Friends of the Lubicon
PO Box 444 Stn D,
Etobicoke ON M9A 4X4
Tel: (416) 763-7500
Email: fol (at) tao (dot) ca
www.lubicon.ca
February 8, 2008
This morning the Lubicon Statement of Intent to Participate in the Alberta Utility Commission hearing on TransCanada's Application to build a huge new pipeline through unceded Lubicon Territory finally appeared in the official list of those who seek intervenor status.
It turns out that Statements had to be submitted by today, not yesterday as the Lubicons had originally been told. Seventeen more companies associated with the gas and oil industry submitted Statements today, along with assorted others including the Alberta Department of Energy, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the provincially appointed Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA) and one spunky private citizen who somehow managed to get past the UCA and speak for himself.
One notable development is that a growing number of companies are raising questions about how the new billion dollar pipeline is to be paid for. They don't want it to be them begging the question of who should pay for it. Generally they express support for construction of the pipeline but are concerned about the cost being charged to them in the rates charged by NTGL to transport gas. (Oil companies frequently think somebody else should pay for the expensive infrastructure it takes for them to make multi-billion dollar profits. Usually, one way or another, that somebody else ends up being the public. The oil companies always argue that it is somehow in the public interest for the public to pay those costs but at the bottom line it is the supposedly hard pressed oil companies that reap the multi-billion dollar profits.)
In addition to the February 6th Lubicon Statement officially recorded Friday the 8th, Statements submitted today are as follows :
1.) The Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate -- a provincially appointed spokesperson for the interests of consumers and consumer groups that is understandably very controversial -- indicates that it "has a legislated mandate to represent the interests of Alberta residential, farm and small business consumers of electricity and natural gas before proceedings of the Alberta Utilities Commission".
2.) Russ Duncan -- the one spunky consumer who somehow managed to get past the Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate and speak for himself -- indicates that he is "a residential end user" of the gas that is transported by the NGTL system and that "The addition of this project will change the NGTL cost of service and will affect my gas costs".
3.) Provident Energy Ltd. expresses concern over the impact "of any change to the NGTL system that has the result (of changing the volume or composition of the gas transported by NGTL and) any capital addition on the NGTL system that could affect the tolls paid by shippers on NGTL".
4.) Statoil Hydro Canada Partnership indicates that it "is currently developing a SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) resource south of Fort McMurray of up to 300,000 barrels of bitumen blend as well as an associated upgrader in the Ft. Saskatchewan area". (SAGD involves injecting huge volumes of steam into the fragile boreal subsurface -- 4 or 5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil -- in order to liquefy the asphalt-like tar sands sufficiently to be pumped to the surface for further processing.)
5.) The Alberta Department of Energy indicates that it "has an interest in this proceeding as the application may impact the development of Alberta Resources" ( which seems a little redundant when regulating development of Alberta's resources is exactly why the Provincial government set up the Alberta Utilities Commission and appointed the Commissioners.)
6.) The California-based Pacific Gas and Electric company (PGE) indicates that it "is a major ex Alberta FT-D shipper on NGTL's west coast path" (and is likely concerned about the cost of the pipeline affecting the tolls paid to NGTL by PGE to ship the gas south).
7.) Conoco Philips indicates that it "has a direct interest in this Application as a producer and shipper of natural gas on the NGTL system as well as a producer in Alberta's oil sands".
8.) NOVA Chemicals indicates that it "is concerned about the impact of the NCC project, as it may affect the quantity of ethane available to be extracted by downstream extraction plants". (Ironically NOVA Chemicals is one of the group of companies, including NGTL, that started as part of Alberta Gas Trunk Line initiated by the provincial government in1954.)
9.) The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) indicates that it "represents 150 companies that explore for, develop and produce more than 95% of Canada's natural gas and crude oil".
10.) The Export Users Group (EUG) -- consisting of Avista Corporation, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, Puget Sound Energy Inc. and Northwest Natural Gas Company -- indicates that it "is not opposed to construction of the NCCP...(but)...is very much opposed to the inclusion of the costs of the NCCP in the rates charged by NGTL under the current rate design".
11.) Shell Energy North America (Canada) Inc. indicates that it is concerned about "Any changes resulting from NGTL's Application to the tolling, gas flows and characteristics of the services offered by NGTL..."
12.) Tenaska Marketing Canada indicates that it "is aware that there is a need for the development of the NCCP to accommodate changes in supply and (tar sands) demand requirements on the NGTL system, but is concerned over the potential incorporation of the current estimated capital costs into the NGTL rate design as it exists today."
13.) Devon Canada Corporation, EnCana Corporation and Talisman Energy Inc "support approval of the construction of the NCC on an appropriate time schedule.to meet the growing gas demand in the Fort McMurray area"...(but)...submit that there is an issue requiring further examination, namely: The appropriate allocation of the significant costs of the NCC amongst NGTL's service offerings..."
14.) Spectra Energy "is concerned that the Application could have an impact on the consumption and availabilty of natural gas liquids in Alberta (used in Specta's natural gas liquid extraction facilities).
15.) The Inter Pipeline Fund (IPF) indicates that it "has interests in and operates straddle plants extracting natural gas liquids and is the largest producer of ethane in Canada (suggesting that IPF probably has the same concern as Spectra Energy)".
16.) AUX Sable Canada Ltd. indicates that it "has key interests in Alberta's natural gas and oil sands industries and is pursuing a strategy of building, owning and operating off gas processing facilities for current and new upgrading facilities in Alberta".
fol-request at masses.tao.ca