Shell (unsuccessfully) seeks to block critics from Jackpine hearing

On October 1st, 2012, Isaac Asume Osuoka and I submitted a letter  to the Joint Review Panel hearing on the proposed Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion in Northern Alberta.We attached the following evidence to our letter: The 2011 UNEP report on Ogoniland and the Amnesty International 2012 Briefing on Canada to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s legal challenge to Shell oil is at http://acfnchallenge.wordpress.com/about/

On October 4th Shell’s lawyers filed a letter seeking to exclude many people from presenting evidence at the hearings. Isaac Asume Osuoka and I were among them,  as was Keith Stewart of Greenpeace. The letter may be viewed at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p59540/82081E.pdf.

Asume and I submitted a letter in response to Shell’s. See http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p59540/82191E.pdf 

On October 17, the Joint Review Panel indicated that we did have standing to present evidence at the hearing, but that material concerning Shell’s practices in Nigeria was not to be treated substantively.

See Keith Stewart’s blog on this incident at http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/shell-fails-to-silence-greenpeace-at-hearing-/blog/42651/

Shell’s lawyers employ the recent gutting of Canadian federal environmental legislation (under the Harper government’s controversial omnibus budget Bill C-38 of June 2012) to justify the call for exclusion.  For background on Bill C-38 and the environment see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/04/minister-defense-environment_n_1567570.ht

See media coverage at:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/shell-tries-new-rules-to-block-greenpeace-from-jackpine-hearings-1.999721

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/business/archives/2012/10/20121018-072951.html

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2012/10/17/Shell-attempt-to-bar-Greenpeace-from-oil-sands-hearing/

 

 

The Keele Street Tank Farm: A report from Sentinel Road

The Keele St. Tank Farm: A report from Sentinel Road

Justin Podur and I first wrote this in February 2012.  This piece concerns a downstream facility across from York University that stores fuel used at Toronto filling stations, via Montreal refineries and elsewhere. We intend to write more “reports from Sentinel Road” on matters of shared interest.  On a different end of the production chain, hearings concerning  Shell’s proposed Jackpine Mine Expansion in Alberta are  ongoing. Having recently returned ‘downstream’ from those hearings in Fort McMurray, it seems apt to post this now; more on those hearings  in a subsequent post.

Justin Podur and Anna Zalik

February 15, 2012, Updated: November, 2012

In July 2010, the Toronto Transit Commission recommended that City Council exempt a petroleum tank farm on Keele Street from a 1954 by-law that prevents oil and gas trucks from traveling over subway lines (1). Today, plans for the subway extension to York University intersect with the Keele Street tank farms of Imperial Oil/Esso, Shell and Suncor. The TTC’s recommendation for an exemption is based on improvements to truck safety since 1954. And as “the tank farms won’t be going anywhere” anyway, it is also practical to change the rules. City Council agreed – in August 2010 they granted the exemption (2). See http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/07/08/14651326.html  and http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-33276.pdf. This also involved re-design of nearby roads to accommodate tanker traffic.

The tank farm, for those who don’t live near it or pass it on the way to work or school in the morning, is owned by a who’s who of Canadian petroleum interests: Imperial Oil and Imperial Oil pipelines, Shell Oil, Sun-Canadian Pipe Line Company, Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc., Enbridge Pipelines (3). Built in the 1940s, the facility stores fuel that ultimately supplies local filling stations (3a).

The debate between the TTC and City Councillors concerned risks of spills, collisions, explosions, and fires (4). Proponents argue that the facilities are too expensive to move and the risk of an explosion is below acceptable levels.

But petrochemical facilities raise other concerns – for example, toxicity. In 1991, Health and Welfare Canada (HWC) investigators raised concerns of contamination of fruit and vegetables grown near the tank farms. A toxicologist from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy sampled fruits, vegetables, and soil on September 23, 1991 and found no evidence of contamination beyond slightly elevated levels of lead – again, like the acceptable levels of explosion risk, the lead was found to be below acceptable thresholds (5).

Even if all of the analyses to date have found the tank farm’s risks to be in the acceptable range, it would be nice to know much more about it. How does it benefit the city, and the local community – what are the benefits to be weighed against these acceptable risks? How have toxicity analyses come out in the 20 years since the 1991 study?

A 2003 Map produced by The Toronto Environmental Alliance illustrates a high concentration of industries releasing toxic chemicals in Toronto’s North West and North East, with a significant mark for the area that comprises the Tank Farm detailed in the tables linked here. If we compare this map to material from the Color of Poverty project, we note a correlation between communities of lower income, racialized communities and toxic chemicals. From the perspective of the literature on Environmental Justice, this is unsurprising. Our review of the National Pollutants Release Inventory for the past 10 years, indicates an overall increase in the air contaminants released over time from the Imperial Oil, Shell Canada Products and Suncor facilities for the years up until 2009. The  data for the Shell Facility indicates a 23% increase in VOCs released between 2009 to 2010, from 39 to 48 tonnes.

Also of note –  these facilities are likely to store fuel imported from a range of controversial sites.

One possibility for an updated study: using toxicity and safety risk metrics from comparable facilities elsewhere, analyze the problem spatially – what buffer is required for safety from possible spills and explosions? Who lives within that buffer? What risks are posed by the pipeline network, and what might the role of alternative energy be in the future – could this facility be decommissioned? From where are the products at these locations sourced and what socio-environmental conflicts (problems) do we find at the other end of the production chain?

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Sources:

1) David Nickle, July 15, 2010. “Oil tankers slide closer to Keele and Finch: Council to review bylaw banning oil and gas trucks from intersection”. http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/cityhall/article/848069 Accessed February 15, 2012.

2) Toronto City Council Minutes for August 25, 26, 27, 2010. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/minutes/2010-08-25-cc52-mn.htm Accessed February 15, 2012

3) City of Toronto. Bus-Only Lanes Downsview Station to York University Class Environmental Assessment. http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/downsview_york/ Accessed February 15, 2012.

3a). Brian Gray. 2008 The City Cannot Run on Empty”. Toronto Sun. August 18, p5. Accessed November 15, 2012.

4) Toronto Transit Commission. July 14, 2010. Report: Transportation of Inflammable Liquids Over Subways – City of Toronto By-Law Exemption. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/bgrd/PW34.8b.pdf Accessed February 15, 2012.

5) J. Craig Kinch. 1991. Phytotoxicology Assessment Survey in the vicinity of the Shell, Petro-Canada and Imperial Oil Petroleum Tank Farms, Toronto – 1991. ARB-251-92-Phyto. http://www30.us.archive.org/details/phytotoxicologya00kincuoftI Accessed February 15, 2012.

Published works and writing

Zalik, A. 2015. “Resource Sterilization: Reserve Replacement, Financial Risk and Environmental Review in Canada’s Tar Sands”. Environment and Planning A, 47, 12: 2446-2464.

Zalik, A. 2015. “On Huber’s Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom and the Forces of Capital” Book Review Forum. Cultural Geographies, October 22: 743-746.

Michelle Arroyo and A. Zalik. 2015. “Displacement and Denationalization: The Mexican Gulf 75 Years after the ExpropriationArea doi: 10.1111/area.12183

Zalik, A. 2015. “Trading on the Offshore: Territorialization and the Ocean Grab in the International Seabed” p 173-190. K. Ervine and G. Fridell (eds). In Beyond Free Trade: Alternative Approaches to Trade, Politics and Power, Palgrave MacMillan.

Zalik, A. 2015. “Vicious Transparency: Contesting Canada’s Hydrocarbon Future ” p 354-370 , Hannah Appel, Arthur Mason, Michael Watts (eds). In Subterranean Estates: Life Worlds of Oil and Gas. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Zalik, A. 2015. “Transparency, Auditability and the Contradictions of Corporate Social Responsibility”, Charlotte Walker-Said (ed) Corporate Social Responsibility? University of Chicago Press.

Zalik, A. 2014. “Transparency and Its Other: Studying the Oil Industry” at http://ppel.arizona.edu/?p=911 invited to the University of Arizona’s Public Political Ecology Lab special blog series on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, November16.

Ghomeshi, K and A. Zalik. 2013. “Corporate Privacy and Environmental Review at Export Development Canada Intervention to Antipode Foundation site.

Zalik, A. 2012. “The Race to the Bottom and the Demise of the Landord: The Struggle over Petroleum Revenues Historically and Comparatively” in John Andrew McNeish and Owen Logan (eds) Flammable Societies: Studies on the Socio-Economics of Oil and Gas.  Pluto Press,  267-286.

Zalik, A. 2011. “Protest as Violence in Oilfields: The Contested Representation of Profiteering in Two Extractive Sites” in S. Feldman, C. Geisler and G. Menon (eds)  Accumulating Insecurity: Violence and Dispossession in the Making of Everyday Life.  University of Georgia Press,  215-239.

Zalik, A. 2011. “Shipping the Next Prize” in Christopher Sellers and Joseph Melling (eds) Dangerous Trade: Histories of Industrial Hazard across a Globalizing World. Temple University Press, 87-98.

Zalik, A. 2011. “Labeling Oil, Reconstituting Governance” in Cyril Obi and Siri Rustad (eds.). Oil and Insurgency in the Niger Delta. London: Zed Books,  184-199.

Zalik, A. 2010 “Marketing and Militarizing Elections: Social Protest, Extractive Security and the De/legitimation of Civilian Transition in Nigeria and Mexico” in Philip McMichael (ed) Contesting Development: Critical Struggles for Social Change. Routledge, 83-97.

Zalik, A. 2010. “Volatilidad y mediación en diferentes campos petroleros: Las Arenas Bituminosas y el Delta del Níger como lugares en controversia.” (`Volatility and Mediation across Oilfields: The Tar Sands and the Niger Delta as Contested Sites` In Umbrales 20 Hydrocarbons, Politics and Society. Bolivia, CIDES La Paz. http://www.cides.edu.bo/webcides/images/pdf/Umbrales_20.pdf

Osuoka, A. and A. Zalik. 2010.”The Dilemmas of Global Resistance against Extractive Capital: The Oilwatch Network in Africa.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies.

Zalik, A. 2010.“Oil Futures: Shell’s Scenarios and the Social Constitution of the Global Oil Market” in Geoforum 41, 4, 553-564.

Zalik, A. 2009.“Zones of Exclusion: Offshore Extraction and Physical Displacement in the Nigerian Delta and the Mexican Gulf.” Antipode. 41, 3. 557-582.

Zalik, A. 2008. “Liquefied Natural Gas and Fossil Capitalism.” Monthly Review. November. Special Issue on Ecology. 60, 6. 41-52.

Peterside, S. and A. Zalik. 2009. “The Commodification of Violence in the Niger Delta” in Leo Panitch and Colin Leys (eds). Violence Today: Actually Existing Barbarism: Socialist Register 2009. Monthly Review Press

Zalik, A. 2008. “Oil Sovereignties: Ecology and Nationality in the Nigerian Delta and the Mexican Gulf” in Extractive Economies and Conflicts in the Global South K. Omeje (ed).  Ashgate, 181-198.

Zalik, A. 2006. “Re-regulating the Mexican Gulf Working Paper. No 15.  Center for Latin American Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

Zalik, A.  2004. “The Niger Delta: Petro-Violence and Partnership Development”. Review of African Political Economy. No. 101, 4. 401-424.