on Northern Gateway
Victoria News-- Northern Gateway: Just the Facts
VIctoria News-- Opponents gear up to battle Northern Gateway pipeline
CBC British Columbia-- Northern Gateway pipeline approved with 209 conditions
CBC British Columbia-- Northern Gateway: Ottawa's green light for Enbridge has many in B. C. seeing red
CBC British Columbia-- Northern Gateway pipeline's next battle is in the courts
Global New-- Enbridge's Northern Gateway: Things are about to get interesting
Globe and Mail-- Canadian Government approves Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway pipeline
Globe and Mail-- Northern Gateway blessing gets mixed, muted response in Asia
Globe and Mail-- For oil industry, the next battle over Northern Gateway looms large
National Post-- Northern Gateway pipeline approved by federal government with conditions
National Post-- Northern Gateway pipeline green-light has everything to do with our rocky relationship to the U. S.
The Tyee-- First Nations on Gateway: "When We Say No, We Mean It"
The Tyee-- Will Harper's "Yes" On Gateway Cost Him a Majority in 2015?
The Tyee-- BC's position on Northern Gateway "unchanged" enviro minister
Vancouver Observer-- Kitimat and First Nations react angrily to Northern Gateway's approval
Vancouver Observer-- Harper Government okays Northern Gateway, over intense BC opposition

Regular readers of our blog have been following the Northern Gateway discussion for a number of months now, you can access our archive on the topic here.

Cross Posted from North Coast Review

BC Ferries to expand sailings for summer... for summer routes

It's an announcement that is sure to raise the hackles of  North Coast communities that continue to feel the impact of cutbacks to Ferry Service on the northern routes, as BC Ferries on Wednesday outlined an increase to sailings on many of routes in the south.

The schedule additions announcement highlights an increase in southern sailings that as BC Ferries explains; will ensure for smooth sailing for summer holiday users, offering details on the 80 sailings per week to serve Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island.

In the same media release, BC Ferries also makes mention of the the 100 unique vacation packages that they offer. Though residents of the North Coast and Haida Gwaii, as well as the Central Coast might wonder how anyone is supposed to take advantage of what they have to offer with the fewer opportunities for travel that the Northern Schedule continues to offer.

An article in Business in Vancouver magazine highlights just what some tourism operators of the region are facing this summer, with one operator on the Central Coast reporting a rather dramatic 90 per cent drop in business after the cuts were put in place.

In addition to the vacation plans and schedule updates, BC Ferries offers up a snapshot of their 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey, which suggests 87 per cent of customers on recent trips have reported satisfaction with their BC Ferries experience.

A number which we imagine is more indicative of the Southern experience, than that of the North.

Among those that surely would offer up a different opinion on the Satisfaction scale, would be the Mayors of Prince Rupert, and  communities on Haida Gwaii as well as those along the central coast.

Through the Spring they and North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice, have made much comment on the impact that the BC Ferries cutbacks are having and will continue to have on their communities.

We imagine, that with Wednesday's announcement of better schedule options for the southern routes, they might have a few more comments to share not only with BC Ferries, but with Transportation Minister Todd Stone.

You can review some of those past issues from our Transportation archive page.

Cross posted from North Coast Review

Province to consult Mayors, Community leaders on Northwest Transportation concerns

The lack of transportation options between isolated communities along Highway 16 will be the focus of upcoming consultations between the Provincial Transportation Ministry and Mayors and First Nations Community leaders of Northern British Columbia.

The announcement and background on that plan was revealed last week by Transportation Minister Todd Stone, who outlined what the province hopes to achieve through its consultation process.

The meetings are to be held from June until mid July, looking to find practical ways to connect residents with services and amenities in major centres, running the range from medical appointments to shopping and visiting family and friends along the highway 16 corridor from Prince George to Prince Rupert.

As part of their announcement, the Transportation Ministry observed as to the nature of the challenges in the region and how a multi-community approach will be required to find practical solutions to the issue.

You can learn more about that engagement process from this item from the BC government website.

The issue has been an ongoing concern for North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice, who has raised the topic a number of times during the recent session of the British Columbia Legislature.

She, along with many residents of the Highway 16 corridor will no doubt be watching the process as outlined by the province and we imagine will be seeking opportunity to contribute to that dialogue.

Some of the other items of note on the Highway 16 issue can be found on our Transportation archive.

Cross posted from North Coast Review

Pacific Future Energy Corporation announces plans for North Coast Oil Refinery

The prospect of yet another oil refinery proposal for the North Coast was revealed on Tuesday morning, as Pacific Future Energy announced plans for what they are calling the "greenest refinery in the world" to be placed somewhere on the North Coast.

The proposed development was outlined in a press release that provided some background on the 10 billion dollar bitumen refinery project.

"We believe this is an incredibly unique opportunity to build the greenest refinery in the world and there's no better place than BC,"... "Our pre-feasibility study has begun, which will analyze the economic, social and environmental aspects of the refinery and help to determine the prospective site and expect to launch our feasibility and regulatory process in the next 9-12 months." -- Samer Salameh, Executive Chairman of Pacific Future Energy. 

The management team for the refinery proposal includes a number of businessmen with experience both globally and in British Columbia, led by Executive Chairman Samer F. Salameh, who manages new business devlelopment for Grupo Salinas, a multi billion dollar industrial conglomerate based in Mexico and operating in 11 countries of the Americas.

Also on the team is Executive Vice-President, Mark Marissen, who has in the past provided public consultation services to the Prince Rupert Port Authority (and as Black Press reminds us, is the ex-husband of Premier Christy Clark).

Other members of the six member Executive group have had experience with other energy proposals for the region.

The proposed refinery would be built in modules, with each capable of processing 200,000 barrels of bitumen per day.  The bitumen would be converted into gasoline, diesel, kerosene and other distillates.

As part of the launch of their proposal, the company outlined the nature  of the NZNC emissions technology that they intend to put in place in their refinery project.

A portion of their debut announcement addressed issues of First Nation consultation. With Pacific Future Energy providing an overview of the engagement process it intends to take with the First Nations of Northern British Columbia.

With consultation and accommodation the main points provided by Jeffrey Copenace, Vice-President Indigenous Partnership.

"From the very beginning, and every step of the way, our partnership with First Nations will ensure that we all benefit from traditional and ecological knowledge, while respecting their rights to full consultation and accommodation—all with the goal of shared prosperity and health for future generations,"-- Jeffrey Copenace, Vice-President Indigenous Partnership.

Mr. Copenace once served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Former First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo.

Also, included in the announcement of today was a review of their Commitment to British Columbians, a vision statement of sorts of what their project is about.

As for actual details and the scope of the development, not much else was revealed about the proposal. Other than the timeline that Pacific Future Energy will now start out on.

With a pre-feasibility study now underway to analyze the economic, social and environmental aspects of the refinery and help to determine the prospective site.

They plan to launch their feasibility and regulatory process sometime in the next 9-12 months.

Pacific Future Energy is just the latest proponent looking to deliver an oil refinery to the North Coast.

David Black was the first to propose such a project with his Kitimat Clean refinery project, which has yet to deliver any further steps of progress since it was first announced in 2012.

More recently, Calvin Helin has been putting forward a proposed pipeline and oil refinery project for Grassy Point, with Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings also providing for engagement and consultation with the First Nations of Northern British Columbia.

Residents of Northwest British Columbia will be quite interested to learn more on all of those proposals as the process moves forward, with Pacific Future's proposal one which will be of particular interest as North Coast residents await their site selection announcement.

You can review the full press release here, there is more on the Pacific Future Energy proposal available on their website.

As part of our efforts to provide background on many of the economic development projects of the region, we have created an archive page for future items of note on the Pacific Future Energy project which you can access here.

You can review more items on the growing number of proposals for oil refinery development in the Northwest from our Archive page.

Update:  Global BC reports that the proposed site will be somewhere near Prince Rupert, with three potential locations to be reviewed.

Cross Posted from the North Coast Review

Federal NDP household mailers under the microscope at Parliament Hill

The bounty of postage free household mailers that residents  receive from their MP's has suddenly become a bit of a controversial publication list and one that is heating up the dialogue in Ottawa these days.

The recent controversy has flared up as the Board of Internal Economy conducted a recent review of some NDP mailings of the fall.

The governing body of Parliament Hill which oversees the House of
Commons reviewed the procedures in place surrounding the NDP's use of free mailings of the fall, during Federal by-elections.

An investigation that the NDP is more than a little annoyed over.

NDP Spending to Be Condemned in Blistering New Report
NDP may have to repay House for mass mailouts
Impartial officials found NDP mailouts broke rules, documents show
NDP might be on hook for millions over mailouts to riding's
NDP may be forced to pay back millions in tax dollars after 'kangaroo court' decides MP's didn't follow rules
In seeking a loophole for NDP mailing scheme, Thomas Mulcair is channeling Mike Duffy and Stephen Harper 
Speaker denies approving tax dollars for party mailings...

And while that investigation is related to a specific incident and time frame, it does raise the larger issue of whether the mailouts should remain postage free and if they are even required in this era of electronic  communications.

Bulkley Valley-Skeena NDP MP Nathan Cullen offered up some background on the current controversy through this item from a Smithers radio station.

Residents of Bulkley Valley-Skeena are no doubt rather familiar with the visual of the household mailers, a popular method that is used by Mr. Cullen to deliver discussion points on a wide range of issues for the Northwest.

In recent months the MP has sent out information sheets on such things as his Renewal Northwest initiatives, or his report on the need for a Social Licence for resource development in the region to name a few.

The subject of the household mailers is also part of the ongoing debate over Canada Post and that organization's need for a better revenue stream and ability to rein in costs.

At the same time as the mail service increases the cost of postage for Canadians and continues on with plans for service cutbacks, the free postage program remains widely used by MPs.

That program allows for up to four flyers to be sent to constituents free of charge over the course of the year, for those MP's that want to send mailers on a more frequent basis  a deep discount rate is available for their use.

During the discussion on Canada Post issues over the last few months, no one on Parliament Hill has apparently floated the idea of eliminating the free postage provisions, or increasing the rates on the "deep discount" provided for their constituent bound mailings.

Part of the free postage provisions for MP's include the opportunity for residents to write letters to their MP and Government officials free of charge, a process which handy, is one that most likely isn't used very much in an era of electronic communication by way of email, twitter and other forums.

Should MP's wish to continue with the process of home delivered mailings, perhaps their individual parties should pick up the tab for the cost of the publication and distribution process.

Much of the material delivered to homes through those mailers is also available through many MP's websites, including that of Mr. Cullen.

A point of access that leaves one to wonder if the need for costly printing and delivery of the home mailers is really a necessary part of the dialogue between MP and constituent anymore.

You can review more on developments related to the work of the MP for the Northwest from our archive page.


Cross posted from the North Coast Review

A New Northern Gateway Map to Prince Rupert?

It could soon be, that the expression "everything old, is new again", gets a North Coast touch.

A major International Business media service is offering up a story this week, that suggests that should the Northern Enbridge Gateway project to Kitimat prove to be an unworkable prospect, there may be a fall back option.

With the suggestion that the energy company could consider a new attempt at a Pacific beachhead, with land north of Prince Rupert as it's potential "Plan B" shipment point.

All of that, is reviewed in this article from the Bloomberg Business website. The item also was the topic of this article in the Financial Post.

The main focus of their item on options for Enbridge is land that Enbridge now owns at Grassy Point.

Back in March, it was announced that Enbridge had purchased a parcel of land at Grassy Point north of Prince Rupert, at the time the energy company stated that they had no set plans for its development.

However, that parcel of the north coast as Bloomberg observes, could potentially be an answer to the ongoing struggle to deliver the Kitimat Terminal proposal.

Through the review, Bloomberg outlines some interesting points on that possibility, highlighting the aspects of such a development that Enbridge may wish to start the discussion with.

Ranging from the potential impact of the anticipated Gateway Ruling from the Federal Cabinet, to a look at what a potential Enbridge pipeline to Prince Rupert might look like.

As well the article outlines how such a change of plan might offer fewer hazards and that a selection of a location near Prince Rupert would be more accessible for marine traffic, offering up fewer concerns to navigation than the current Kitimat option.

Included in the overview of the fall back plan, is how the proposed pipeline would avoid the environmentally sensitive Skeena region.

With a nod to past concerns over any such development for the region, the Bloomberg review also provides a glimpse into some of the potential opposition that "Plan B" may receive.

Another intriguing aspect of the article is the observation that at the moment,  it's unclear if any change in the route would require a fresh regulatory review. With Enbridge perhaps able to ask for a variance consideration.

A procedural move which would leave it up to the National Energy Board to evaluate if a change in
route to Prince Rupert would require a new review.

Considering the fall out over the Enbridge plans for Kitimat, it would seem that any proposal that would suggest any development of an oil export facility along the North Coast. is sure to be controversial.

Somehow, we have a feeling that whether the NEB asks for a review or not, those that have expressed their opposition to any form of shipments of oil from the North Coast will be offering their own opinions to the discussion should this proposal ever start to gain some steam.

You can find more items on Northern Gateway Enbridge from our archive page.

Cross Posted from the North Coast Review

How our MLA should spend her summer vacation

They shut down business at the British Columbia Legislature last week, the afternoon session of May 29th the last public gathering (barring emergency sessions) until the fall.

Leaving the province's MLA's to head for their home constituency's and make the rounds of the communities that elected them to office.

For North Coast MLA Jennifer Rice, the next few months should offer up the chance to do some research on what issues are important to the region. As judging by her talking points at the Legislature this past session, she's left more than a few important issues of the do list unattended.

To her credit, Ms.Rice has been a very strong advocate for the Highway of Tears shuttle bus and cutbacks to BC Ferries on the North Coast, with a particular attention to the impact on Haida Gwaii,  both issues that she has been very passionate about and are deserving of her (and our) attention.

On those themes her commentary has been fairly ambitious, as you can review here from our archive of her contributions to the recently finished session of the Legislature.

However, when it comes to some other key items of concern for Prince Rupert and the surrounding area, she's let more than a few opportunities to be engaged and advocate for her home riding slip by.

On Education, Ms. Rice has been fairly quiet on the nature of the ongoing labour dispute between the BCTF and the Government, offering up few comments other than her contributions on her twitter feed or facebook page.

When it comes to Advanced Education in the Northwest, she has apparently let Skeena MLA Robin Austin carry the conversation.

During the recent session, Mr. Austin made frequent mention of Northwest Community College, providing much in the way of commentary about some of the past events at the college, as well as seeking more opportunities for increased programs and investment for his home campus in Terrace.

Ms. Rice, has made occasional mention of the Prince Rupert campus, mainly to make mention of her past time as a student there. However when it comes to seeking access for more programs and more funding for the western branch of the NWCC organization, she's had few notes to offer to the discussion.

Being a former City Councillor, she must be familiar with the many issues facing the City of Prince Rupert.

Taking on a larger role in bringing concerns of Prince Rupert to Victoria was a theme we explored on the blog back in March.

Yet in the most recent session, she has not been a particularly strong advocate for many of those files, a large volume of items that continue to be of concern to her former council mates around the Council chamber.

The environment is probably what she is best known for around the North Coast. Her strong opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project perhaps the strongest indication of her passion for environmental issues.

So it's worth noting that when it comes to the pipeline and Oil Terminal proposals from Eagle Spirit Energy, she has offered few comments on that topic as of yet.

As for the other major industrial issues for the region, most voters probably still don't have a very clear idea as to where she stands on such things as increased coal shipments out of Ridley Terminals, remediation issues for Watson Island, or the region's ambitions regarding LNG terminal development.

Glimpses of her concerns on the latter can be found in her recent work in the Legislature, among them comments on items related to protection of land along pipeline routes and items on health concerns of those living in the Northeast part of the province where the gas is to be extracted.

The main contributions to the theme have been on themes of the environment, as well as some views regarding systemic issues from the oil and gas industry.

For the most part Ms. Rice has walked a fairly careful line on the topic, but she has yet to offer any kind  of overview as to how many (if any) LNG terminals she would like to see located in the region, or where they should be located.

In the two years since she won the riding for the NDP, we still don't really know much more about her thoughts on the issue than we did when she was a City Councillor.

Considering the fact that there are now at least six potential LNG proposals being considered for Prince Rupert, Port Edward or Lax Kw'alaams, it should be a file to which she offers more comment on.

Much as it is on the topic of education, when it comes to the LNG file for the Northwest, Skeena MLA Robin Austin it seems has been carrying much of the discussion on the topic.

In particular his extensive review on  how communities may be affected by increased development may be of interest to those of the North Coast.

One of the most vocal engagements for the North Coast MLA in the Spring session of the Legislature, came as part of the ongoing debate around Bill 24 and its proposed changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve.

A controversial period of the last month of the Legislature, which saw Ms. Rice providing for much in the way of comment on its themes over the last two weeks.

Starting with her commentary that she believed those moves by the Liberal Government were all about clearing the way for LNG development in the North.

She followed those early points up with another lengthy review for the Legislature in its last week of work. In the course of that commentary, Ms. Rice provided some thoughts on the nature of democracy and consultation with the public and the failure of Government to listen to constituents.

So, since she's introduced that theme.  Perhaps as the MLA spends time back on the North Coast this summer, she might want to start to engage in some of that consultation.

Perhaps starting with attending a session of City Council, providing an update on her work on the City's behalf at the Legislature and then to seek out a list of concerns to take back to Victoria in the fall.

Following that, as we get closer to her return to Victoria in the fall, our MLA may wish to hold a public  forum in the community. Asking residents of the North Coast to offer up their thoughts on what her priorities should be when she returns to her seat.

Such conversations could offer her some guidance when it comes to her work in Victoria, particularly when it comes to the concerns of her constituents, issues that have yet to be delivered to the Legislature as best they could.

You can review all of our items on developments at the Legislature from our Archive page.

Cross posted from the North Coast Review