Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Retired Navy Commander torpedoes LNG lobby's tanker safety story

Ret. Navy Commander torpedoes LNG lobby’s tanker safety story

Share

Retired Navy Commander torpedoes LNG lobby's tanker safety story

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.

― Sir Walter Scott

One Stewart Muir is the executive director of Resource Works, an elite organization formed to tout Woodfibre LNG. Muir was once the business editor and deputy managing editor of the Vancouver Sun, thus the quote from Sir Walter Scott seems manifestly appropriate.

Muir is responsible for a work of fiction called A Citizen’s Guide to LNG, which I dealt with in two recent columns when I asked some pointed questions about the deceptive, indeed untrue, statements and inferences contained therein. Instead of getting a response, Resource Works, under Muir’s signature, delivered an ad hominem attack on those who are fighting Woodfibre, as follows:

[quote]…the anti-resource movement has executed a textbook campaign to create public fear based on false information and wild exaggeration about what it means to export natural gas from BC.

Those who are constrained by professional codes of behaviour have looked on in dismay as deliberately misleading statements have met with public credulity.[/quote]

What vacuous, flatulent, pomposity this is! Perhaps since Resource Works has so much money to spend, they’ll put out another screed outlining the professional code of behaviour that binds editors of newspapers. This shouldn’t be too expensive – a couple of hazy words of mumbo jumbo ought to suffice.

Science manipulated to paint false picture of safety

I am going to return to the questions I raised in past columns, but first let me bring readers some news they will find impossible to believe!

Here is what I wrote March 15 last:

[quote]They (Resource Works) concede that if tankers go too close to the shore, there could be a problem. However, they assure us there is no problem because they spoke to Dr. Mike Hightower, of Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, a world acknowledged expert on the subject, who’s developed a protocol accepted by US authorities for the distances ships must maintain between themselves and the shore.

Resource Works has produced a number of videos…In all of them the interviewer is an attractive young lady named Meena Mann…In one of them…Dr. Hightower appears to talk to Ms. Mann about LNG and tankers, and you would likely conclude that there is very little danger, if any, posed by LNG tankers in Howe Sound.[/quote]

Here is what Sandia has reported, based upon Dr. Hightower’s work:

[quote]Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called “Zones of Concern”) surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports and tankers must be located at least that distance from civilians.[/quote]

Thanks to Dr. Eoin Finn and Cmdr. Roger Sweeny (RCN Ret.), we learned that, contrary to the misrepresentation by Resource Works, Dr. Hightower’s formula in fact made Howe Sound totally inappropriate as a route for LNG tankers.

Woodfibre changes course with tanker route

Eoin-Finn-on-Woodfibre-LNG-safety-risks,-West-Van-Council-vote
Graphic: Dr. Eoin Finn

Well, folks, upon learning that their booster friends had been flat caught out, on orders from the president, Woodfibre LNG panicked and held an emergency meeting on March 21 to examine the sudden, awkward tanker route question raised here in The Common Sense Canadian.

Now I pause here to observe that Mair’s Axiom I – namely, “You make a serious mistake assuming people in charge know what the hell they are doing” – is amply demonstrated by what ensued. Out of the blue, Woodfibre’s brass hastily called a Saturday emergency meeting to find a new route, after months and months of selling their proposed tanker traffic route as absolutely safe!

On a map, Gelotti (Woodfibre LNG President) showed two possible tanker routes. Route (A) (the current planned route) would go from the Woodfibre plant straight down the east sides of Gambier and Bowen and then into the Salish Sea. On Route (B) tankers could travel through the passage between Gambier Island and Howe Sound Pulp and Paper, pass the Langdale terminal, go by the north end of Keats up the east side of Keats (between Keats and Bowen) and then into the Salish Sea.

If the tankers travel on route (A), the tankers intersect with three ferry routes: Langdale-Horseshoe Bay, Horseshoe Bay-Bowen Island and Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay. On route (B), they intersect with the Langdale ferry and the Vancouver Island one.

Fortunately, we have the resources to deal with astonishing flip flops and we turned Woodfibre’s “back of the envelope” “Plan B” over to Commander Sweeny (Certificate of Service as Master Foreign Going, Qualified Master Home Trade, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy (Ret.), 3rd Generation BC Coaster and longtime owner of Mickey Island in West Howe Sound). He was nothing if not straight to the point:        

Howe Sound mapTHIS IS ASTOUNDING, if not laughable! Anthony Gelotti plainly knows NOTHING about Howe Sound.

Take a look at Thornborough Channel down the West side of Gambier: getting into it around the north side of Anvil is tricky enough; thereafter many tight turns, and, south of Port Mellon, the channel is scarcely more than 1500 m wide on average,…ie tanker could never be more than max 800 m from shore, so 3500 m minimum safety circle would overlap just about everybody. And then, of course, East and south around Keats and into Barfleur heading Westwards (or Collingwood Southbound) to the Gulf, each of which narrow to 1500m, in one or more places ,so the Pasley Island group gets fully covered either way. Only a certified numbskull would suggest option B.

In fact, route B would not interfere with Departure Bay ferry traffic.

No Ferry schedule disruptions? Just a howling crowd of really, REALLY annoyed Langdale passengers!

A steering failure almost anywhere in Thornborough Channel could mean collision with granite cliff.

Gelotti’s dangerously simplistic pronouncements and the Fortis expansion plans terrify me.

Mr Muir, the public waits with bated breath for your reaction.

(As to Mair’s Axiom, I Q.E.D.)

Doctored interview

Now some questions to Mr. Muir, who claims he’s bound by professional codes of behaviour.

Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored
Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored

What about the alleged interview by Meena Mann of Dr. Michael Hightower, which I dealt with on March 15?

When Dr. Eoin Finn, a former KPMG partner and chemistry PhD, took the time to phone Dr. Hightower because the interview didn’t look quite right, it transpired that it wasn’t conducted by Meena Mann at all but by a male!

Were the questions changed when Ms. Mann did her fake interview? Were Dr. Hightower’s answers altered? This sort of shabby journalism is bound to raise doubts like this. What we do know is that contrary to Resource Works’ misrepresentation that Woodfibre’s LNG tanker traffic route (before Plan B, of course) was safe in Howe Sound, given the facts presented by Dr. Finn, Dr. Hightower came to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Clearly, Resource Works is guilty of grossly inappropriate journalistic behaviour. Even if Miss Mann asked precisely the same questions the real interviewer did, there are different inflections in the voice, no doubt, and her body language during the interview was, to say the least, descriptive of her feelings. What say you, Mr. Muir?

Judge misrepresented

Then, the most egregiously inappropriate journalistic behaviour of all – Resources Works altered and misstated the words of a Supreme Court judge to make themselves look good. Here’s what I said on March 15, to which I and Common Sense Canadian readers would appreciate an answer: ”

[quote]Resource Works, in reporting the judgment in the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club v. Encana, quoting from page 47 of A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition – states:

“When a ruling came down in late 2014 it showed that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed.

In an overwhelming endorsement of current practices in water protection, Justice Fitzpatrick concluded that when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape with a ‘justifiable transparent and intelligible framework for the regulation of short term water use.'”

This is bullshit! In fact, she did no such thing, as a reading of the judgment makes abundantly clear. She deliberately confined her decision to the interpretation of Section 8 only, stating plainly that she wasn’t going to deal with government or industry policy. The narrow issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows gas companies to get an endless number of water approvals back-to-back, was valid.

Only a practitioner of the black arts of Public Relations could read into Madam Justice Fitzpatrick’s judgment that she said “that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed”, or “when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape”. She simply did not say this![/quote]

And Muir accuses us of “deliberately misleading statements”!

Tough questions face Resource Works

Stewart Muir (Resource Works)
Stewart Muir (Resource Works)

By the way, Mr. Muir, who is your public relations company?

Where do you get your funding, which must be considerable?

Do you get any funding from Woodfibre LNG?

Do you get any funding, directly or indirectly, from either senior government?

Do you have tax exemption status?

Having asked those questions, it’s only fair to tell you that the enormous and growing opposition to Woodfibre LNG in the Howe Sound community is funded by individuals only. In fact, we’re having a fundraiser on April 1 at Gleneagles Golf Club at 6 o’clock and we would love to see you and your open chequebook there.

Mr. Muir, you should know that we Howe Sounders and allies are resolved to win this fight and will use all the weapons at our disposal. You, your client company, and your captive governments can only keep the public under your heel for so long.

Harry Belafonte said it best: “Don’t turn your back on the masses, mon”.

Share

Rafe: All hands on deck for Howe Sound as LNG storm brews

Share
Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)
Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)

Howe Sound needs the help of all British Columbians and it needs it now. The proposed Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish has got some very powerful allies.

Both governments support it. That means that there’s no point in citizens seeking help from their MP or MLA, who in fact are the vanguard of the enemy forces.

Industry group spews hot air in LNG PR

Industry is of course in favour and their stalking horse is a bunch called Resource Works which I exposed here last week as a group quite prepared to completely distort the words of a Supreme Court judge, to have phoney baloney TV interviews, and to twist adverse findings by a scientist and make them appear as if they actually favour tanker traffic in Howe Sound!

Resource Works has not refuted these charges, even though their Executive Director, one Stewart Muir, has since published an op-ed piece on the organization in the Vancouver Province.

Corporate media backs Woodfibre

We also have the Vancouver Sun and Province almost deliriously in favour of Woodfibre LNG, having just printed four consecutive articles in rapturous support including a blowjob by former premier Mike Harcourt who states that Woodfibre is “engaged in a rigorous and independent environmental review”. Can you believe that naiveté from a former premier! On any reasonable interpretation of the Peter Principle, Mikey achieved his “level of incompetence” when he was an alderman in Vancouver.

Gordon Wilson flip-flops on LNG

Then, of course, we have the “call boy” of BC politics, Gordon Wilson.

[quote]The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose (LNG) is the fact that the markets we are told will buy all we can supply may not materialize as we think, and even if they do, the price they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.[/quote]

That was Gordon Wilson the fiscal skeptic talking but there is more. Here’s what Wilson the environmentalist had to say:

[quote]Expanded LNG production also comes with a significant environmental cost.

The impact of an expanded hydrocarbon economy will certainly speed up global warming and cause us to build a dependency on a revenue stream that originates form processes that are poisoning our atmosphere.[/quote]

Then, shortly after his newfound heroine won the May 13, 2013 election, Wilson, stout opponent of LNG, received his pay-off through a job with the government at $12,500 per month to support LNG!

This contract has since been renewed and continues.

‘Jewel of Lower Mainland’ on the mend

When I say Howe Sound needs all of our help, I am talking about the entire province of British Columbia.

Howe Sound is the jewel of the Lower Mainland and it belongs to all British Columbians. It is our most southerly fjord and is breathtakingly beautiful. It has recovered from the horrible abuse we have heaped on it with the pulp mills and, of course, the old Britannia mine. The salmon runs are returning; the herring are back; the whales are back; the flora on the ocean bed has returned. We have recently discovered that Halkett Bay contains the rare and very fragile “Glass Sponge”.

It is indeed a glorious rebirth we are witnessing and we are about to put it all at severe risk.

I’m only going to speak of one of those risks today, which is in no way intended to minimize the others. Let me just talk about LNG tanker traffic.

LNG tanker safety issues

Industry and their handmaidens, the two senior governments, deny that there can ever be a problem with tankers which, of course, is nonsense and defies the simple laws of probability by which we are all governed. Just as the flipped coin must turn up heads sometime, there will be an accident with the odds increasing with the traffic. The damage will be horrific.

There are standards that have been devised by scientists who have studied this matter.

Because I want to give every benefit of the doubt to the LNG industry, let’s deal with the standard set by Dr. Mike Hightower, a world-renowned expert on LNG tanker operations at Sandia International Laboratories. It is considered by most environmentalists as far too “conservative”. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapour hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.

Here are the dimensions of Howe Sound, including the aforementioned recommendations of Dr. Hightower, from an expert on the subject, Commander Roger Sweeny, Certificate of Service as Master Foreign Going, Qualified Master Home Trade, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy (Ret.), 3rd Generation BC Coaster and longtime owner of Mickey Island in West Howe Sound:

[quote]NARROW PASSAGES

The upper reaches of Howe Sound are about 2700 m wide. The outbound channel narrows to 1600m east of Anvil Island. Thereafter, ships proceeding down Queen Charlotte Channel east of Bowen Island are restricted between Bowen and Bowyer Island (2400m), Bowen and West Vancouver (2050m), and at Passage Island (2450m), or, if down Collingwood Channel west of Bowen, between Bowen and Gambier Island (1900m), Keats Island(2100m), Ragged Island (1500m), Mickey Island(1600m), and Worlcombe Island (1700m).

Dr Hightower, a world renowned expert on LNG tanker operations at Sandia International Laboratories, has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m (1 mile) and 3500m surrounding LNG tankers. The largest zone represents the minimum safe separation between tanker and people. Other LNG hazard experts have indicated that 4800m (3miles) or more is a more realistic hazard separation distance. In this context it is worth remembering that the heat stored in a 50,000 tonne cargo of LNG is equivalent to several dozen Hiroshima bombs.

Clearly the minimum 3500m civilian hazard zone extends at least 2 km beyond each side of all these restricted passages.   Virtually the entire Sea to Sky highway from Britannia to Lighthouse Park, Anvil, southeast Gambier, Bowyer, eastern Keats, Bowen, and all islands of the Pasley group fall within the zone. Furthermore, from Britannia to Porteau Cove, Bowyer, White Cliff, both coasts of Bowen and eastern Pasley group are also within the much more dangerous 1600m zone.

Howe Sound is no place for LNG tankers![/quote]

It is against this evidence, bearing in mind that it is “conservative”, that the two senior governments are prepared to proceed and have so indicated on every possible occasion. The public be damned.

What is sickeningly fascinating is that neither governments nor Resource Works make any effort to refute this evidence. In fact, they don’t deal with it. And that is of course a time-honoured political trick. Never admit that you’re wrong, never deal with the argument, simply attack on another front.

MLA takes money from Woodfibre

I have watched with interest and care the two politicians representing my constituency, West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast, and Sea to Sky Country.

Both of them have avoided, like the plague, getting public input in any meaningful way. John Weston has gone so far as to assault the West Vancouver Council for its official disapproval of the Woodfibre LNG plant.

All one need know about Jordan Sturdy, the Liberal MLA, is that his fundraiser was at the exclusive Capilano Golf Club of all places and was sponsored by Woodfibre LNG!

Our governmental system requires elected lickspittles and we have a couple of dandies!

The people of this constituency are politically abandoned. Clearly both the provincial Liberals and the federal Tories are prepared to write off the constituency which, when you think about it, really puts the onus on the rest of the province.

Time to ratchet up pressure

The only way political pressure can be brought to bear on the BC Premier and the Prime Minister, both of whom are in the pockets of industry, is to have that pressure applied in constituencies all over the province.

I have no doubt that the residents of our constituency will go as far as civil disobedience and that this will be necessary sooner or later. I believe that the good people of Burnaby in their fight against Kinder Morgan have inspired a lot of people in this area and that the fear of standing up to authority has all but disappeared.

The fact remains, however, that the LNG issue is province-wide. It’s rather reminds me of Churchill’s statement “everyone feeds the crocodile in the hopes that the crocodile will eat him last”.

The message from this is clear – British Columbians cannot afford to sit back and let others do all the fighting for an issue that belongs to all of us.

Share
Last day for public comments on Woodfibre LNG proposal

Last day for public comments on Woodfibre LNG proposal

Share
Last day for public comments on Woodfibre LNG proposal

Rendering of proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, BC

Citizens have until Midnight Monday to submit their comments to the current phase of environmental assessment into the controversial Woodfibre LNG proposal, near Squamish.

The project and its Indonesian billionaire proponent Sukanto Tanoto have garnered intense scrutiny from citizen groups, First Nations and municipal governments up and down Howe Sound and the Sunshine Coast. The District of Squamish recently made headlines rejecting Fortis BC’s application to test drill in the Squamish estuary for a pipeline expansion to feed the proposed plant – this on top of multiple votes from local councils to ban LNG tankers in Howe Sound over safety concerns.

Local grassroots group My Sea to Sky is offering citizens a list of concerns to draw from in their comments to the BC Environmental Assessment Office – including multiple environmental issues, health, safety, and economic concerns.

One of the group’s concerns is the way in which the plant would draw water from Howe Sound for cooling purposes, before returning it at a higher temperature and containing chemicals:

[quote]Woodfibre LNG is proposing an outdated and damaging cooling method to help cool the LNG facility. They propose to extract 17,000 tonnes of seawater from Howe Sound, chlorinate it, heat it, and then spit it back out into the sound every hour of every day for the next 25 years. This method has been banned in California and several other places as it is very damaging to marine life such as juvenile salmon, herring, and plankton which are the building blocks for all other life in Howe Sound. [/quote]

Comments can be submitted online to the BC Environmental Assessment Office by midnight, Monday, March 23 by clicking here.

Share

A PR Flack’s Guide to LNG: Dream Team tries to repair industry’s image

Share
A PR Flack's Guide to LNG- Dream Team tries to repair industry's image
Clockwise from top left: Teck’s Doug Horswill, Stewart Muir, former A-G Geoff Plant, and Lyn Anglin

It’s an axiom of debate that if you don’t like the argument you’re in, find one that you’re more comfortable with. Barristers use this technique before juries all the time and that’s precisely the technique that Resource Works, a well-heeled pro-LNG group, is using to bamboozle the public of British Columbia.

Team LNG

The glossy 58-page document they use is called A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition.

Knowing many of the supporters personally, and most of them by reputation, I don’t believe any of them actually wrote this rubbish – it has all the earmarks of a large PR firm.

This is what they say about themselves:

[quote]Resource Works recognizes the demand of British Columbians for economic growth and environmental sustainability, and aims to break the ice in the controversial resource debate. In 2014, Resource Works organized community conversations in 8 municipalities in the Lower Mainland, involving more than 120 participants consist of local government, businesses, NGOs and citizens. Moderate, rational discussions are a necessary first-step towards BC’s sustainable future. (Emphasis mine)[/quote]

Here are some of the players:

Stewart Muir, the Executive Director and a former big wig with the Vancouver Sun, “is married to Athana Mentzelopoulos, deputy minister of jobs, tourism and skills training,” according to the Tyee’s Donald Gutstein, who wrote about Resource Works upon their launch last summer. “Before that, [Mentzelopoulos] was in charge of Premier Christy Clark’s ‘priority’ files,” says Gutstein. “She’s so close to Clark she was bridesmaid at Clark’s wedding.”

Geoff Plant was attorney general under Gordon Campbell and in 2012 was tapped by Clark to be the province’s chief legal strategist for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel proceedings.

Board chair Doug Horswill was BC’s deputy minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources until moving to BC mining giant Teck Resources, where he now serves as senior VP.

Advisory Council Chair Lyn Anglin is the former president and CEO of Geoscience BC, a provincially-funded organization tasked with attracting mining, oil and gas investment to the province.

Greg DAvignon, according to the Resource Works website, “is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Council of British Columbia, a 250-member organization which represents the provinces leading businesses in every sector of the provincial economy and more than one-quarter of all jobs in the province. Established in 1966, the Business Council is the foremost policy and business advocacy organization in the province.”

Philippa P. Wilshaw “is an Audit Partner in KPMG’s Greater Vancouver Area (GVA) Energy and Natural Resources and Industrial Markets practice. She has 20 years of experience with KPMG and started her career with KPMG UK in 1993. She joined the Toronto office in 2003 and moved to Vancouver in 2005.”

As to who is funding the research, Resource Works did volunteer the information that seed funding came from the B.C. Business Council, but has not disclosed other sources of funding.

What about fracking?

An Encana drill rig in northeast BC's Horn River shale gas play
An Encana drill rig in northeast BC’s Horn River shale gas play

It’s interesting that A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition doesn’t touch the issue of “fracking” until page 46 and then only in two brief paragraphs. It mentions that there is a US documentary on the subject but says that they, Resource Works, don’t think there’s any evidence of problems with “fracking” in BC. If that doesn’t convince you, I ask you, what will?

It’s “fracking” – which would supply the majority of gas for LNG – however, that causes the atmospheric damage,  damage to our water, and health risks to the population. Moreover, as Andrew Nikiforuk has reported to us, the weakening of the ground around the fracking area has caused serious earthquake problems in Holland. Increased seismic activity has been connected to fracking in BC and throughout the US as well. Resource Works does admit that there could be earthquake problems but that they have always been very minor. Doesn’t that make you feel better?

Because Woodfibre says so

Let’s look at the specific claims made on behalf of the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant, near Squamish. What’s fascinating about these few pages is that the information is constantly based upon what Woodfibre LNG has told them! Their word is accepted on every major issue uncritically. Woodfibre LNG is wonderful because Woodfibre LNG tells us so! There is a paucity of scientific evidence or indeed anything from people who might have another point of view.

There’s no mention that Sukanto Tanoto, the owner of Woodfibre’s holding company, a convicted big-time tax evader with a shameful environmental record.

Dangerous cargo

Eoin-Finn-on-Woodfibre-LNG-safety-risks,-West-Van-Council’s-vote
Courtesy of Dr. Eoin Finn

Let’s look at transportation of LNG by tanker through Howe Sound. I do that not just because it’s of enormous concern to everybody who lives along the proposed route, but because Resource Works dwells upon the issue. They concede that if tankers go too close to the shore, there could be a problem. However, they assure us there is no problem because they spoke to Dr. Mike Hightower, of Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico, a world acknowledged expert on the subject, who’s developed a protocol accepted by US authorities for the distances ships must maintain between themselves and the shore.

Resource Works has produced a number of videos which they make available to the public in order to sell the benefits of LNG. In all of them the interviewer is an attractive young lady named Meena Mann. It is in one of them, featured on the Vancouver Province website, where Dr. Hightower appears to talk to Ms. Mann about LNG and tankers and you would likely conclude that there is very little danger, if any, posed by LNG tankers in Howe Sound.

Here is what Sandia has reported, based upon Dr Hightower’s work:

[quote]Sandia National Laboratories defines for the US Department of Energy three Hazard Zones (also called “Zones of Concern”) surrounding LNG carriers. The largest Zone is 2.2 miles/3,500 meters around the vessel, indicating that LNG ports and tankers must be located at least that distance from civilians. Some world-recognized LNG hazard experts, such as Dr. Jerry Havens (University of Arkansas; former Coast Guard LNG vapor hazard researcher), indicate that three miles or more is a more realistic Hazard Zone distance.[/quote]

What the video does not tell you is that Dr. Hightower had not addressed his attention to Howe Sound, and when local resident Dr. Eoin Finn did so, Dr. Hightower concurred that Bowen Island and parts of West Vancouver are very much at risk – within the 1-mile radius – as are parts of the Sea-to-Sky Highway and Lions Bay/Bowyer Island. In other words, If one accepts Dr. Hightower’s formula, as Resource Works clearly does, there is no way any LNG tankers would be permitted to proceed from Squamish to the ocean.

Interview doctored?

Now the plot thickens.

Dr. Eoin Finn, a  former KPMG partner and chemistry PhD, took the time to phone Dr. Hightower because the interview didn’t look quite right. Well, it wasn’t right because it wasn’t conducted by Meena Mann at all but by a male!

Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored
Alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored

Dr. Hightower was not prepared to say that he had been misrepresented other than the fact that it was a man who interviewed him but he was dubious about Resource Works’ characterization of his “burn back to the source” description. The vapour cloud is much more complex than a simple burn-back, and people exposed to the flame would stand a high likelihood of being severely burned by the high temperatures of the flame. Indoors, not so much, but he expected that the flame would suck up much of the oxygen in the air, so asphyxiation would be a serious problem in the area of the vapour cloud.

Was the question changed when Ms. Mann did her fake interview? Was Dr. Hightower’s answer altered? I don’t know but this sort of shabby deception is bound to raise doubts like this. What we do know is that far from supporting Resource Works’ assertion that LNG tanker traffic is safe in Howe Sound, given the facts, Dr. Hightower comes to exactly the opposite conclusion.

Resource Works is guilty of a hugely deceptive practice. Even if Miss Mann asked precisely the same questions the real interviewer did, there are different inflections in the voice no doubt and her body language during the interview was, to say the least, descriptive of her feelings. If this is an example of the integrity of Resource Works, they are not entitled to any credibility whatsoever.

Watering down the truth

In fact it is much worse than this. Resource Works has simply not told the truth and they ought to publicly apologize.  Here’s the evidence:

A case was brought in 2013 against Encana and the province by the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows back-to-back short-term permits, was valid. That was the sole issue; the judge made it clear that she wasn’t deciding on the government’s overall water policy, or the ” fracking” question, but whether back-to-back short term water leases under The Water Act were valid bear that in mind.

Resource Works, in reporting this – and I quote, from page 47 of A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition states:

[quote]When a ruling came down in late 2014 it showed that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed.

In an overwhelming endorsement of current practices in water protection, justice Fitzpatrick concluded that when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape with a “justifiable transparent and intelligible framework for the regulation of short term water use.”[/quote]

In fact, she did no such thing as a reading of the judgment makes abundantly clear. She confined her decision to the interpretation of Section 8 only. The issue was whether or not section 8 of the Water Act, which allows gas companies to get an endless number of water approvals back-to-back, was lawful.

Only a practitioner of the black arts of Public Relations could read into Madam Justice Fitzpatrick’s judgment that she said “that the regulatory processes in place, and industry compliance with them, are sound and well managed”, or “when it comes to the regulation of industries water usage, British Columbia is in good shape.'”

She simply did not say this!

The fact that the petitioners, the Wilderness Committee and the Sierra Club, had made an appropriate application was reflected in the fact that no costs were awarded against them, even though they had lost the case.

Surely, one’s entitled to conclude that this sort of disassembling, distortion, and outright misrepresentation colours all of the presentations of this outfit.

Who’s writing this stuff?

Former BC Premier Dan Miller is on Resource Works' Advisory Board
Ex-Premier Dan Miller of Resource Works’ Advisory Board

Resource Works would have us believe that they are an independent group, concerned only with the public weal, and really quite independent on the issue of LNG, only wanting to enhance reasonable debate.

Quite obviously this is utter nonsense. They are obviously flacks for the LNG industry and pretty obviously for the Christy Clark government as well.

Are they paid flacks? I don’t know, which is why it would be most interesting if they disclosed how they are funded – how much and by whom? This operation – the dozens of slick videos, the reports, the website – could not be done cheaply. Where did the money come from? Are there public funds involved?

The question for those involved, who include a former premier and two former attorneys-general of the province, is this: your integrity is at stake here – do you really want your reputations used to back up these statements?

Postscript: A Citizen’s Guide To LNG: Sea To Sky Country Edition, a booklet of 58 pages, was written, so it states, by the Executive Director, Stewart Muir and Barinder Rasode who is – get this for delicious irony – “Director of Social Responsibility for Resource Works” – don’t you love it?

Share
Joe Oliver says fracking is safe, so it must be

Joe Oliver says fracking is safe, so it must be

Share
Joe Oliver says fracking is safe, so it must be
Finance Minister Joe Oliver (Adrian Wyld/CP)

I must apologize for being an alarmist. I now discover there is no reason for concern about hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking”. I have been alleging that this process of “mining” natural gas is dangerous not only to the atmosphere and the people around the process, but to the water used and the potential damage thereafter to the water table.

I now understand that there are no problems whatsoever with this process and that the scaredy-cats in places like New York and Quebec that have banned “fracking” – and the United Kingdom and the European Union that have limited it – are simply wrongheaded.

How do I arrive at my volte face?

I have examined the evidence carefully.

Harper govt gives seal of approval

First of all, we have our own fatuous Finance Minister, Joe Oliver, who insists that fracking is safe – chastising Nova Scotia for its recent ban – and then all you have to do is look up “safe fracking” on the Internet and you’ll see that he is right.

Further proof of my egregious error comes from the fact that the Prime Minister, in giving away bundles of cash to the LNG industry, mentions not a word about the “fracking” that would fuel it. And we know that if it were any concern at all for his beloved flock, he would say so and take steps to shelter them, just as he is doing with the threat from women who wear veils.

See no evil, hear no evil

The Fraser Institute, which is, they allege, a “think tank” says nothing on the subject. Neither does the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, which normally can’t keep their mouth shut about anything. If these two honest, independent sources of the absolute truth are silent on “fracking”, we can be certain that all is well.

Rumours of LNG’s demise greatly exaggerated

There have been three very comforting reports in the press lately. We can start with the head of the BC LNG Alliance, one David Keane, who tells us that LNG is alive and well in BC and in a speech to Calgary energy barons (obviously a tough audience) makes no mention whatsoever of “fracking” – and you could be sure that he would have if it were a problem.

In the Toronto Globe & Mail, we are informed that the consortium led by Petronas assures us that LNG is alive and well in British Columbia and that it will proceed. This is enthusiastically seconded by Rich Coleman, the premier’s pet poodle on the project, although neither of them say just when this will happen. The encouraging news, though, is that not a word is mentioned about the massive increase in “fracking” required to power the industry – so we can assume from these unimpeachable sources that there is no problem there.

Exxon CEO bullish on fracking’s future

In the Vancouver Sun of March 5, there is an article containing an interview with Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil. In this interview, Mr. Tillerson is extravagant in his praise of shale mining and paints a very rosy future for this source of oil and gas. Again, encouraging to all, is that Mr. Tillerson doesn’t make any mention whatsoever about “fracking” so we know from the authority of ExxonMobil, that there’s no problem. (This is the same guy who infamously protested fracking-related infrastructure planned, literally, for his own back yard)

Fracking absent from BC LNG discussion

In our own province, the said Mr. Coleman makes no mention of “fracking” in any of his many statements, so knowing how trustworthy he is, we can assume that “fracking” is no problem in British Columbia.

Neither does Mr. John Horgan, Leader of the Opposition, and we surely know that if there were a problem with “fracking”, this talented opposer of wrong, would turn the full fury of his well-known temper on the government and the industry.

This evidence of the safety of “fracking” is fortified by the fact that our premier, known for her strict adherence to the facts, her candour and honesty, also doesn’t mention “fracking” – in fact calling BC LNG “the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet” – so we can assume by that omission that her credibility is behind the safety of this harmless process.

Science, Schmience!

It’s embarrassing to have to admit that I have relied upon scientific presentations from all over the world and actions taken by other jurisdictions. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they can all be just as wrong and stupid as I have been.

It can be taken, then, that hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” for oil and natural gas is harmless to the people and to the environment.

It follows from this that suggestions I have made about the release of methane gas by this process are nonsense. So are suggestions that it pollutes water. It can also be assumed that statements from scientists to the effect that, taking everything into consideration, fracked natural gas is as harmful to the atmosphere and contributes as much to global warming as does oil or coal, are unprofessional rubbish.

Rest assured

The lesson I take from this is that we are fortunate indeed in this province and this country to have men and women of such integrity and honesty looking after our industries and our governments. It would be sad, indeed, to ever think that captains of industry or leaders of government would shade the truth, much last tell lies, in order to feather their own nests or advance their own political prospects.

We are, in truth, lucky people and we should think about that once in a while.

I must say that the Captains of Industry and our political masters and mistresses hope we don’t think about it too much or too often.

Share
Rafe- Federal leaders out of touch on LNG, fracking

Rafe: Federal leaders out of touch on LNG, fracking

Share
Rafe- Federal leaders out of touch on LNG, fracking
Thomas Mulcair, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has thrown down the gauntlet with his promise of federal tax giveaways for LNG enterprises.

I expected this sort of nonsense – just one look at the smug sneer of power on the face of James Moore, Minister of Industry, over the last few months, indicated that this decision was coming and that the opinions of the people of British Columbia didn’t matter a tinker’s dam.

This I think is one of the central points.

When it comes to industry and the people with whom this government are philosophically aligned, the people lose every time.

It may well be, when one thinks about it, that Mr. Harper takes few if any risks with this policy.

Trudeau and Mulcair fuzzy on LNG

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau is extremely “wet” on this issue. He wants more science involved on the fracking issue and then cautions premier Christy Clark that she shouldn’t put all her eggs in the LNG basket.

Tom Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, has also been pretty fuzzy. He talks about better environmental assessment – and who could argue with that – but he’s obviously leery of opposing the provincial NDP’s support of LNG.
That leaves the Greens, and while I believe that they will get some seats in British Columbia, they will not be forming the federal government.

The elephant in the room

There is an elephant in the room, which the Tories want nothing to do with, the Liberals want something but not too much to do with, while the NDP seems happy to feed the pachyderm as long as he behaves. This is, of course, is the “fracking” issue.

On this question, the science is pretty clear. Not only is hydraulic fracturing, “fracking”, highly toxic to the atmosphere and unhealthy generally for human beings, it creates increased earthquakes where it is practised and it can poison the water system. Interestingly enough Andrew Nikiforuk, a true energy expert, has just written an interesting article in the tyee.ca on the stability issue in the Netherlands, where dangerous earthquakes, both in frequency and intensity, are occurring in the Groningen area where intensive fracking takes place.

Again, it would seem that Mr. Mulcair is handicapped by the position taken by his provincial colleague, John Horgan. Mr. Trudeau talks about science but doesn’t want to deal with the clear science that is already here and pretty definitive on the matter  – and, of course, Mr. Harper and his local marionette, James Moore, simply don’t give a good goddamn about the issue.

For British Columbia is this is a pretty sad scenario.

Economics are LNG’s Achilles’ Heel

It brings into focus the one tool we have at our disposal namely civil disobedience. Now it would seem that with Bill C 51, the anti-terrorism the bill, that the federal government will throw us all in jail as terrorists if we physically protest a project.

The saving grace is, of course, economic. Unless there is a miraculous return of prices, which would mean that somehow the glut of natural gas in the world disappears, LNG plants will be unfeasible.

It is sad, indeed, to contemplate that when it comes to the serious environmental and health concerns surrounding LNG, none of our elected representatives or those who wish to be elected – with the clear exception of the Green Party – care about us, the people.

Some day, some way, the people are going to have a say on this.

Share
Harper slashes federal taxes for BC LNG industry

Harper slashes federal taxes for BC LNG industry

Share
Harper slashes federal taxes for BC LNG industry
Stephen Harper announces federal tax support for BC’s LNG industry in Surrey, BC (PMO)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper jumped on the BC LNG ship this week with the announcement of federal support for the embattled industry during a speech in Surrey, BC.

A PMO press release trumpeting the commitment stated:

[quote]Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the Government’s intent to support the creation of new and well-paying jobs in the emerging liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry.[/quote]

Give ’em what they want

The move follows BC Premier Christy Clark’s pattern of caving to the demands of foreign energy titans like Malaysia’s Petronas – slashing local taxes to counteract the failing economics of the Asian LNG market. Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas has been vocal in demanding reductions in BC’s planned export tax regime, as well as more favourable federal capital cost allowances. With this week’s announcement from the Prime Minister, he has received essentially everything he asked for – including the fast-tracked approval of environmental permits for its controversial gas plant in the midst of the Skeena River estuary.

“In order to ensure that Canadian natural gas can reach new and growing international markets, and make it accessible for new domestic uses, the Government intends to establish a capital cost allowance rate of 30 per cent for equipment used in natural gas liquefaction and 10 per cent for buildings at a facility that liquefies natural gas,” the PMO’s statement noted.  “This tax relief will be available for capital assets acquired after February 19, 2015, and before 2025.”

The Conservative Government is also helping the LNG industry with the proposed weakening of environmental regulations for fossil fuel ports in its latest Omnibus bill.

What jobs?

Harper touted the job benefits from supporting the industry, yet many of the potential local jobs have already been promised to China, India and Malaysia through government agreements to import cheaper foreign temporary workers.

Meanwhile, even the enormous tax benefits the industry has already been granted can’t make up for the fact that Asian LNG prices have plummeted a record 61.7% over the past year – to a point well below the profitability line for BC exports. No wonder companies like Petronas, Chevron, BG Group, Apache, EnCana and EOG have already stalled on their final investment decisions or altogether abandoned ship on the fledgling industry.

It is a mark of sheer government incompetence – or utter neglect for the public benefit – to give an industry everything it asks for and still get nothing in return for the citizens of BC and Canada.

Share

Asian LNG prices take record 60% plunge from last year

Share

Asian LNG prices take record 60 per cent plunge from last year

Asian spot market prices for liquefied natural gas (LNG) have plunged by a single year record of 61.7% since February 2014, according to Platts JKM (Japan/Korea Marker) – a leading source of benchmark prices for the industry.

Average prices for March delivery peaked at a historic high of $20.20 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) on February 14 ,2014. By February of this year, prices for March delivery had tumbled to$7.44/MMBtu – representing the largest year-over-year drop since Platts began tracking the market in 2009, and the lowest benchmark price for Asian LNG since 2010.

Said Stephanie Wilson, managing editor of Asia LNG at Platts:

[quote]Moderate temperatures and high buyer inventories continued to cap demand for spot cargoes in northeast Asia, despite the lower prices in March. Exacerbating the oversupply were cheaper competing fuels, which many utility power generators opted to burn rather than LNG.[/quote]

Taking its nuclear reactors offline post-Fukushima, Japan drove up LNG prices from 2011 on, sparking a global race to supply the Asian market with LNG. But subsequent weakening demand, increased competition and lower oil prices – to which Asian LNG prices are indexed – have all exerted significant downward price pressure on the resource.

What is the Clark government thinking?

This should leave British Columbians doubting the wisdom of betting the province’s economic future on Asian LNG exports – underscored by one after another global energy player backtracking on its investment plans.

These prices match up perfectly with predictions of two years ago by business news leader Bloomberg, which foresaw precisely a 60% drop in Asian LNG prices – the only difference is the speed at which the drop has occurred. Bloomberg saw it coming by 2020. In the same story, Bloomberg calculated this would mean a $6 million loss per tanker, pegging the break-even point for shipping LNG from North America to Asia at around $9/MMBtu (in some of Northern BC’s shale gas plays, this figure can be as high as $10-13/MMBtu). With current Asian LNG prices, we are already well below that point, calling into question the entire business case for BC LNG.

Yet, somehow the Clark government remains bullish on the industry, leaning heavily on future anticipated revenues in its recent Throne Speech.

Credit: Platts JKM
Credit: Platts JKM
Share

Fossil fuel era drawing to a close…except in Canada

Share
Adrian Wyld/CP
Adrian Wyld/CP

The following is the sequel to an earlier story by Will Dubitsky on the growing green economy and Canada’s failure to take advantage of it.

In the first part of this story for The Common Sense Canadian, I discussed how Canadian and Quebec leaders are largely ignoring the potential of high job creation, high growth green sectors, while China, Europe and the US are showing real leadership. Here, I will dig deeper into the policies and organizations that are foolishly banking on the Canadian resource-based economy as the key to economic development. Sadly, while President Obama sits poised to veto the Keystone XL pipeline, signalling the accelerating transition into a new era, Canada is being left behind.

Up to a trillion dollars in stranded fossil fuel investments

In keeping with Einstein’s definition of insanity, nearly all the economic experts will tell you we must keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Yet the signs are that the fossil fuel era is approaching its demise.

First, long-term energy and energy-related investments already favour the green economy – largely because the costs of clean tech are coming down.

Second, in the Summer of 2014, long before the recent plunge in oil prices, it became apparent that unconventional resources such as the tar sands, shale and offshore oil cannot be supported by market prices. As a result, Big Oil has already started to withdraw from major unconventional investments around the globe, otherwise known as stranded assets. This trend is becoming more and more evident .

The growing order of magnitude of stranded fossil fuel investments are very telling. Of the$2 Trillion invested in oil development in 2014, $930 Billion may never reach the return on investment stage – the makings of an investment bubble.

Considering the 20% return on equity for oil and gas in 2008 and the projection of a mere 5% return for 2015, it would appear that the most of the financial community has got it all wrong – especially when you factor in the increased volumes of stranded assets to come with oil at less than $70/barrel.

Unfortunately, financial institutions are not as diversified as they claim to be, totally bypassing the high growth, high job creation green sectors while maintaining the resource economy as integral to the majority of investment products/strategies.

Doubling down on unconventional energy

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has warned that the oil companies’ capital expenditures for investments in unconventional resources have “gone through the roof” and that their Reserve Replacement Ratio, the measure which investors use to rate oil companies, is not encouraging. (New Internationalist, November 2014)

Similarly, a UBS study concluded that the rapid decline in the costs of clean energy, clean transportation and green economy integration technologies – such as energy storage technologies – together suggest that the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels and point to a full-scale shift to a green economy by 2020. (Ibid)

Leaving it in the ground

This is about more than economics though. Governments around the globe are adopting strong climate policies which favour the green economy, acknowledging that 80% of fossil fuels must remain in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change. That means that of the 12,000 gigatonnes of fossil fuel reserves, only 936 gigatonnes can be used.

$26.4 Billion/yr in subsidies to Canadian fossil fuels: IMF

Another issue is the fact that fossil fuels remain one of the most heavily subsidized sectors in the global economy. According to the International Monetary Fund, in US 2011 dollars, Canada spends $26.4B/year in direct and indirect subsidies (including health, climate change costs, etc.) for its fossil fuel sectors. This means that the unraveling of short-term thinking on fossil fuels will accelerate over time as the international community increasingly engages in addressing climate change. Put another way, the idea of shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels to the green economy will become increasingly attractive for policy makers.

Oddly enough, the representatives of the fossil sectors complain about subsidies for clean energy. The response of the European Wind Energy Association is that the wind sector could compete without any subsidies if it weren’t for the subsidies fossil fuels receive.

Renewables lead new energy mix

In the US, wind energy is now cost competitive with natural gas. Indeed, the change in the US energy paradigm is now well-entrenched, with renewables representing 47% of new electrical generation capacity installed in 2014, natural gas at 50% and coal, nuclear and oil combined only accounting for a little over 2%.

Consequently, from an investment perspective, clean technologies are the safer bet, free of the fluctuating, speculative prices we see with fossil fuels and destined to be favoured by increasingly aggressive government policies, further driving down prices.

Yet in Canada, only the NDP has committed to end fossil fuel subsidies, transfer the savings to clean technologies and introduce a cap and trade system.

NEB locking us into yesterday’s economy

As a result of the Harper administration’s changes to legislation on environmental impact analyses, the National Energy Board does not have the mandate to consider the biggest issue among all issues associated with TransCanada’s Energy East and other pipeline proposals – that is, the emissions stemming from tar sands development and downstream consumption of these fossil fuel products.

Compounding the limitations of the NEB mandate, the regulator has an “attitude problem”. This is very evident from the NEB’s rejection of oral cross-examination regarding certain types of questions, such as those submitted by distinguished energy expert Marc Eliesen on Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain pipeline expansion proposal.

Marc Eliesen is a former CEO of BC Hydro and Chair of Manitoba Hydro and served as a deputy minister in seven different federal and provincial governments. Since the NEB did not see it as necessary for TransMountain to address most of Marc Eliesen’s written questions, he withdrew as an intervenor/participant in theNEB Kinder Morgan review circus.

One can expect more of the same for the NEB hearings on Energy East.

Changing our laws to suit oil and gas

Just as it restricted the NEB’s environmental review mandate, the Harper government gutted the habitat protections in the Fisheries Act, at the request of Canada’s pipeline industry.

Harper has also ensured that the NEB reports directly to the Prime Minister’s office.

In other words, Canada is painting itself into a corner.

Both Justin Trudeau and Harper view Canada as a resource export economy and both revert to the denial of science to increase Canada’s dependence on resource exports.

The new energy paradigm

As alluded to my Jan 23, 2015 Common Sense Canadian article, yesterday’s economists, Harper and Trudeau and most of mainstream media, much like the climate change deniers would like us all to believe in a fairly tale that presents economic and environmental considerations as opposing forces for which there is a need for reconciliation.

This economy versus the environment spin is comparable to the debate of 100 years ago on the reconciliation of woman’s rights with the need for economic development.

Yet the world’s largest energy consumer, China, is already changing the global economic-energy-environmental paradigm in through a rather schizophrenic war on coal. Consider that: 1) China is the world’s largest investor in green technologies, with $89.5B in clean energy technology projects in 2014; 2) China’s coal imports will be down by 15% by the end of 2014 compared to 2013; 3) China’s pilot cap and trade systems in Beijing and Shenzhen have reduced emissions by 4.5% and 11% respectively; 4) China is thinking of introducing a national cap and trade system in 2016.

Europe on track for big emissions reductions

Nearly all of the EU members are on track for their 2020 targets for a 20% reduction in GHGs, 20% energy from renewables and a 20% improvement in energy efficiency. Not resting on their laurels, in October 2014, the European heads of state agreed to a 40% GHG reduction target for 2030.

Then there is the incredible case of Germany, which outdid its own Kyoto Protocol objective of a 21% reduction of GHGs by 2012, having achieved a 25.5% reduction instead. But Germany is not an exception to the rule. For the same Kyoto period ending in 2012, the UK, Sweden and France reduced their emissions respectively by 23.4%, 18% and 10.5%.

At this point, Ban Ki-moon’s 2007 remarks on green economics seem highly appropriate:

[quote]We have witnessed three economic transformations in the past century. First came the Industrial Revolution, then the technology revolution, then our modern era of globalization. We stand at the threshold of another great change: the age of green economics.[/quote]

How long is it going to take for today’s economists to catch up?

Obama Keystone veto’s global ramifications

In closing, with Obama on the verge of applying his veto to Keystone, it may be helpful to read the article referred to below, which specifically deals with the matter of Keystone but could easily be recast as the case against TransCanada’s Energy East, Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain and Enbridge’s Line 9.

In a nutshell, this article in The Guardian speaks of the increased path dependencies generated by new pipelines and concludes that an Obama rejection of Keystone would be a clear signal to the US, Canada and the entire world that the time has come for putting the emphasis on developing clean energy and clean transportation alternatives – and the weaning off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

This is precisely the point President Obama made in his January 20, 2015 State of the Union speech, when he indicated that a rejection of Keystone would send a signal to the world that we must get serious about migrating to a green economy; whereas approving it would constitute a setback to the climate action agenda.

One can say “ditto” for TransCanada’s Energy East and the other major Canadian pipeline projects.

What is happening is that China, Europe, the US and other nations – not Canada – are becoming increasingly aligned for a future that functions on a green economy paradigm, the path to higher job creation,  stronger economic development, avoidance of catastrophic climate change and the embracing of environmental stewardship – in other words, the path to tomorrow’s economy.

With the aforementioned science and economic considerations in mind, Mark Carney, the current Governor of the Bank of England and former Governor of the Bank of Canada, recently wrote to British Members of Parliament, advising them that the Bank’s officials are reviewing whether or not the majority of fossil reserves are burnable.

Change is clearly afoot – if only Canada’s leader could see and embrace it.

Share
Christy Clark's LNG-fueled Fudge-it Budget

Christy Clark’s LNG-fueled Fudge-it Budget…and the enabling NDP

Share
Christy Clark's LNG-fueled Fudge-it Budget
Premier Christy Clark made big election promises about managing BC’s economy (CP)

Welcome to Ruritania! Where is Peter Sellers when we need him?

We now have a legislature pretending to act like big kids do, leaders acting as if they really are in charge, a government out of control, and an opposition dedicated more to supporting the government than to raising issues.

Through the looking glass: Clark’s surreal throne speech

The Throne Speech was really quite funny when you think of it. The more LNG companies withdraw their undertaking, the more money we make. The fewer the LNG plants developed, the more jobs we’ll have. The worse our environmental record is in fracking for LNG, the less it matters.

If we go on having companies withdraw from LNG in BC, God knows how much money we’ll all make and how rich we’ll all become!

Thanks to Christy Clark, Alice in  Wonderland has become not a fairy tale, but a documentary!

LNG looked bad from the beginning

BG Group recently pulled the plug on BC LNG
BG Group is one of many companies to abandon ship on BC LNG

In looking back at the history of LNG in BC, one is reminded of Casey Stengel, managing “them amazing Mets”, in 1962, when he asked “can’t anyone here play this game?”

From the outset, Common Sense Canadian publisher Damien Gillis and I have raised questions about the viability of an LNG economy, given the global situation. Our concerns arose because we did simple research, largely using government and industry publications. We also were much helped by our resident economist, Erik Andersen.

It was abundantly apparent that there would be a glut of natural gas on the world market, that the United States, long so dependent upon the Middle East, was going to be self-sufficient and competing with us on exports, and that the cost of getting our LNG to China was – surprise, surprise – much higher than shipping gas from China to China.

We weren’t rocket scientists, just ordinary people like you who had learned early on how to read.

It didn’t take a crystal ball…

Our predictions steadily came true and if anything more quickly than we thought. Each time one came true, Christy Clark, and her poodle, Rich Coleman, had even more money rolling in to British Columbia. As time went on, and more companies withdrew their support, Christy Clark’s view of things got even rosier.

This ridiculous situation continued until the present day and I shudder in excitement thinking of all the money we’ll make when the last LNG company abandons us.

The Opposition that refuses to oppose

This article today, is not really about Christy Clark. It’s about leadership in general.

There is no nice way to say it – John Horgan, the NDP leader, has done an appalling job. Given the Christy Clark/Coleman saga, any decent opposition would have a field day.

It’s indeed ancient times but in my day the leaders were Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett, as unalike as chalk and cheese, yet each, in his way, hugely effective. Barrett was the master of the instant put down. On the government side, you were constantly on the defensive and, as I quickly learned, woe betide anyone who heckled him.

Bennett, always better informed, though no orator, was a plodder with the ability to come up with a killing comeback instantly.

They heartily disliked each other and for those who know them well, it is so sad to see them both seriously ill. Two great guys, two great leaders.

The point is that both sides of the legislature and those that supported them outside knew they had a leader. That may not sound like much but it is hugely important, especially for the opposition. The government, without an opposition ready to take over, is able to coast. For an opposition to be effective it must be a government in waiting, with policies ready to implement. That requires leadership that is both ready to lead and appears to be.

The NDP response to the Throne Speech, where the premier assured us again of the riches to come from vanishing LNG producers, was that the government talked too much about LNG and should move on to other subjects. This particularly came from Mike Farnworth, who ought to know better and that the point was that Clark has nothing else to talk about except failure.

Clark has nothing

Think about it for a second. Apart from the phoney LNG business, Clark has no policy whatsoever. They have nothing whatever concrete to offer in terms of the economy and, of course, are bankrupt on such matters as the environment. There is, therefore, a huge political vacuum.

It’s not brain surgery to realize that this is the spot the NDP step in. The first thing they do is to kill what remains of the LNG enthusiasm falsely raised by the Liberals. It’s sheer idiocy for them to proceed into the next election, just over two years away, allowing the Liberals to sail on promising another Umpty-dump billion dollars for LNG projects.

LNG threatens environment

Before moving on, one must observe that the NDP also has a huge obligation to expose the environmental concerns surrounding LNG – I dare say the majority of people in British Columbia have those concerns and in some areas, Squamish particularly, it is a very real impending threat. Their doughty city Council has had no encouragement whatsoever from the Opposition to plans that would materially and adversely alter the lifestyle of that lovely town and the surrounding area.

In order for the NDP to complete its apparent suicide commitment, it should stop shilly-shallying and just support the Liberals’ LNG policy, being that these foreign companies may do as they please as they are used to doing; cheat on their taxes and utterly ignore environmental concerns as just an avoidable nuisance.

Both parties either underestimate the public’s feeling about the environment or don’t give a damn.

Public hungry for change

I’ve watched that feeling develop over a good many years. Much of what people generally feel now was espoused by the NDP 40 years ago – their problem being that then their opposition was more whining than practical. Moreover, it is always very difficult to be ahead of public opinion.

The public has dramatically changed. Even when I was in government it would be unthinkable to try to stop an interprovincial pipeline, let alone two of them. Alberta was looked upon as a pal to be envied.

But, in 25 years, the world has dramatically changed, as we all know. The question of fossil fuels has become first a very serious scientific one and then, logically, a political one. Global warming is for real and the vast majority of the public knows that – the exception being some politicians.

We’ve reached the position, then, where the public is far, far ahead of its political masters who would have us believe that the environmentalist is against all development and wants to crawl into a cave, chew on the leg of a sabre-toothed tiger and spend the rest of his life drawing pictures on walls.

I consider myself an environmentalist. So does Damien and a great many other people I know, who not that long ago wouldn’t have considered supporting the NDP and wouldn’t today if it weren’t for the Clark/Coleman Neanderthals.

Making a living and enjoying a living

The growing concern, which has enveloped all of us, is for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the surroundings in which we live. We’re convinced that making a living and enjoying a living are compatible ambitions. Of course it requires some sacrifice – anything of importance does.

What environmentalists have done, however, is to annoy the hell out of the establishment because we no longer believe a word it says. This isn’t cynicism – it’s bitter experience. One only has to look at the Woodfibre LNG’s Indonesian owner and their tax-cheating overseas, to say nothing of their wanton environmental destruction, to realize that when they tell us that they will be good corporate citizens, care for our environment and pay their taxes that they’re lying through their teeth.

The trust just isn’t there

This is a huge societal dichotomy, no doubt about that. There was a time when most of us looked at the captains of industry and political leaders and thought that deep down they really cared about the people and the environment in which we live.

Experience has taught us that this is a load of crap. We’ve  learned about hugely expensive internal and external public relations exercises devoted simply to deceiving the public.

Naively, we expected our politicians to reflect our feelings but have learned that they reflect only the interests of the establishment. As it always has, money talks.

Out of all of this comes a sense of keen frustration.

I no longer have the faintest hope that the Liberals will do anything but reflect those who invest money in them.

Where does that leave us?

I had hoped that John Horgan would be able to offer the kind of leadership the public could listen to and perhaps follow. Unfortunately this has not proved to be the case.

I’ve expressed hopes for the Green Party, however I am realistic enough to know that they won’t be forming a government in the near future.

It’s obvious that choices are severely limited and that if the Throne Speech proves nothing else, it’s that the government is bankrupt, lacking a semblance of moral compass, and the opposition are useless.

If the Green Party has nothing else going for it, at least the alternatives are far worse.

Share