Category Archives: Fracking

Gas pains: BC’s gas plan is a short-sighted pipe dream

May 29, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNGDr. David Suzuki

B.C. appears to be pinning its economic hopes on natural gas – much of it obtained by fracking. While the world should be turning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy and conservation, we’re poised to dig ourselves deeper into the climate-altering carbon hole.

Taking a cue from the liquidation-sale policies of the Alberta and federal governments, B.C.’s leaders want to get fossil fuels out of the ground, piped to the coast, liquefied and shipped to Asia or wherever they can find buyers, as quickly as possible. It’s a short-sighted plan based on outmoded thinking. In the long run, it’s not good for the economy or the environment.

Whether politicians believe fossil fuel supplies are endless or can only see as far as the next election, they’re selling out our future and leaving a shattered legacy for our kids and grandkids. To start, natural gas is not the clean-energy solution it’s touted to be. According to thePembina Institute, if only five of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas terminals were built on the B.C. coast, they could spew 63-million tonnes of carbon a year into the atmosphere – exceeding the amount now produced by the Alberta tar sands and equal to all of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Discharges of particulate matter and volatile organic compounds would also be significant new sources of pollution.

Liquefying the gas for export, which requires enormous amounts of energy, isn’t the only source of greenhouse gases. Leaks – or what the industry refers to as “fugitive emissions” – during drilling, extraction and transport are also concerns. Although the B.C. Environment Ministry claims just .3 to .4 per cent of gas escapes into the atmosphere, independent studies say it’s likely many times that amount.

According to an article in Nature, scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado in Boulder found leaks of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – amounted to between four and nine per cent of total production at two gas fields in the U.S.

Even the economic benefits of the province’s LNG plans are suspect. Many analysts expect price corrections, and U.K. LNG expert Peter Hughes told the CBC the perceived windfall is “wishful thinking” because B.C. will have to compete with producers in places like Qatar, East Africa and Australia. Most of the money wouldn’t even stay in B.C., as many gas companies are from other provinces and countries. As for jobs, natural gas extraction, transport and production create relatively few compared to almost every other economic sector – including tourism, science and technology, health care, education and small business.

On top of that, hydraulic fracturing or fracking – shooting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to shatter shale and release natural gas – has many other environmental consequences. It requires massive amounts of water, contaminates drinking water, damages habitat and ecosystems – even causes small earthquakes.

As well as seeing natural gas as an economic panacea, some argue it could be a “bridging fuel” – something cleaner than oil or coal to use while we make the transition to renewable energy. But it’s a hazard-strewn bridge, and subsidizing and investing in natural gas extraction and infrastructure without any real commitment to wean us off oil, coal and gas will only keep us on the fossil fuel road and discourage investment in clean energy and conservation.

The industry also relies on taxpayers’ money to subsidize it, through tax and royalty credits, and to provide water, roads and the massive amounts of energy required to liquefy the gas, perhaps from a new Site C dam on the Peace River. And fugitive emissions from gas operations are exempt from the carbon tax. If we are really “bridging” to reduce fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing companies for their carbon costs?

It’s time to invest our money and human resources in long-term, innovative ideas that will create good, lasting jobs, and ensure that we and our children and grandchildren continue to enjoy healthy and prosperous lives and that our spectacular “supernatural” environment is protected. We have abundant renewable resources and opportunities to conserve energy and lead the way in developing clean energy.

It’s time to move forward.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

New report: Canada-EU trade agreement threatens fracking bans

May 8, 2013Economics, Energy and Resources, Fracking, International, PoliticsCommon Sense Canadian

The Council of Canadians, along with the Transnational Institute and Corporate Europe Observatory, released a report this week examining the threat that a proposed Canada-EU free trade deal would have on a community’s ability to implement fracking regulations and fracking bans on both sides of the Atlantic.

Canada began negotiations with Europe on the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) in 2009 and hope to conclude the agreement by this summer. As Canadian negotiators visit Brussels this week to continue negotiations, the report, The Right to Say No: EU-Canada trade agreement threatens fracking bans, warns the proposed investment protection clauses in the agreement would jeopardise governments’ ability to regulate or ban fracking.

The report draws attention to Lone Pine Resources’ lawsuit against Quebec’s fracking moratorium under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last fall, Lone Pine Resources, a U.S.-funded energy firm, filed a notice of intent to challenge Quebec’s moratorium on fracking under NAFTA and is asking for $250 million in compensation.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial process that uses massive amounts of water mixed with sand and toxic chemicals to blast apart shale rock or coal beds to extract natural gas or oil. Fracking fluid can contaminate drinking water with substances that cause cancer and organ damage, and affect neurological, reproductive and endocrine systems. Safely disposing of fracking wastewater is incredibly difficult. Fracking has also been linked to earthquakes and methane leaks that exacerbate climate change.

“The Right to Say No” looks at how CETA threatens fracking bans, the North American companies already invested in Europe and the state of fracking in both Canada and Europe.

The report is timely as the County of Inverness in Nova Scotia voted Monday to pass a by-law banning fracking within county limits. Cumberland County in Nova Scotia has also passed a motion banning fracking. Burnaby, B.C., Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario and a number of Quebec municipalities have passed resolutions calling for the protection of water sources and provincial moratoria. Nova Scotia is not issuing permits until their review on shale gas is complete and Quebec has implemented a moratorium within the province.

With the growing community opposition to fracking, we’ll likely see more by-laws banning fracking in the coming years and it’s crucial that we protect communities’ right to say no to fracking. An appellate panel of the New York Supreme Court recently upheld municipal bans on frackingin the state of New York. So while it’s not a Canadian example, the New York Supreme Court decision is a strong precedent for respecting municipalities right to ban fracking in North America.

The EU and Canada must exclude an investor-to-state dispute settlement process in the agreement, or not only will they be hamerping communities’ democratic right to determine their own environmental laws but Canada and EU countries could also find themselves targets of CETA lawsuits.

The report is available in English and French.

Emma Lui is a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians based in Ottawa. Emma’s work focuses on the Great Lakes, human rights, water privatization and the connection between energy and water.

WATER + POWER: Upcoming Presentations by Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis

April 19, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, Hydropower, LNG, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western CanadaCommon Sense Canadian

In the lead-up to the BC election, Common Sense Canadian co-founders Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis are travelling to four BC communities – Kamloops, Merritt, Williams Lake and Prince George – to discuss key issues shaping the future of our province. The multi-media presentations, titled “WATER + POWER: The Future of BC’s Energy, Environment and Democracy,” will include video clips from filmmaker Gillis, a speech by Mair and an audience Q&A session.

On the agenda is a web of proposed energy projects which represent the vision of both our provincial and federal governments for the economic future of BC – all with profound impacts on our vital freshwater and coastline. The discussion will cover everything from proposed oil and gas pipelines to fracking, Site C Dam, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and private river power projects – to an alternate vision for managing BC’s resources and economy to the benefit of the public and environment.

The non-partisan events will scrutinize the BC Liberals’ economic and environmental record over the past decade, while examining the NDP’s policy positions on issues the like the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Vancouver and the nexus of Site C Dam, natural gas “fracking” and the plan to build a massive LNG industry on BC’s coast.

“Our goal is to provide the public with accurate information and connect the dots between interrelated projects of enormous environment, social, cultural, and economic significance,” says Gillis. “We’re furthering a much-needed dialogue about the future of our province at a key moment politically.”

The details for the upcoming events are as follows:

April 23, 7 pm: Kamloops, BC @ Desert Garden Seniors’ Centre (540 Seymour St. – Mojave Room)

April 24, 7 pm: Merritt, BC @ Merritt Civic Centre (1950 Mamette Ave.)

May 8, 7 pm: Williams Lake, BC @ Williams Lake Secondary School (640 Carson Dr.)

May 9, 7 pm: Prince George @ UNBC (stay tuned for room information)

The Kamloops and Williams Lake events are co-hosted by the local Council of Canadians chapters. All events are by donation.

Site C Dam: A $10 Billion Taxpayer Subsidy for LNG, Fracking

April 2, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, Hydropower, LNGDamien Gillis

Christy Clark argues the need for Site C Dam to power LNG on Global TV last week (screen capture).

Premier Christy Clark wants BC citizens to subsidize the oil and gas industry with a $10 Billion taxpayer-funded dam. Though she won’t put it quite like that, that’s precisely the implication of the policies she’s promoting in the run-up to May’s provincial election.

Clark confirmed her vision for powering a new, much-ballyhooed Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Industry to Global TV last week (a must-watch). The premier has promised in recent months a $100 Billion windfall of provincial revenues from the yet-to-be-developed LNG industry, a boast which has drawn justified ridicule from pundits.

LNG requires enormous amounts of energy to super-cool gas in order to liquefy it and load it onto tankers. Numerous global energy companies – including Shell, Chevron, and a number of big Asian players – have lined up over the past year to build LNG plants in Kitimat and Prince Rupert, in order to access Asian markets which are currently paying significantly more for gas than the North American market.

Clark acknowledges the province doesn’t have enough electricity to supply the demands of multiple proposed LNG facilities. Her solution? Flood an 80 km stretch of the fertile Peace Valley in northeast BC to build a new dam. Dubbed Site “C” because it would be the third dam on the Peace River, the project would flood some 20,000 acres of high quality agricultural land and wildlife habitat.

Clark was blunt with Global TV reporter Jas Johal:

[quote]You can’t power up these huge [LNG] facilities without more power, so BC Hydro’s going to have to build Site C – we’re in favour of making that happen.[/quote]

The statement came as the window for public comments to the environmental assessment process for Site C winds down, drawing to a close Thursday, April 4.

Last year, at a press conference in Fort St. John, near the location of the proposed dam, Premier Clark spoke to the need for Site C to power LNG. She acknowledged that just one of the 5 or 6 planned LNG terminals on BC’s coast – a proposal by Shell and its Chinese, Korean and Japanese partners – would eat up the entire 1,100 megawatt output of Site C.

So even with this new dam – which won’t be up and running until 2020 at the earliest – BC has nowhere near the energy required to power the energy-hungry LNG industry. To that end, Premier Clark created a loophole in the Clean Energy Act to allow gas companies to generate power for their plants by burning their own natural gas. Which begs the question: why the continued need for Site C?

Perhaps it’s because the power from Site C would be offered to gas producers at a steep discount, which is the standard for large industrial users, who typically pay less than half what residential and small business customers pay for hydroelectricity in BC.

When pressed by Johal on the taxpayer subsidy issue, Clark brushed it off – “That’s not part of what we’re negotiating…We aren’t going to ask residential taxpayers to subsidize this.”

And yet, the dam itself, pegged at $8 Billion but sure to balloon beyond that (a study of 70 large dam projects funded by the World Bank found that the average overrun was a whopping 27%), will be on the shoulders of taxpayers and crown corporation BC Hydro – already drowing in massive debt. And unless the plan is to make the LNG industry pay top dollar for this new power (which defeats the purpose entirely), then residential hydro customers will bear the full burden through much steeper power bills.

While Site C is a looming taxpayer boondoggle, it will also destroy precious farmland at a time when we produce just 40% of our own food in BC. And as this recent report from the David Suzuki Foundation shows, it will compound the enormous industrial footprint that has marred over 65% of the Peace Valley over the past half century – making it easily one of the world’s most heavily impacted regions already.

A major source of those impacts is the natural gas industry, which relies more and more on environmentally risky “fracking” to extract the gas that would flow to these LNG plants through multiple new pipelines.

So Site C and LNG mean a major ramping up of increasingly controversial fracking.

Clark’s opposition in the upcoming provincial election on May 14, the BC NDP, are showing signs of backing away from Site C. The party’s Energy Critic John Horgan told the Vancouver Sun in February, “I’m confident that in the first two years of an NDP government we won’t be building Site C.”

For more information on Site C and tools to help you submit your comments to the environmental assessment process by the April 4 deadline, click here.

BC’s Fossil Fuel Folly

March 23, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and SupertankersRay Grigg

Perhaps the big white banner with black letters at the recent American protest of the Keystone XL pipeline summarizes BC’s fossil fuel folly. “Fossil Fuels? Fossil Fools,” it declares. The “o”s are painted a hazardous yellow, and within each is an unequivocal “x”. The protest’s specific target is the pipeline intended to carry carbon-intensive crude from Alberta’s tar-sands to refineries in the US southern Gulf Coast; the protest’s broader target is the industrial development that is adding carbon dioxide to an already stressed biosphere.

People who are concerned about global climate change are watching the steep rise of global carbon dioxide emissions. While a few nations have been heroic in their efforts to cut these emissions, international efforts have been eminently unsuccessful. So BC’s strategy to export energy — massive amounts of LNG, increasing quantities of coal, and perhaps a tide-water port for Alberta’s bitumen — is generating justifiable scrutiny, criticism and concern. People are counting carbon, dreading the consequences and registering their objections.

Not surprisingly, numerous rallies are being held opposing the Keystone XL pipeline. Natural gas is also the subject of worry. Although it’s an energy that produces only half the carbon dioxide of coal when burned, some experts think that the massive drilling required, combined with the escaped methane from fracking, may make natural gas as carbon intensive as coal. Coal, too, is a target of protest. It causes ecological damage when mined, produces numerous toxic pollutants when burned, and its industrial use generates the world’s largest single source of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Since we all live on a planet with one shared atmosphere, BC cannot embark on a strategy of exporting fossil fuel energy without calculating the global consequences. So it must expect both criticism and resistance from those who are counting carbon. Indeed, BC cannot even claim the virtue that its forests are sequestering carbon because new evidence suggests that the mountain pine beetle infestation is so massive that the province’s forests are now carbon negative — they are producing more carbon dioxide than they are presently storing. Even BC’s claim that natural gas is a carbon bargain is suspect because any gains in reducing CO2 emissions will likely be lost by the energy-intensive process of compressing huge quantities of it for export as liquid natural gas (LNG). Then more greenhouse gases are emitted when transporting the LNG by ship to distant destinations.

If BC were truly interested in its carbon virtue, it might note a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Jane Petch, Island Tides, Feb. 28/13) which found that all BC’s energy needs could probably be met by hydro electricity. Electrical consumption in the province is flat and any increase in demand can likely be met by efficiency improvements. This ethical option is undermined by the expanding industrial demands of mining, gas production and LNG projects.

BC is attempting to justify its strategy of exporting LNG by arguing that this relatively clean fuel — a debatable claim — will displace the use of coal elsewhere, thereby reducing net global carbon dioxide emissions. But a global review of coal use suggests otherwise. And BC’s argument is further compromised by its record coal exports. A province more idealistic and less opportunistic could at least stabilize its share of global carbon dioxide emissions by cutting its coal exports to compensate for its LNG exports — something it is not considering.

Between 2001 and 2010 the US was able to reduce its coal use by 5 percent, helping it cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 1.7 percent (NewScientist, Nov. 17/12). But during that same period, global coal consumption increased by 47 percent, simply because other countries are dramatically increasing their consumption. As a fuel, coal is cheap, readily available, and its carbon dioxide output is wholly unregulated, unsanctioned and free. It now produces 40 percent of the world’s electricity. And global consumption is at record levels. China, which uses three times the US consumption of coal, is showing no signs of reducing its use. In fact, China has new coal-fired electrical plants in construction that will exceed the entire coal-fired production of electricity in the US.

According to statistics in NewScientist, the amount of coal used on the planet is staggering. “Global consumption is about 71 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, which is equal to the daily oil output of more than eight Saudi Arabias” (Ibid.). This means that any coal exported from BC will simply go to feed the voracious global hunger for energy. And any LNG exported will not displace coal; it will simply be added to the climate crisis already unfolding. And any export of LNG will will eventually compromise BC’s own energy needs.

If BC is going to export massive quantities of its natural gas, how is it to meet its own long-term energy needs? What are the environmental consequences of producing the extra energy required to power the drilling, compressing and mining of resources for export? What are the monetary and social costs of such a strategy? What are the economic traps in such infrastructure investment, considering that countries such as Australia already have 17 LNG plants in development? And what are the ethical implications of exporting fossil fuel energy to a world that is already wounding itself with excessive carbon dioxide emissions? Are these not valid questions that must be considered in BC’s energy strategy? From a considered perspective, BC is joining the march down the path of fossil fuel folly.

Big-picture Thinking Needed to Protect Nature

March 20, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, Mining, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Species At RiskDr. David Suzuki

Few places on Earth have been untouched by humans, according to a study in the journal Science. Satellite images taken from hundreds of kilometres above the planet reveal a world that we have irrevocably changed within a remarkably short time.

Although industrial projects like the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline or the recently defeated mega-quarry in Ontario typically grab the headlines and bring out public opposition, it’s often the combined impacts of a range of human activities on the same land base that threaten to drive nature beyond critical tipping points. Once those are passed, rapid ecological changes such as species extinction can occur.

For example, in British Columbia’s booming Peace Region, forestry, energy and mineral leases and licences are widespread and often multilayered in the same area. As various industries have exploited these “tenures”, a sprawling patchwork of large clearcuts, oil wells, dams and reservoirs, fracking operations and thousands of kilometres of seismic lines, roads and pipelines have come to dominate the landscape.

Today, more than 65 per cent of the region has felt the impact of industrial development, leaving little intact habitat for sensitive, endangered species such as caribou to feed, breed or roam. Degradation or destruction of habitat has convinced scientists that remaining herds in the region are no longer self-sustaining and are spiralling toward local extinction. First Nations, who have relied upon caribou as their primary source of food for thousands of years, can no longer hunt them. This is a clear violation of treaty rights.

This dire situation didn’t happen by accident or because of a laissez-faire approach to resource and land management. Numerous industries in the area have been operating legally and according to rules and regulations set by government.

But legal experts, such as those at the nongovernmental organization West Coast Environmental Law, believe a root cause of the problem lies in laws about land, resource and water management that are “hardwired” to fail communities and the environment. The narrow focus of those laws enables industries to operate in isolation from one another.

B.C., for example, has developed numerous individual laws, like the Forest and Range Practices Act, Oil and Gas Activities Act and Mines Act, alongside the regulated industries they enable. But the province lacks a legal framework to proactively and comprehensively manage the cumulative impacts of multiple resource industries operating within the same area.

Because of this, WCEL and its First Nations partners are engaged in a multi-year law reform project that aims to overhaul the way we currently oversee and regulate cumulative impacts, ranging from declining water quality that may arise as a result of multiple industries using a common resource, to emerging threats such as climate change.

A cumulative-impacts approach to governing resource development would upend the current management paradigm. It would focus on the management needs of the land, water, air, wildlife and indigenous communities that depend on them first, rather than the resources to be extracted. In practical terms, this would mean that, rather than focusing on what we should take from nature to create wealth and employment, we should first consider what must be retained in nature to sustain both wildlife and the well-being of local communities – such as clean air, safe drinking water and healthy local food.

At a recent symposium on managing the cumulative impacts of resource development in B.C., numerous speakers – from First Nations to academics to business leaders – stressed that effectively managing cumulative impacts will require new institutions and governance mechanisms, even new legal tools. More importantly, it will require our leaders to adopt a more proactive and holistic way of thinking about the world – one that recognizes that far from just being a place to extract resources like fossil fuels, timber and minerals, nature is our home. Nature provides our most fundamental needs and dictates limits to growth and so its protection should be our highest priority.

Managing our massive, growing human footprint on this planet more sustainably will require leadership, much of which is emerging from First Nations peoples who are on the frontlines of the day-to-day realities of cumulative environmental change. We need to look at the big picture rather than individual elements in isolation.

Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada Director-General Faisal Moola.

Environment still an afterthought to BC media in election run-up

January 21, 2013Energy and Resources, Fracking, LNG, Media, Oceans, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and AquacultureRafe Mair

Mike Smyth gave us a full page story of his interview with Adrian Dix in the Sunday Province without a word on the environment!

What’s with these guys at Postmedia? Are the thousands upon thousands of hits that organizations like the Wilderness Committee, and yes, the Common Sense Canadian, garner meaningless? Can it be that a handful of NDP supporters visit our websites 1000’s of times a day?

For reasons that escape me, Dix is getting a free ride in the capitalist press.

At least Fazil Mihlar, when he was editor of the Sun’s editorial pages up until recently, kept the faith with the far right, as this Fellow of the Fraser Institute flooded the op-ed pages with articles by anyone who’d kiss the ass of the fish farmers, coal miners, pipeline companies, the tanker people and so on. And we’ve long given up on star Suncolumnist Vaughn Palmer’s ability to ask a tough question of anyone or say something that even barely qualifies as controversial – but Mike was beginning to draw some blood in both major political camps.

There is, evidently, a strong aversion in the mainstream media to talk about the environment and I can only guess why. Was the Kalamazoo spill by Enbridge too complicated to deal with? And the 800+ other spills by this wretched despoiler of the outdoors?

Is the question of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline too difficult to analyze, the issues being the same as the proposed Enbridge line?

Are we having trouble dealing with dilbit, the chemical-laced bitumen that it is proposed to be piped through our mountains and valleys into tankers to ply the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest? Is it too time consuming to let readers know of the disastrous difference between bitumen spills and the stuff with which the Exxon Valdez polluted our waters and killed our fish and birds?

What about LNG? (Liquified Natural Gas) Is it beyond the abilities of the Sun and the Province to deal with the environmental issues surrounding fracking, which, by drilling first vertically, then horizontally, pumps out gas from between layers of shale? Where do the enormous volumes of water required for this process come from? After it’s laced with poisonous chemicals and the result pumped underground to crack open the shale, where does it go? Into the water table? Are there potential consequences of stability to the earth’s crust – such as this recentreport from the BC Oil and Gas Commission suggests?

What about fish farms? The Province and Sun have avoided this issue like the plague, with the notable exception of Mihlar, who seems to have given a free pass to the fish farms when they wanted the op-ed page.

What of the desecration of farmland, especially in the Delta area?

Adrian Dix has taken stands on these issues – sort of. He’s against Enbridge but silent on Kinder Morgan. If Kinder Morgan proceeds there will be unbelievable risks from tankers in Vancouver Harbour right out until the open ocean is reached.

The NDP have approved of LNG plants for the northern coast. Does this mean that they are unconcerned about the threat pipelines pose to the fauna and flora they pass through? Does this mean they have satisfied themselves that fracking poses no environmental concerns?

And with the same concerns applying to Kinder Morgan as with Enbridge, how can Mr. Dix condemn the latter while being undecided about the former?

Mr. Dix seems to be concerned about fish farms, but what would he do about them?

And what about the private power catastrophe which has ruined or will soon ruin some 75 rivers while bankrupting BC Hydro? Mr. Dix seems to be against them but what would he do about them? Hydro is presently on the hook for $50 BILLION dollars from these thieves in three piece suits.

Meanwhile, another multi-billion-dollar Hydro boondoggle and environmental calamity awaits us with the proposed Site C Dam – which wouldflood over 12,000 acres of farmland and wilderness to provide subsidized electricity to new mines and gas operations. The NDP has been on the fence at best with this massive project.

Mr. Dix seems to believe that a clean fight is on its way. Is this because he doesn’t want the Liberals to deal with the little matter of outright forgery he committed to save Glen Clark’s scalp in the Pilarinos scandal?

Politics is a blood sport in BC and will be in spite of the hypocrisy of Mr Dix.

The Common Sense Canadian, being devoted to environmental issues. will likely support the NDP in the May election but this doesn’t mean we support handling Mr. Dix or anyone else with kid gloves.

All we really ask is for an informed public, something apparently anathema to the Postmedia and David Black papers.

Get with it you guys – the environment is a huge issue and you have a duty to get it in all aspects on the table.

Fractured Land crowd funding campaign hits target!

January 19, 2013Energy and Resources, First Nations, Fracking, Media, Oil&GasDamien Gillis

Following a last-minute outpouring of support from around the world, the crowd funding drive for Fractured Land achieved and surpassed its target late yesterday. The campaign surged past its $50,000 goal around 6 pm January 18, finishing with $52,520 by the midnight deadline. Remarkably, close to two thirds of those funds came within the final 3 days of the campaign.

Fractured Land, a feature documentary film-in-production, co-directed by Vancouver filmmaker Fiona Rayher and myself, examines our key energy challenges through the eyes of a compelling, young First Nations law student from northeast BC. In a recent Globe and Mail story, reporter Mark Hume described Caleb Behn as “one of B.C.’s bright, emerging native political leaders”, working to “move the debate over oil and gas development away from the confrontational front lines and into the living rooms of the nation.”

At a time when conventional funding sources for documentary films are drying up, crowd funding has become an important new tool filmmakers can leverage to make their projects happen. As we learned through this process, running a successful campaign is a team effort – and demands a significant commitment of time and resources. Our team included talented designers, organizers, and hardworking volunteers, led by our digital media strategist Hilary Henegar.

Crowd funding is not only a valuable fundraising tool, but an ideal way to build an audience for a forthcoming film, as well as a strong social media presence. Our campaign was successful in both regards – the weekly reach of our relatively new facebook page climbed to a quarter of a million people (a thousand-fold increase from just a few months ago!) and garnered close to 2,500 page “likes”, mostly in the past few weeks. We’ve received hundreds of questions about when the film will be finished and how people can see it (answer: likely early Fall, via film festivals, public screenings and broadcast television).

The campaign undoubtedly benefited from all the tweets we received from eco-celebrities – actor and fracking critic Mark Ruffalo, Gasland director Josh Fox, author and activist Naomi Klein, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, and socially-engaged Canadian pop star Bif Naked. We were also helped by Occupy Wall Street’s twitter feed and the official Idle No More facebook page. National Geographic explorer-in-residence Wade Davis, who appears in the film along with a number of the above people, donated 40 copies of his Sacred Headwaters book to the cause, which crowd funding donors snapped up.

We’re beyond the era of slaving away behind the scenes for a few years and coming out with a completed documentary. Our team is actively building a “transmedia” project around the film. That means that our social media tools, website, youtube channel, etc. become a forum to engage the public in a discussion about our energy future and how Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples can work together to heal historical fractures and confront our key challenges going forward.

So you don’t need to wait until the Fall to be a part of Fractured Land. Building on the social media presence and audience we’ve built for the project during the crowd funding campaign, we’re now very well positioned to continue growing this dialogue, starting immediately.

The campaign also provided the media a reason to discuss the project and issues it deals with. We had a number of good stories in the Globe and Mail, Huffington Post Canada, Vancouver Observer and Yukon News – each of which spotlighted fracking and larger, inter-related energy and Indigenous issues. Interestingly, we were able to do what we did largely through online media – with the exception of Mark Hume’s Globe and Mail story (which has a significant online presence beyond its traditional print reach), the coverage and traction we received derived almost entirely from the Internet.

While our team certainly believed in what we were doing and very much so in the film, it’s fair to say we were all pleasantly surprised and deeply humbled to exceed our target. This past week required a full court press and it was very rewarding to see everything click into place on the final day.

Sometime Friday afternoon we began to realize that we just might pull it off. There was a genuine excitement amongst our supporters, rooting us on, demonstrating how invested they felt in our success and in helping to share Caleb’s story with the world. In the end, that’s probably the mark of a good crowd funding campaign – when your supporters become a part of your team.

There are a number of possible reasons for this last-minute rally. It could be interest in fracking, the ramp up to the BC election, Idle No More and indigenous politics stoking the national interest in these matters. We also released a new trailer this week, which we would have and should have done sooner, but for the fact we’re also busy trying to shoot this film and document all the events and people and stories going on right now that pertain to it.

Our eventual success was likely a combination of all these factors gelling together at the right moment.

Besides being incredibly heartened by this vital support for our film – and knowing that we now have what we need to finish it well – I’m happy to see that these issues are becoming interesting to a broader public. I’m pleased to know this film has the possibility of being commercially successful and seen by a lot of people. I’m also thrilled to see how this crowd funding medium can really work.

It’s been a huge learning curve and a lot of work – more then we were honestly able to commit while being full throttle chasing our story and finishing shooting the film. So to see it all come together is a very nice feeling.

I also believe it’s a testament to Caleb and the fact that he is such an inspiring, young leader, to whom so many people can clearly relate.

Our whole team is incredibly thankful to everyone who has supported our campaign. We are building a platform to engage these issues on a much larger stage and we hope you will join us there – and come see the film when it’s finished. Stay tuned!

New Fractured Land Trailer, Crowd Funding Campaign Enters Final Stretch

January 17, 2013Energy and Resources, First Nations, Fracking, UncategorizedCommon Sense Canadian

In addition to my work documenting resource issues at the Common Sense Canadian, for the past two years I’ve been privileged to co-direct a forthcoming documentary film, Fractured Land, which examines our key energy challenges through the eyes of a compelling, young First Nations law student from northeast BC. In a recent Globe and Mail story, reporter Mark Hume described Caleb Behn as “one of B.C.’s bright, emerging native political leaders”, working to “move the debate over oil and gas development away from the confrontational front lines and into the living rooms of the nation.”

For the past month our team has been running a crowd funding campaign, offering the public an opportunity to support the film, in exchange for some great rewards. Now, in the final stretch of this funding drive, we’re proud to unveil our new trailer for Fractured Land – featuring Naomi Klein, Wade Davis, Bill McKibben, Josh Fox, Maude Barlow, Tom Mulcair, Oscar Dennis and Chief Sharleen Wildeman. We hope you’ll consider supporting our film and help share Caleb’s inspiring story with the world.

[signoff1]

2012: The Year of Energy Politics

December 21, 2012Canada, Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, Western CanadaAlberta Tar Sands, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Enbridge, FIPA, fracking, Oil and gas, Politics, Stephen Harper, Water and EnergyDamien Gillis

CBC’s Power and Politics has chosen “energy politics” as the top Canadian news story for 2012 and we at the Common Sense Canadian couldn’t agree more.

Energy is the current which runs through a diverse array of issues presently reshaping our country – from omnibus budget bills that have slashed environmental regulations, to foreign trade deals, changes to our labour rules and, perhaps most significantly, the growing mobilization of First Nations, supported by non-aboriginal Canadians, to oppose many of these initiatives.

2012 was a year that began with Conservative Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver dismissing opponents of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines as “radicals” and ends with the Idle No More rallies sweeping the nation – with support coming in from as far away as Buckingham Palace (or just outside its gates, anyway).

It was a year when two very different visions for the future of Canada and its place in the world collided headlong with each other. One seeking to curb the Tar Sands and new arteries essential to its growth, the other striving to make Canada into a new Saudi Arabia – provider of oil, gas and coal to emerging Asian markets.

Each policy piece from the Harper Government was part of a bigger puzzle, designed to bring its new vision to fruition.

There was the first omnibus budget bill, C-38, which gutted the Fisheries Act, watered down environmental assessment processes and slashed ministry staff in monitoring and regulation. The Common Sense Canadian published retired senior DFO scientist and manager Otto Langer’s first warning of these intended changes to the Fisheries Act, which unleashed a media firestorm and spate of denials from senior Harperites.

We also published the sad farewell letter from one of the world’s top marine pollution experts, Dr. Peter Ross, who lost his job when the Harper Government essentially canned our entire ocean monitoring program. Even one of the world’s top monitoring stations for climate change and arctic ice melt, PEARL, could not escape this government’s ax (for a savings of a whopping million and a half a year).

Clearly, these changes grew out of and helped to further a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to climate science that is critical to the Harper Government’s hydrocarbon expansion agenda – which also demanded the smoothing of those pesky regulatory hurdles for resource project development.

But one of the Harper Government’s pet projects, the Northern Gateway pipeline, made defending its agenda more challenging, with an unrivaled string of public embarrassments. There was the damning US report on the company’s 2010 disaster in Michigan, then more spills in Canada, a badly bungled PR campaign, the infamous “missing islands”, and repeated blunders at the National Energy Board hearings into its proposal.

Yet, even with these public blemishes on the star of its new energy vision and with mounting evidence of catastrophic, fossil fuel-driven climate change, the Harper Government’s attitude remained unchanged, especially on the international stage. In 2012, we became the first country to formally pull out of the Kyoto Protocol (not that we ever took our commitments serious in the first place). At the same time, Canada was caught by the Guardian, through a leaked memo, working to block a resolution to end to public subsidies for fossil fuels at the Rio+20 summit.

Back in Ottawa, the latest omnibus budget, C-45, picked up where its predecessor left off, slashing the age-old Navigable Waters Protection Act – one of the main beefs of the Idle No More movement.

Provincially, energy politics have dominated the agenda too – from the well-publicized spat between BC Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford over revenue sharing from the proposed Enbridge pipeline, to Redford’s new alliance with Quebec Premier Pauline Marois over alternate plans to move bitumen East.

The media and public discourse in BC was particularly infused with with energy – beginning with the NDP and Liberals jostling for positioning on Enbridge, to the emergence of KinderMorgan’s proposed pipeline and tanker expansion for Vancouver as a major urban issue in the lead-up to next May’s election. Add to that natural gas fracking, proposed pipelines and the plan to build multiple Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) terminals on the coast – all of which are increasingly on the media and public’s radar and sure to be election topics. The movement against the proposed Site C Dam, which would power gas and mining operations, is building momentum too.

The NDP has been all over the map on these issues, initially getting behind fracking, new pipelines and LNG plants with few reservations, then, recently, showing signs of feeling some of the public pressure building around these issues. This was evidenced by an op-ed in the Georgia Straight, co-penned by Energy Critic John Horgan and Environment Critic Rob Flemming, promising “a broad public review of fracking” and “immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources”.

The party appears caught between the growing concerns about fracking and LNG and a desire not to appear to be too “anti-business” or ignore an opportunity to reboot the BC industry and close the budget gap with increased royalties and related revenues. It will be very interesting to see where the NDP goes on this file in 2013.

Christy Clark, for her part, has left no doubt about her bullish outlook for natural gas and LNG, comparing BC’s potential with this resource to Alberta’s Tar Sands. Some of the nation’s top independent energy experts have poked big holes in Clark’s plan, though, suggesting that her numbers simply don’t add up.

Federally, the NDP’s selection of Thomas Mulcair shook up the political scene and energy debate. Unlike Harper’s former Liberal Opposition challengers, Mulcair seemed to have a firm grasp of energy and economic issues and was prepared to take on Harper on topics others would shy away from.

Take Mulcair’s rendering of the “Dutch Disease” into a Canadian household term. The concept, supported by the OECD and other highly reputable economic institutions and economists, holds that the downside of a petro-state economy is artificial currency inflation, which leads to the hollowing of a nation’s manufacturing sector. New jobs in Fort MacMurray mean layoffs in Hamilton. The fact Mulcair was able to get the traction he did with this discussion and to lodge it – even a little – in the national consciousness is a testament to his oratory skills, political sensibilities, and willingness to take some risks to differentiate himself from Harper. Mulcair also helped to re-frame pipeline politics, opposing Enbridge but getting behind the notion of shipping bitumen East (the source of another emerging public energy debate).

But the reach of energy politics extended far beyond provincial and national borders this year, as the Harper Government negotiated a new trade deal with China, ostensibly to stimulate investment in Canadian energy resources. The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPA) came under great scrutiny – particularly in these pages – for eroding Canadian sovereignty and enshrining much diminished environmental protections as the law of the land for years to come.

Harper seemed caught off guard by the backlash generated by this deal and several concurrent foreign buyouts of Canadian energy companies – which seemed to be the very purpose of FIPA. When he finally approved the $15 Billion purchase of Nexen by Chninese state-owned CNOOC and Canadian gas company Progress Energy by Malaysian giant Petronas, it was late on a Friday afternoon, to avoid the media glare that had been focused on these deals. He promised then, surprisingly, that this marked the “end of a trend and not the beginning of one” with regards to such foreign buyouts of Canadian energy assets (PS we aren’t buying that line here).

Compounding the public and media pressure around FIPA and these energy company buyouts was the controversy that erupted from a coal mine in northeast BC. When it emerged the company, HD Mining, was hiring all imported Chinese workers for its Murray River mine, a heated back-and-forth ensued between the United Steelworkers’ Union and a Chinese worker who has filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging the union is “creating contempt for Chinese people”.

In the midst of this fracas, an embarrassed Immigration Minister Jason Kenney promised to review the labour rules that allowed this situation to happen. And yet, it was Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, with Kenney’s support,who just recently made the changes to the Canadian labour regulations that enable companies to hire foreign temporary workers for lower wages than they would pay Canadians.

The Harper Government’s labour policy seems designed precisely to encourage situations like the one at Murray River, directly undermining the government’s “jobs” rhetoric around resource development.

Likely as a result of all this scrutiny, Harper has delayed on ratifying the Chinese FIPA. A campaign led by social media-driven public advocacy groups Leadnow.ca and Sumofus.org generated over 80,000 petition signatures and thousands of letters and submissions to government officials protesting the proposed FIPA.

But the biggest story in 2012 has been the unprecedented coming together of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians to jointly confront these hydrocarbon projects and the Harper Government’s vision for Canada’s future. Even in the waning days of 2012, we saw another victory by First Nations and environmentalists working together to secure a long-term ban on coal bed methane fracking in the Sacred Headwaters. That the Clark Government saw this as politically expedient – or necessary – is interesting in and of itself.

It remains to be seen where the Idle No More movement goes from here. Will its intensity subside in the new year like the Occupy Movement of last year, or will it be forged into a formidable political force, crystallizing the burgeoning sense of discontent amongst many Canadians with the direction our political leaders are taking us?

2013 holds the answers to many other burning energy questions, like how the Enbridge pipeline hearings will conclude or when KinderMorgan will formally file its plans. Will this American company’s experience be smoother than that of Enbridge, or will an unprecedented urban environmental movement rise up to block its path? What role will natural gas will play in BC’s provincial election? Will this new energy alliance between Alberta and Quebec and the vision to pipe the Tar Sands East pan out? Perhaps most interesting, will Harper ratify or abandon FIPA and will he keep his word on nixing future foreign buyouts of Canadian energy assets?

Stay tuned to the Common Sense Canadian in the New Year to find out. Or maybe the evening of December 31st. Knowing the Harper Government, that’s when all the really important changes to our national fabric will be announced.