Canadian Government Refuses to Increase Cap Blowout Time Cites "To Expensive" for Corp to Pay For

[Warhippy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/capping-oil-well-blowouts-within-24-hours-too-expensive-says-ottawa-1.3181285

The federal government says it is agreeing to an offshore drilling plan that would allow up to 21 days to bring in capping technology for a subsea well blowout because requiring a shorter response time would be too expensive for Shell Canada Ltd.

Meanwhile, the most recent U.S. ruling in Alaska — where Shell wants to conduct an exploratory drilling project — requires a capping stack to be on hand for a blowout within 24 hours.

Nova Scotia environmentalists are questioning why the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has signed off on a plan that allows between 12 and 21 days for the multinational company to bring a vessel and a capping system to the Shelburne Basin offshore site, about 250 kilometres off the southwestern coast of Nova Scotia.

Approval of Shell's plan for exploratory drilling in the Shelburne Basin is up to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. The board says it is taking the environmental assessment into account, but won't make a decision on whether to give the company the green light until later this year.

Conditions much different in Arctic

However, the board's chief executive, Stuart Pinks, says the type conditions off the coast Alaska that require a capping system close at hand simply don't exist in Nova Scotia.

"The drilling season is very short in Alaska, is very short because of ice," Pinks told CBC Radio's Information Morning. "If there was an event to occur in Alaska, there's a very short time period to get a capping stack on location and deployed before the ice moves in."

Alberta-based oil and gas analyst Doug Matthews says the regulatory regime is much tighter in Canadian and American Arctic waters than off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

If an Arctic well blowout is not controlled before the ice moves in, Matthews says it could mean oil flowing uncontrollably for up to seven months and would "very much be a disaster."

Whether less stringent rules in Eastern Canada are appropriate is a discussion people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have with their offshore petroleum boards, he said. But he adds that provincial revenues may play a role.

"Both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland get significant resource revenue from the offshore," Matthews says. "So maybe economics has to be taken more into account by the regulator."

Capping stack would be brought from Norway

Shell Canada says capping stack equipment would be brought in from Stavanger, Norway, in the case of a subsea blowout, according to the environmental assessment. It would also deploy a backup stack from either Scotland, South Africa, Singapore or Brazil.

A blowout is a "very low probability event," Pinks says, but "it is recognized that it is a high consequence." The offshore board is "knee-deep" reviewing Shell's application and wants to make sure equipment and systems are in place to deal with spills, if the project is given the go ahead.

In the federal environmental assessment report of June 15, the agency states a blowout in the seven planned wells is unlikely and the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

In the case of the Shelburne Basin Project, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency "accepted the proponent's view that it would be prohibitively expensive to develop this infrastructure in Atlantic Canada for exploratory work."

In an email sent late Wednesday night, a spokesman for Environment Canada said the Alaska plan to have a vessel and capping system on call was based on the harsh environment in the area and the long distances a vessel would have to travel to get there.

[Warhippy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/shell-gets-ok-to-take-21-days-to-cap-blowouts-off-nova-scotia-coast-1.3179496

A Nova Scotia environmentalist is criticizing federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's decision to approve an "almost inconceivable" offshore drilling plan from Shell that allows up to 21 days to contain a subsea blowout, despite the U.S. requiring the same company to cap blowouts within 24 hours.

On June 15, Aglukkaq signed off on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's assessment of Shell Canada's Shelburne Basin Venture Exploration Drilling Project.

Shell Canada's spill containment plan, accepted by the agency, says it can have a primary capping stack in place within 12 to 21 days after a blowout off southern Nova Scotia.

• BP spill: 5 years later, offshore oil drillers push to riskier depths
• BP oil spill: The economic and environmental cost, 5 years later

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has not given Shell approval to do exploratory drilling yet.

John Davis, a long-time environmentalist who spends a lot of time on Nova Scotia's South Shore, says any company getting 21 days to stop a subsea blowout is 'almost inconceivable.' (CBC)

John Davis, a long-time environmentalist who spends a lot of time on Nova Scotia's South Shore, said Shell's plan doesn't make sense.

"It seems to me almost inconceivable that [shell] would give themselves up to 21 days to stop a blowout in an area that is so close to all of our major fishing ground here on the South Shore," he told CBC'sInformation Morning.

In the environmental assessment for the project, Shell Canada said the capping stack equipment would be brought in from Stavanger, Norway.

Shell said it would also deploy a backup capping stack from either Scotland, South Africa, Singapore or Brazil.

Stark contrast to U.S. regulation

Davis said the decision to allow Shell up to 21 days to cap a blowout in the Shelburne Basin is in stark contrast to what U.S. regulators are requiring from Shell for an exploratory drilling project in the Chukchi Sea in Alaska.

The U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has given Shell an exploration permit on the condition that it must have a capping stack on a vessel nearby on standby that must be deployed within 24 hours of a blowout.

"What Shell said to our regulator is, 'There isn't a capping stack available in Canada, nor in North America. Nor is there a vessel capable of moving and maintaining that capping stack, so we can't have one here because there isn't one,'" said Davis.

"The reality is, there is no capping stack and there is no vessel anywhere unless the oil companies are forced to have it near their drill site by the regulators.

"The vessel carrying the capping stack to the drill site [off Alaska] came from Norway. It simply doesn't make sense that you could accept that argument," Davis said.

CBC News has requested interviews with Environment Canada and the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency to explain Aglukkaq's reasoning for approving Shell Canada's well containment plan for Shelburne Basin. They deferred questions to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

The board wasn't available for comment Wednesday, but said it will speak to the issue later in the week.

[Warhippy]

I am sorry.

But really?

In 12 days the BP disaster in the Gulf released 11 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez disaster in PW Sound.

In 21 days it was the size of a lake.

21 days because anything shorter is too expensive for one of the largest and most profitable corporations on the planet?

Remind me again where the best fishing spots are on the east coast again? Oh right the grand banks. Which are not that far away. And of course the migratory areas for dozens of pods of right whales, humpback and sperm whales as well as numerous birds.

I am actually appalled at this. Because it is TOO EXPENSIVE.

Just to reiterate, the pittance charged in legislation enacted by the Harper Government; any overage on that fine can and will be made up on the backs of the Canadian taxpayer. Food for thought.

Too expensive for them. Just right for the taxpayer.

Again, as far from truly conservative as a party can get.

[elvis15]

...

A blowout is a "very low probability event," Pinks says, but "it is recognized that it is a high consequence." The offshore board is "knee-deep" reviewing Shell's application and wants to make sure equipment and systems are in place to deal with spills, if the project is given the go ahead.

In the federal environmental assessment report of June 15, the agency states a blowout in the seven planned wells is unlikely and the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

In the case of the Shelburne Basin Project, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency "accepted the proponent's view that it would be prohibitively expensive to develop this infrastructure in Atlantic Canada for exploratory work."

...

If something has low probability but high consequence, it should be listed as a high risk factor in any assessment as the consequence would outweigh the probability. You can't just average those out.

Of course they haven't provided any numbers on the probability here but we absolutely understand the consequence to the environment even a few days of a blowout can cause. The project may not cause "significant adverse environmental effects" if all goes as planned, but you plan for what could go wrong, not for best case scenarios.

I don't disagree with the Arctic provisions being more serious due to conditions but clearly any impact to the environment is incredibly serious. You'd think having at lease one cap available in a given region would be a sensible precautionary measure.

[DeNiro]

Whether less stringent rules in Eastern Canada are appropriate is a discussion people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have with their offshore petroleum boards

I found this part funny.

Yes it's up to the people to have a conversation with the petroleum board, not the government who we elect and pay with our tax dollars to make decisions that are best for the people of the country...

God I hate when government and big oil get in bed together. They can't see past the dollar signs.

[Warhippy]

If something has low probability but high consequence, it should be listed as a high risk factor in any assessment as the consequence would outweigh the probability. You can't just average those out.

Of course they haven't provided any numbers on the probability here but we absolutely understand the consequence to the environment even a few days of a blowout can cause. The project may not cause "significant adverse environmental effects" if all goes as planned, but you plan for what could go wrong, not for best case scenarios.

I don't disagree with the Arctic provisions being more serious due to conditions but clearly any impact to the environment is incredibly serious. You'd think having at lease one cap available in a given region would be a sensible precautionary measure.

Just blew my mind reading this and the excuse given is a slap in the face really. By calling it "to expensive" for one of the most profitable corporations in the world you are all but admitting that you're catering to multinationals instead of your own people.

But then Leonna is ok with the elders in her area eating from the landfill and starving so....not terribly shocked

[nucklehead]

Why can't these rigs be built with automatic shut down controls? It should shut down in minutes, not days.

[DeNiro]

Why can't these rigs be built with automatic shut down controls? It should shut down in minutes, not days.

Because oil companies don't have much incentive to invest in new technologies like this when governments give them free reign. It's all about the bottom line and pleasing the shareholders for them. Expensive R&D will just cut into that.

Not to mention they know that the window is closing on the demand for oil in the next 100 years. They're going to squeeze out as much profit as they can before it's all done.

[RonMexico]

Too expensive?

So i guess that my dog ate my homework and my alarm didn't go off are now legit excuses too.

Who are these knuckleheads in charge of this country? You have the capping system on stand-by before you drill or you don't drill. Why is it so hard to understand? Internet forum posters can understand this but an elected individual, one with a Native Indian background at that, can't?! Cost to Shell is irrelevant. But then again, so is damaging the environment as well. All you have to do is a easy internet search on Royal Dutch Shell and see this company's dubious track record around the world.

[Mr. Ambien]

12-21 days.. those are some pretty low expectations.

[DeNiro]

12-21 days.. those are some pretty low expectations.

Hey at least they're being realistic though.

They wanna cap these things as soon as possible. It's bad for business, not mention they're losing money when the oil is not flowing.

The best insurance plan to invest in would be to not have a blowout in the first place. This is just to cover their own butts if one does occur. Clearly the government is so desperate for business they'll let them get away with it.

[milk and honey]

On 8/6/2015 at 0:27 PM, Warhippy said:

I am sorry.

 

But really?

 

In 12 days the BP disaster in the Gulf released 11 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez disaster in PW Sound.

 

In 21 days it was the size of a lake.

 

21 days because anything shorter is too expensive for one of the largest and most profitable corporations on the planet?

 

Remind me again where the best fishing spots are on the east coast again? Oh right the grand banks. Which are not that far away. And of course the migratory areas for dozens of pods of right whales, humpback and sperm whales as well as numerous birds.

 

I am actually appalled at this. Because it is TOO EXPENSIVE.

 

Just to reiterate, the pittance charged in legislation enacted by the Harper Government; any overage on that fine can and will be made up on the backs of the Canadian taxpayer. Food for thought.

 

Too expensive for them. Just right for the taxpayer.

 

Again, as far from truly conservative as a party can get.

fair points.

[Realtor Rod]

But that money tho...

[VanGnome]

I am sorry.

But really?

In 12 days the BP disaster in the Gulf released 11 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez disaster in PW Sound.

In 21 days it was the size of a lake.

21 days because anything shorter is too expensive for one of the largest and most profitable corporations on the planet?

Remind me again where the best fishing spots are on the east coast again? Oh right the grand banks. Which are not that far away. And of course the migratory areas for dozens of pods of right whales, humpback and sperm whales as well as numerous birds.

I am actually appalled at this. Because it is TOO EXPENSIVE.

Just to reiterate, the pittance charged in legislation enacted by the Harper Government; any overage on that fine can and will be made up on the backs of the Canadian taxpayer. Food for thought.

Too expensive for them. Just right for the taxpayer.

Again, as far from truly conservative as a party can get.

100%

The logic is beyond twisted. Their determining factor for having a sane capping time frame in Alaska is because, and I paraphrase "There's a short window in which drilling can occur before ice moves in.", not because any spill is beyond catastrophic to the environment?

It's no wonder this world is going to hell, corporations are copping out citing "because capitalism" and world governments are too spineless to stand up to them.

If anything, approval for ANY exploratory or production drilling should be contingent on having a cap stack on hand in the event of a blowout, not if a blowout happens.

That is the weakest god damned excuse I've ever heard "because it's too expensive". I know for certain that Shell's profits last year rose despite drop in commodity prices, into the billions. I don't know how much offshore capping systems cost to implement, but certainly if it's even in the hundreds of millions, it's still insignificant compared to the ecological impact, as well as the ongoing financial impact of being responsible for clean up and awarding damages... see BP.

This is precisely why Harper needs to be out, that clown is just trolling Canadians, and bending over to any corporation who wants something from this country.

[BanTSN]

What's sad is that Harper will likely win a minority government.

[Chalky]

The environment transcends the costs. Not that I was ever at risk of voting Con, but this would have been a deal breaker if I was. I am extremely unimpressed.

[Mr. Ambien]

100%

The logic is beyond twisted. Their determining factor for having a sane capping time frame in Alaska is because, and I paraphrase "There's a short window in which drilling can occur before ice moves in.", not because any spill is beyond catastrophic to the environment?

You couldn't read a few more sentences to find this part?

If an Arctic well blowout is not controlled before the ice moves in, Matthews says it could mean oil flowing uncontrollably for up to seven months and would "very much be a disaster."

It's obviously done because they don't want oil flowing uncontrollably for the better part of half a year and the environmental havoc it would cause.

[Warhippy]

if the conservatives would say yes. Most libs would be saying thats it a waste of money. What conservatives do the the left wingers will be against.

Then again you are a socialist supporter so I wouldn't expect any different

lords are you just constantly full of partisan crap all the time?

This has nothing to do with socialism, and I will happily risk a banning here, but you'd have to be stupid, and I mean like preach to a fairy tale, trust Ted Cruz as a reputable and a reliable candidate for US presidency cite Right Wing News as an impartial media outlet worth quoting and believe the world is flat stupid to believe for a second I am socialist.

This has NOTHING to do with left or right and everything to do with the stupidity of allowing a massive multinational corporation that ranks in the top 30 corporate earners for profit worldwide to go 12-21 FULL days without a fail safe in the event of a blow out because "it is to expensive for them"

I cannot be bothered by your ignorance anymore. Seriously, go find an anti abortion rally or something and get your fill of your own type because I find your tragic attempt at attacks and woefully ignorant and pitiful arguments nauseating.

Welcome to my ignore list

[LaBamba]

This is completely irrelevant, Shell would be held accountable for any accidental discharge of hydrocarbons, therefore why make them pay for something they haven't even done yet?

Shell's global standards are far more stringent than any government regulation. They easily set the standard in environmental responsibility and safety in comparison to anyone else in the world.

This is how you compromise with corporations to create jobs.

Edit

What I'm trying to say is shell's practice in conducting business is 2nd to none. They spend 3x more capital then any other energy provider to set the global standard. The likelihood of shell cutting corners to allow an influx to surface is next to nothing.

[Warhippy]

This is completely irrelevant, Shell would be held accountable for any accidental discharge of hydrocarbons, therefore why make them pay for something they haven't even done yet?

Shell's global standards are far more stringent than any government regulation. They easily set the standard in environmental responsibility and safety in comparison to anyone else in the world.

This is how you compromise with corporations to create jobs.

Edit

What I'm trying to say is shell's practice in conducting business is 2nd to none. They spend 3x more capital then any other energy provider to set the global standard. The likelihood of shell cutting corners to allow an influx to surface is next to nothing.

so

You know it's cool if it happens and a massive spill occurs. You know take your 12 to 21 days to cap it and don't worry about it.

We'll just make you pay the legislated maximum that even the USA laughed at for its meager amount.

It's only the eastern seaboard take your time