The B.C. New Democratic Party has backtracked on a pivotal detail that could have undermined both the NDP's budget projections and the party's plans to reduce carbon emissions.
The NDP platform proposes a “flaring royalty” on the oil and gas industry, which the party estimates would generate $400 million over three years. Flaring is the in-field burning off of unwanted or excess gas.
The platform also states the New Democrats would “end routine gas well flaring that accounts for 13 per cent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
But after that claim was challenged by provincial authorities, a top party official restated the New Democrats' position, telling The Tyee that the NDP would charge a royalty on all escaped gas – not only the portion that is "flared."
"The platform was just edited down a little too much," said Gerry Scott, co-manager of the NDP campaign.
Province challenges 13 per cent claim
The 13-per-cent flaring claim was challenged by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the provincial regulator for the industry.
“Flaring accounts for between 1 and 2 per cent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Lee Shanks, commission communications manager, in an email.
A Vancouver Sun article raised doubts about the 13-per-cent claim two weeks ago, and the Globe and Mail questioned the NDP claim on April 25.
The NDP responded in both articles by pointing to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) report as the source of its claim that flaring accounts for 13 per cent of the province’s emissions.
But that 2007 study clearly states that the 13-per-cent figure is a ten-year average, and accounts for much more than just flaring. The CCPA report cites a provincial document that refers to, "flared, fuel, processing, shrinkage and plant waste" gas. A footnote adds that the line includes "field losses (i.e., flaring, fuel & meter differences) and loss during distribution and export."
“The sources cited clearly indicated that flaring was part of the number and not the whole number,” said Ben Parfitt, the policy analyst who authored the CCPA report.
“We reported flared and otherwise wasted gas,” Parfitt told The Tyee on Monday, adding that this was stated several times throughout the report. “The NDP has focused on flaring and 13 per cent."
Parfitt said the NDP did not contact him about the report or the figure until last week, when a party researcher called him to request the source of his data.
NDP dismisses question as 'semantical'
The NDP now claim the wording in their party platform is too narrow, and insist they always intended to charge "flaring royalties" on all of what the industry calls "fugitive emissions."
“What we’re referring to there are the fugitive gases,” Scott told The Tyee. He defined that to include flaring, unwanted leaks and venting – a process which depressurizes pipes by releasing gases.
This broader definition was always the party’s intended position, he said, adding he was not too concerned about the discrepancy.
“In my view it is a semantical point," Scott said.
He said he was first made aware of the inconsistency by the Globe and Mail story on the weekend. He said the Sun article from two weeks ago was not brought to his attention until Monday.
“If we missed it then that’s a mistake,” he said. He refused to “speculate” on how the party would have responded had it known about the misinformation.
Garrett Zehr reports for The Tyee.
13
Login or register to post comments
Rod Smelser
2 years ago
On the Job, On the Ball
Two different things.
Luke Skywalker
2 years ago
Still A Dumb and Dumber Economic/Environment Policy
Certainly a timely story since I posted the following in another thread earlier today:
"The most idiotic plank in the NDP's platform.
Alberta has the "Otherwise Flared Solution Gas Royalty Waiver Program" (OFSG), which is intended to encourage the reduction of flared gas volumes by "waiving Crown royalties", NOT taxing 'em.
In other words, Alberta waives royalties on flared gas as an incentive to make it economic to utilize otherwise flared gas within the system resulting in around a 70% reduction in flared natural gas over the past decade or so. Now that's environmentally friendly.
The NDP's plank will just result in the SHUTDOWN of marginal producing wells and will also curtail drilling where flaring is part of the process. No $400 million in tax revenue will be generated there.
That idiotic policy will have the opposite effect.
You know, that part of the economy where ~$5 billion is INVESTED every year, where over $2 billion was brought in last year in land sale rights and where $billions$ more flow into the provincial treasury as royalties every year as a result?"
What ever happened to the centrist, business-oriented NDP of Premier Dan Miller of the late 1990's????
At least HE "got it".
G West
2 years ago
Shut em down
They don't do a thing positive for the local economy in the north east anyway. At current NG prices - better to leave the stuff in the ground anyway and let the Alberta companies who're coming here for a song stay home and collect UI in their home province....`
Fact is, all the Campbell Liberals can think of is doing something for their friends in industry - they couldn't care less for the fact that Alberta's royalty structure is more responsible than Campbell's.
How many states is it now that are considering listing tar sands sourced oil as verbotten?
G West
2 years ago
Occasionally
Even Don Martin in the National Post writes something worth quoting....
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/03/don-martin-canada-may-pale-to-obama-s-green-plan.aspx
Frank
2 years ago
Don Martin
Today he wrote about an idea whose time has come, a proposal for a Canadian designed and built car.
secret cove
2 years ago
What a tangled web we weave..
When first we practice to deceive....
David Berner
http://www.thebernermonologues.blogspot.com/2009/04/van-dongen-exclusive.html
Luke Skywalker
2 years ago
Nonsensical...
Expanding upon that quote... shutting down the natural gas wells... shuts down BC's $multi-billion$ royalty revenue stream... which, in turn, shuts down provincial funding for social services, health, and education.
Will the last person left in the BC NDP please turn out the lights? :)
telus employee
2 years ago
one source for the 13.5% figure
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2007/bc_oil_gas_web.pdf
Page 22 of 38 states "the greenhouse gas emissions associated with flared and otherwise wasted natural gas is 13.5 per cent of BC’s total emissions."
telus employee
2 years ago
ALberta has reduced it
"In recent years there has been a growing outcry about the wanton waste of, and the health risks associated with, flared gas. Sour gas, which is increasingly drawn from wells in northeast BC, is high in hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a potent neurotoxin. If improperly combusted, and at even low concentrations, it has been associated with spontaneous abortions.29 The health risks associated with gas flaring have led to conflicts between local residents and oil and gas companies around the world, including Nigeria30 and, closer to home, Alberta. Since 1999, Alberta’s Energy and Utilities Board has placed tighter guidelines around the flaring and unnecessary venting of natural gas. The result has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of gas wasted.31
According to the Board, gas flaring in Alberta fell 72 per cent between 1996 and 2004. Voluntary reduction targets by the energy industry were partly responsible as were practical arrangements. Such arrangements included tying gas production at four or five wells together through shared pipelines. This in turn made it more cost-effective to transport the gas rather than to flare it.32
Gas flaring and unnecessary gas venting or escapes during processing are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in northeast BC."
Rod Smelser
2 years ago
Telus Employee & Garrett Zehr
With regard to Ben Parfitt's CCPA report, on pages 26 and 27 there is a discussion of the author's second recommendation:
Recommendation2: End gas flaring in BC, and impose increasingly higher fines on companies that fail to meet deadlines. In addition, immediately charge royalty fees on every unit of gas flared.
A couple of paragraphs from that section:
Parfitt recommends that a royalty equivalent to that on other gas be applied to all of the flared and wasted gas, in addition to any provincial carbon tax. In a table at the bottom of page 26 he estimates revenues would have been collected in 2004 and 2005 amounting to $225 million and $304 million.
I am, of course, quite curious as to why this passage was not mentioned by Garrett Zehr in his article above, and wasn't mentioned by Ben Parfitt in speaking to Garrett Zehr, either.
G West
2 years ago
interesting luke
Do you only read the headlines? Because that was only the heading...I also wrote this:
At current NG prices - better to leave the stuff in the ground anyway and let the Alberta companies who're coming here for a song stay home and collect UI in their home province....
Talk to some people who actually live in the northeast sometime and discover from them how much the blue eyed sheiks actually do for the local economy. Every single environmental parameter is getting worse my friend – whatever improvements are made on a micro scale are more than lost because of the increase in the scale of their operations.
Shut them down until the price goes up and they start to pay attention to their responsibilities to somebody other than their shareholders….
politico
2 years ago
Is this site designed to feign some sort of non bias?
I am curious about this.
I guess it is impossible to be unbias in almost anything but this site enjoys a status that I believe is now being manipulated by a campaign machine interested in BC's future.
I sense the Greenest man on our Happy Planet and his machine lurking around this stuff.
politico
2 years ago
By the way
Is it remotely possible to have a "journalist" actually ask a detail or two from the guys who actually call the shots around here, and are bringing us to our knees? Ya know the Government?
It would be a refreshing change to see journalism actually work for their corporate dollars and begin to hold them accountable versus simply taking their money to pick apart their struggling opposition parties.
Carole has not facilitated the oil and gas takeover of BC. Gordo has.
Also, why the hell OGC the campaign arm for industry and their political puppets? I always thought these government agencies had a responsibility to do, precisely - not this!!!! Is it not written down some where? What about the gag law? It does not apply to people spending taxpayers money to campaign against the opposition to their bosses?
And for that matter what of the gag law with respect to the Dial a greens? They are nicely book ending this total onslaught on Carole and yet no mention of third party stuff their!
I guess we have to wait for Dan Miller to come and drive the stake through Caroles heart before people understand just how thoroughly corrupt government in BC has become.
It is to weep.