Kinder Morgan Canada President Ian Anderson talks a good game on Canadian benefits from his company’s proposed pipeline – but economist Robyn Allan disagrees (photo: Kinder Morgan)
The following is an open letter to Premier Christy Clark from economist and former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan
November 19, 2014
Dear Premier Clark,
Your government is an Intervenor in the National Energy Board Section 52 public interest review. The hearing is to determine if Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project is worthy of a public license to construct and operate a twin pipeline. The system will transport more than 890,000 barrels a day of primarily diluted bitumen to BC’s west coast.
Most of this heavy oil is destined for Westridge dock in Burnaby where it will be loaded onto tankers for marine transit. The tanker traffic triggered by the expansion means two oil tanker transits a day in the Salish Sea and Burrard Inlet. A number of oil tankers will be regularly parked in English Bay and Burrard Inlet awaiting loading.
The Province’s application to participate as an Intervenor in the NEB process reads, “the Province would be directly impacted by the project’s economic activity, including that which would result in revenues to the Province.”
I am writing to you to advise you of results of my research into Trans Mountain’s tax obligation and how that fundamentally impedes the Province’s ability to receive revenue.
Kinder Morgan claims that Trans Mountain is a significant contributor to federal and provincial income tax revenues. The company is relying on this as proof it deserves a public licence to triple its pipeline capacity. Pouring tax revenues into Canada is not the story Kinder Morgan tells its US-based shareholders. Promoting Trans Mountain south of the border, Kinder Morgan boasts of cash tax refunds—two in the past five years.
From 2009-2013 Trans Mountain’s combined federal and provincial Canadian corporate tax contribution averaged just $1.5 million per year.
How could this be? The answer lies in complexities of the Canadian and US corporate tax regulation and Kinder Morgan’s tax planning culture which is explained in theattached brief.
I believe Canadians are owed an explanation why this US multinational pays so little in Canadian corporate income taxes. Trans Mountain plans to triple its capacity and because of economies of scale suggests it will pay a tax rate of 25% on its net income leading to about $100 million a year in federal and provincial corporate income tax.
Based on their structure and corporate culture, this is false.
Kinder Morgan does not pay its “fair share” now, and will not pay its “fair share” in the future—to BC or the rest of Canada.
The Province must request that the Canada Revenue Agency undertake a full and comprehensive audit of Kinder Morgan’s activities in Canada.
Sincerely,
Robyn Allan
Economist
cc. Honourable Michael De Jong, Minister of Finance
Rich Coleman tries to conjure up some good LNG PR with this youtube video (BC govt youtube page)
The BC government is worried it can’t control the way fracking and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are being criticized through social media, documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request reveal.
The June, 2014 briefing note (view full document here) was dug up by Propeller Strategy, a non-profit group with a focus on environmental and public interest issues in BC. Prepared by staff for Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman, it compares criticism of fracking with the kind of fake news and tweets that surrounded the Boston Marathon Bombing several years ago.
“Misinformation about hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology, water usage and greenhouse gas emissions relating to natural gas extraction and LNG production facilities is rampant in the community, particularly in social media,” the briefing note states.
[quote]Allowing this kind of “framing” to occur is not in the public interest as social licence is eroded. [/quote]
“Cascade of misinformation”
The document uses the Boston Marathon Bombing as an example of how quickly misinformation can spread through sites like twitter and facebook. In that particular incident, thousands of false tweets muddied the public’s initial understanding of the situation.
“Part of it is people wanting to be part of the story, but part of it is spammers and hoaxers trying to cash in on the fact that people are talking about this,” UBC media professor Alfred Hermida recently explained to The Georgia Straight’sCharlie Smith in a story on social media hoaxes.
The Ministry of Natural Gas memo describes how quickly a single tweet, being picked up by twitter celebrities with large followings, can spread through “thousands of re-tweets” – creating a “cascade of misinformation.”
In the words of Winston Churchill…
Bringing it back to the government’s messaging challenges around fracking, the briefing note warns, “It’s rather difficult to win back the public once the misinformation is etched into the memory of British Columbians.”
[quote]As Winston Churchill pointed out: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”[/quote]
But is that a fair description of the social media discourse surrounding fracking and LNG in BC? The way the document reads, it’s as though the government takes for granted that any discouraging words said about these industries must inherently be construed as “misinformation.”
Why all the secrecy?
It’s difficult to know how much weight the government’s concerns hold, since much of the document supplied to Propeller Strategy was redacted. The entire second page, containing specific discussion and conclusions, was whited out, leaving not a single, tangible example of the kind of false claims the ministry alleges surround fracking and LNG.
Says Stan Proboszcz, who filed the FOI request, “I’m disconcerted about what the province may be planning to do to improve the industry’s failing image, given the redactions. Why all the secrecy?”
[quote]It’s clear the province is concerned with the industry’s evaporating social licence.[/quote]
Cleanest fossil fuel on the planet?
Meanwhile, The Common Sense Canadian has been tracking and publishing on social media the evolving, peer-reviewed science related to fracked shale gas, which increasingly contradicts the government’s branding of BC LNG as the “cleanest fossil fuel on the planet”. (This proposed LNG industry would be fed by a major increase in fracking in northeast BC.)
Methane leaks are common with fracking operations
Cornell University climate scientist Dr. Robert Howarth – an acknowledged leader in the field of measuring the real climate impacts of fracking – scoffs at Premier Christy Clark’s “cleanest fossil fuel” claims. Based on his research into escaping methane gas, which is some 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period than CO2,“natural gas – and particularly shale gas – is the worst of the fossil fuels…Your premier has her facts wrong.”
That particular story was liked over 2,300 times on facebook and widely shared amongst BC users. Is this the kind of “misinformation” in social media that the ministry is referring to?
LNG would dramatically boost BC’s carbon footprint
In addition to the climate problems associated with fracked gas, “using it in LNG is probably the worst way to use it,” Dr. Howarth explains. “It takes a tremendous amount of energy to liquefy the gas to LNG, so a lot further methane emissions associated with transporting and storing the fuel.”
Studies from the Pembina Institute suggest that just the coastal LNG plants associated with the government’s plan could more than double BC’s entire carbon footprint – and that’s only factoring in a handful of the 15-plus terminals currently proposed for the province.
[quote]…even the lower end of that development scenario would produce a staggering 73 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year by 2020. For comparison, the oilsands are currently Canada’s fastest-growing source of climate pollution — but by 2020, B.C.’s LNG plans would produce three-quarters as much carbon pollution if development proceeds as hoped.[/quote]
The government is also clearly concerned about criticism of fracking’s impacts on water – criticism which, again, would seem to be prudent, based on the evidence.
In 2012, BC used close to 11 Billion litres of water for fracking – most of that drawn from the rivers, lakes and streams of northeast BC, a region already hard-hit by drought in recent years. And that’s just what was reported through government figures. Not all water extraction is properly measured or reported.
Shale gas expert David Hughes has run the numbers on what it would take to supply those LNG plants, and it means as many as 50,000 new fracked wells – close to double all the gas wells drilled in the 60-year history of the province’s gas industry.
On an annual basis, that’s equivalent to all the water used by the city of Calgary.
Drinking the LNG Kool-Aid: Gas Minister Coleman and Environment Minister Mary Polak drink water spiked with LNG in an effort to show how safe it is (BC govt youtube page)
Coleman and Clark have also made bold claims as to the safety of BC’s fracking with regards to water, but cracks have begun to form in those arguments. In a 2013 Georgia Straightop-ed, Coleman made the following claim: “The net result of both our strong regulatory framework and our geology is that B.C.’s water supply is protected and safe. It has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing.”
Arrow indicates leaking Talisman tailing pond (Two Island Films)
Yet, one week earlier, The Globe and Mailhad broken the story of a leaking tailing pond near the community of Hudson’s Hope – owned by Talisman at the time (now by Malaysia’s Petronas). As The Common Sense Canadian went on to unearth, this pond, containing 30 million litres of contaminated frack water, was leaking into the surrounding soil and groundwater for up to six months before the company went public about it.
The eventual cleanup operation required the removal of some 5,000 cubic metres of contaminated earth.
Minister Coleman may argue on a technicality that there is no evidence of that contamination reaching BC’s public drinking water supply – though that is not even what he specifically said.
All of these stories received considerable sharing and commenting through social media. Each of them based on thorough research and the best available scientific knowledge. And this is on top of a growing body of evidence from across Canada, the United Sates and other fracking jurisdictions of the risks of water and air pollution from shale gas.
Does public have better BS-detector on social media?
With over 1 billion facebook users globally and half a billion tweets sent each day – spanning a broad demographic range – it is becoming increasingly difficult for government and industry to control the public discourse around issues strictly through conventional media.
To this end, the BC Liberal Government is making an effort to engage with the social media space – deploying twitter feeds, hashtags, flickr photo streams, and youtube videos of their own.
Minister Coleman actively uses Twitter, but doesn’t appear to be gaining the kind of “message” traction he’d like. Perhaps it’s because his tweets smack of the very propaganda he accuses his detractors of engaging in.
“In conventional media, it’s the big media companies which get to decide whether messages get circulated or not, and the audience doesn’t have a say,” explains Shane Gunster, Graduate Program Chair at the SFU School of Communication. “So there isn’t really any feedback mechanism (other than yelling at the television) for people to express their opinion.”
[quote]In social media, however, the success of a campaign depends upon that feedback: people are the gatekeepers in terms of deciding if and when messages are circulated through their social networks. And in that context, PR – especially when it is recognized as PR – is just not going to have much traction because most people don’t want to be perceived as industry or government hacks…I think it’s fair to say there’s a fair bit of scepticism, and even hostility when people see government or industry spending millions of dollars to shape public opinion on issues like pipelines or fracking. [/quote]
A brief perusal of Minister Coleman’s twitter feed reveals a series of relatively one-dimensional PR statements and offhand dismissals of critics:
When legitimate questions began being raised about plans to outsource to India and China some of the jobs promised to British Columbians from the LNG industry – one of the key justifications for the whole program – Coleman fired back:
Social media driving social change?
Fracking operation in northeast BC (Two Island Films)
It’s clear from this briefing note that the government is worried about the impact social media are having on its LNG vision. And these fears may be well-justified. These media contribute to the erosion of social licence for the industry in several ways.
Not only do they furnish users with information and foster lively dialogue, but sites like facebook have become key tools for organizing public demonstrations, advertising town hall meetings and other forms of real-world protest of the government’s plans.
We have already seen where largely social media-driven campaigns for telecommunications reform and Internet privacy protection have forced policy changes from government. From viral petitions to facilitating public comment in environmental review processes, to calling out public officials, the range of powerful tools social media offers to citizens is only growing.
So while Rich Coleman and company appear to recognize the problem, solving it is very different matter, especially if the social media they dismiss as mere misinformation actually turn out to bear some truth – the inverse of Winston Churchill’s statement.
In other words, in this scenario, the truth gets halfway around the world before the government’s PR flacks get a chance to put their pants on.
Kinder Morgan contractors clash with citizen protestor on Burnaby Mountain (Darryl Dyck/CP)
“If the Law says that”, said Mr. Bumble, “the Law is an ass”.
The good citizens of Burnaby have lost their case against the large international corporation, Houston-based Kinder Morgan, who wish to extend their pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby.
Kinder Morgan case harkens back to past injustices
Over the past few months I’ve found myself reading up on legal writing from the past. I’ve become interested in judges of yore and in particular have been reading the famous letters between Sir Frederick Pollock and the great American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes.
This has taken me back to my days in Law School, so many years ago, and as I read the decision regarding Burnaby, I thought of England in the Middle Ages when the law had become so hidebound that nobody could get justice.
What had happened is that over the years, the “causes of action”, or the things people could sue for, were further and further restricted and the documentation that one had to use became so technical that the slightest mistake had one thrown out of court. This was so unfair, except to lawyers and judges, that The Lord Chancellor interfered and thus came about the Court of Equity, called the Court of Chancery.
The main principle of this new body of law and courts to enforce it was “Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy”.
Just imagine if that laudable principle applied to the Courts today!
Eventually in the late 19th century, the Court Of Chancery, was amalgamated with the Common Law courts, with the principles of equity supposed to remain.
People can no longer sue for their rights
I don’t think there is much doubt that we have once more reached the position where people can no longer sue for their rights.
Surely there has developed the right of people to a clean environment, to Crown Land not being unnecessarily desecrated, a public say when it’s proposed that that it will – to waters being clean and fish being preserved, neighbourhoods being safeguarded, natural beauty being preserved, clean air, and so on.
It’s no different with the Federal-Provincial Environmental Committees looking into so-called “run of river” projects.
With these “Kangaroo Courts” the public is invited and then are treated like children, denied the right to speak their minds or cross-examine witnesses, and then they’re utterly ignored.
Crown land, which is to say the land that belongs to all of us, is administered by the governments – governments clearly in the pocket of companies like Kinder Morgan and other politically-donating companies and they couldn’t care less about honest, decent folks whose great “sin” is to band together to protect where they live.
No “cause of action”
When these neighbours go to court, as we have seen, they’re told they have no “cause of action”. The government doesn’t care because they’re so few in number that their votes won’t matter. Furthermore, by the time elections roll around, there will be many other issues such that these folks and those who agree with them are swamped.
Why can’t people defend what is the theirs just because it isn’t exclusively theirs? The right of the Crown to dispose of rights on Burnaby Mountain is not absolute. As we have seen, through the torturous process of what little democracy we have left, the public could toss the government out and impose their own wishes. Unfortunately, this right is about as easy to enforce as it was to gain access to medieval courts in England.
“The Rule of Law”
It is high time that we, the public, force governments at all levels to recognize this gross distortion of fairness.
One thing is for sure coming out of the Burnaby Mountain situation – there will be more people protesting as time goes on. And good, decent fellow citizens will go to jail so that large corporations can work their wicked and selfish ways.
I notice in the Weekend Sun that the president of an LNG plant proposed for Kitimat is applauding British Columbia for having “The Rule Of Law”. For that, read that he is delighted that “The Rule Of Law” is that he can do whatever he damn well pleases.
From LNG to Kinder Morgan: Citizens rising up
I happen to live on Howe Sound. The citizens from Horseshoe Bay north, led, I might say by First Nations and grassroots community groups, are much exercised about an LNG plant proposed for Squamish. The Clark government, utterly unconcerned about environmental issues and what they consider protesting nuisances, is determined that it will go ahead and the public is determined that it will not. There will be protests and no doubt the usual consequences.
I believe in “The Rule of Law” – provided the law is fair. The law under which we operate with respect to the things that God gave us is totally unfair. If citizens can’t defend that which is their birthright, how can “The Rule Of Law possibly be considered fair?
I applaud the good citizens of Burnaby.
Far from being law breakers, they are, in the best traditions of freedom and democracy, upholding what is right – and God bless them.
Citizens protest Kinder Morgan outside BC Supreme Court (Photo: AJ Klein/facebook)
Houston-based pipeline giant Kinder Morgan may obtain an injunction from the BC Supreme Court today to remove protestors from a Burnaby Mountain blockade of the company’s exploratory work. In all likelihood, it will also secure a positive verdict from the National Energy Board at the end of its hearings into the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion – and Harper Cabinet approval thereafter.
But these will be pyrrhic victories the company loses its social licence in the process. And that’s precisely the way things appear headed for the $90 Billion Houston-based energy titan.
Corrigan-vs.-Goliath
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan has been a thorn in Kinder Morgan’s side (Image: Youtube)
What resulted has been a protracted, complex legal battle, waged in the BC courts and before the federal energy regulator conducting the hearing into the pipeline. While Justice Brenda Brown denied the city’s injunction application to keep the company off the mountain, the NEB surprisingly went the other way, refusing to take the company’s side and override municipal by-laws.
Knowing the way these hearings usually go, if not today, then sometime very soon Kinder Morgan will likely get what it’s seeking. But as the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Pipeline Jujitsu
What began with Corrigan’s David-vs.-Goliath battle is starting to look like a shrewd jujistu move, using his opponent’s strength (it is the largest energy transmission company in North America) against it. And now that ordinary citizens have taken up the torch – some still haunted by the memory of the company’s 2007 spill that covered their North Burnaby neighbourhood in diluted tar sands bitumen – Kinder Morgan looks more and more like a ham-fisted ogre with each passing court date.
List of critics, offences grows
The company is increasingly riling citizens and offending First Nations – who remain steadfastly opposed. But it’s not just grassroots citizens and indigenous groups. It’s prominent politicians, academics, economists, and other public figures who are increasingly lining up against the company. Here are just a few poignant examples:
Questions from the company during NEB hearings as to First Nations food fishing have sparked a viral facebook page, with thousands of pictures from around the province displaying how aboriginal people value wild salmon
The Burnaby Mountain protestors include prominent academics like SFU Biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby, who noted in a recent press release that over 80 groups from around the world are now supporting their legal battle. “I don’t think Kinder Morgan wants you to hear what I have to say – and I think that is why they are trying to silence me,” Quarmby told media outside the court house last week.
Quambry is joined by SFU Professor Stephen Collis, who spoke out publicly against a 1000-page legal document dropped on him by the company last week, threatening $5.6 million in damages for “trespassing” in the public Burnaby Mountain park the company is trying to gain access to
Heavy-hitting aboriginal leaders like Grand Chief Stewart of Union of BC Indian Chiefs have indicated their full support for the Burnaby protests and local First Nations opposition to the project, declaring, “We stand in absolute solidarity with individuals, groups and First Nations that are standing in public opposition to these ill-conceived, uninvited, unwanted heavy oil pipeline proposals in the province of British Columbia”.
The NEB process itself is under attack as well. Former BC Hydro head Mark Eliesen recently dropped out of the pipeline hearings via a scathing letter to the regulator, calling the process a “farce”
Corrigan is joined by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson – who seems destined for a fresh mandate come Nov. 15 – in steadfast opposition to the project. Though on paper municipal governments lack much political power to block large-scale energy projects, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the influence of these two cities and powerful mayors over the project.
Much of the above has transpired since this independent poll in July, which found that 70% of Burnaby citizens supported their mayor and council’s tough stance against Kinder Morgan.
Clearly, this Texas-based company has a few things to learn about doing business in BC. If it continues on this path, it may well win a few battles but wind up losing the war.
Christy Clark and Marvin Odum, President Shell Oil Company at recent BC LNG conference (BC govt flickr)
I’m sure, like me, you were excited to read in the Vancouver Sun for November 4 that LNG Canada (Shell and its Asian partners) will build a plant in Kitimat which will be very, very “green” and put even less greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere than the maximum prescribed by the BC government.
Oh, there will still be GHG escaping but just a teensy, weensy bit. And, of course, we all know that how strict BC government standards are. After all if you can’t trust Christy Clark and Mary Polak, the Environment Minister, whom can you trust?
Shell: your friendly, trustworthy oil and gas giant
Look, even the paint is green! (LNG Canada rendering)
It’s been suggested that Shell is not a very nice company, that amongst other things ruined Nigeria and the rivers therein. I don’t place much credence in this sort of whining from greenies! I’m told that wherever Shell goes it buys uniforms for the local Little League. Surely a company that does that is trustworthy!
I also was excited to realize that LNG Canada (Shell) would be carefully policed, and if necessary, be dealt with severely – just like fish farmers, private river power projects, or mines like Mount Polley mine have been.
Christy Clark: Always looking out for people of BC
Now here are two of Canada’s finest politicians, so we surely trust that all is well. After all, if you can’t trust people like Christy Clark, whom can you trust?
The Sun: Bastion of independent thought
I’m always grateful to the Vancouver Sun because it brings us independent thought – like The Fraser Institute, or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, or the BC Fish Farmers, or the president of the BC Chamber of Commerce or the Vancouver Board of Trade. If you can’t believe independent thinkers like these unbiased folk, whom can you believe?
Doubling down on fossil fuels
I must confess, dear readers, that I have been a ninny. I thought that we decided, both in the United States and Canada, we would “wean ourselves” off fossil fuels. We had to, we were told.
How could I have been so wrong! “Weaning off” apparently means something quite different to politicians and oil barons. Or perhaps it was sometime in the future?
Since then, we’ve opened up new coal mines all over the continent, new oil wells are being drilled, especially where new techniques allow us to recapture left-over oil – and we are “fracking” everywhere we possibly can for oil and gas.
BC: the new oil and gas enabler
A BC fracking drill (Two Island Films)
In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to have hydroelectric power but our job in the new scheme of things, evidently, is not to be a user but an “enabler”. We are to transport bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands, put it on 100s of tankers and send them down our narrow fjords off to the Far East. Since we don’t actually that much of this stuff ourselves, we leave it to others, who can blame us if others pump the crap into the atmosphere?
We’ll not only put LNG plants in BC to enable overseas customers to send our stuff into the atmosphere, we’re going to “frack” away to our hearts content to produce as much as we can and fuel those plants. No small-time enabling for us, by golly!
Now, here’s my most egregious sin. I rejected the assurances of our government and the companies that “fracking” is harmless. I took the word of scientists who talk about how “fracking” sends poisonous methane gas plus the usual GHGs aloft and that, when everything is considered, in the longer run, natural gas, “fracked” or otherwise, may be just as harmful as oil or coal. Silly me!
Rafe turns over new leaf
Readers can expect me to turn over a new leaf and accept that our wise and thoughtful premier is really an environmentalist at heart and that all her thoughts are to that end. I’ll pay rapt attention to what independent commentators like the Fraser Institute say in independent papers like the Sun and Province. After all, doesn’t big business always have our best interests at heart?
Surely “experts” like environmental turncoat Patrick Moore are much more reliable. Moreover, I’ve overlooked the gut instincts of climate change deniers. Hell, what could be more accurate than that?
I promise to reform. I can only hope that our publisher, Damien Gillis, doesn’t stick to his tiresome, outdated theories that we really are in trouble on this planet, that fossil fuels make a huge contribution to GHGs which are destroying our atmosphere, that we must reform our way of life and find ways to get clean energy, and all that nonsense.
I am sure that all faithful readers of The Common Sense Canadian will apply the necessary pressure to make our publisher have faith in our betters and hereafter behave himself, and make this publication even-handed like The Fraser Institute and its ilk.
Rendering of proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Squamish, BC
Of the 31 candidates who responded to a recent questionnaire on the controversial Woodfibre LNG proposal for Howe Sound, 29 – or 94% – were opposed.
The survey, conducted by Propeller Strategy, was presented by phone or email to all 98 candidates in the region of the project’s proposed Squamish plant and tanker route – encompassing Howe Sound and the Sunshine Coast. Of the 88 still known to be in the race as of this week – representing the communities of Squamish, West Vancouver, Bowen Island, Gibsons, Lions Bay and Whistler – many chose not to put their positions on the record.
Chief among the concerns of these municipal leaders have been environmental and safety risks associated with the project and what is seen to be a negative economic trade-off for an area building a modern economy based on tourism, academia, and the growing presence of the recreation technology sector and entrepreneurs attracted by the lifestyle offered by the Sea to Sky region.
At a September meeting where representatives of the project – owned by Indonesian Billionaire Skuanto Tanoto – pled their case to West Van Council, Councillor Mary-Anne Booth openly scoffed at the paltry job promises from Woodfibre:
[quote]For the risk that’s associated with this and the impact to that area, for…dozens of jobs – that’s the best you can do? And we’ve got to to stand for that? You haven’t convinced me.[/quote]
Yet despite the high rate of opposition amongst candidates who answered the survey, Stan Proboszcz, a director of Propeller Strategy, was surprised at the reluctance of many candidates to put their opinions on the record, after being contacted up to 3 times.
“Woodfibre LNG is one of the biggest election issues in the region, yet it seems some candidates aren’t eager to provide a straight-up yes or no answer about whether they support it or not,” says Proboszcz.
The survey will remain open to any candidates who still wish to make their opinion of the project known prior to the November 15 election.
The most common reasons for opposing the project, in order of priority, were:
environmental risks
economic risks
human safety concerns
navigational hazards of tankers
The two candidates backing Woodfibre are doing so because of economic benefits and a lack of known negative impacts to the community.
Based on the focus placed on the proposal by departing councils over the past year, whether or not candidates are putting their positions on the record now, they are bound to have to do so soon after they assume office.
We are allowing ourselves to be mesmerized over Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).
Perhaps we’re doing this to ourselves but the sad fact is that the government’s total ineptitude is not the only story. Not that that isn’t a big story. In fact, it was magnified last week when the Liberals set their tax regime for LNG companies.
It was not 7% or anything near it. It was not even 3.5% as reported – at least in the short term. In fact, for years it will be just 1.5% and assessed, to use the vernacular, on the company’s net profit.
Magically disappearing profits
As Andrew Nikiforuk has pointed out so often, this may well be illusory.
There is, of course, the use of offshore regimes to disguise profits. It may well be like the film industry, where many an offer of a substantial percentage of future profits has been offered the author, only to find that – surprise! surprise! – there were no profits. Probably the classic example of this is our own Bill Kinsella, whose marvellous story Shoeless Joe was made into the runaway hit, Field Of Dreams, which somehow never made a profit.
Of one thing we can be certain – LNG companies will use every possible stratagem to avoid showing profits.
“Clean” LNG? Yeah, right
But getting down to how we are being fooled, LNG is being sold to us as environmentally benign. If not totally benign, at least it’s better than coal.
Interestingly, in an op-ed piece in the Weekend Province this past Sunday, four Labour spokespeople would have us believe that coal is a marvellous fuel. The fact that they are all involved in shipping it from Vancouver ports may have something to do with their enthusiasm. In saying that, if I were in their position, I would probably feel the same but my point is that we can’t even accept the fact that coal is a terrible polluter so how in the hell can we deal with other fossil fuels? Not to mention the fact that the latest climate science suggests that LNG from fracked gas is actually worse than coal for the climate.
Moreover, LNG itself is not as benign as the producers and your utterly incompetent government would have you believe. It is safer to transport than some other forms of fossil fuels but it is far from being absolutely safe. It’s instructive to remember that when it appeared that LNG ships would go from the east coast of the US along the Canadian coast, Prime Minister Harper raised hell and it didn’t happen.
Nor is the use of LNG for power benign, by any means. It may burn cleaner than coal, but on the whole – when you consider the full life cycle from extraction to burning, it now appears it’s worse than coal.
The evidence and all of the appropriate numbers can be found in Parfitt’s paper and the studies to which he refers.
This Changes Everything
To add to this overwhelming evidence is This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein’s latest book. This Canadian bestseller will not only curl your hair, it will provide for you with irrefutable evidence that we are in our last decade of opportunity to come to grips with GHG and all of their ghastly ramifications.
The line taken by industry and governments is that Ms. Klein is a left-winger. So, I might say, is Ben Parfitt. To the extent that they are, I am as well.
Evidence, for God’s sake, is evidence. “Ad hominem” attacks are no more than cowardly efforts to disguise the truth. I am unable to find any scientific reasons or evidence that either Mr. Parfitt or Ms. Klein or the studies upon which they make their cases, exaggerate the reality.
Our problem, and especially the problem of the government, is that we simply don’t want to face reality.
Notwithstanding the fact that 97% of all climate scientists support the notion of human-caused climate change, we are told that there is nothing to be concerned about. Our present situation, the revisionists allege, is simply part of a weather cycle that has been going on for thousands of years. Usually some statistics are trotted out about the situation 1000 years ago.
Quite apart from all of the scientific evidence to refute these claims, what is overlooked by these idiots is that since the Industrial Revolution starting in the 18th century, it’s been a radically different ball game as we have consistently dumped more and more GHG into the atmosphere without relief. We’re talking huge amounts here.
Who do you trust?
The Issue, in my view, gets down to credibility. Whom are we going to believe? Those with such a huge stake in the status quo that they will cheerfully gamble with the future of civilization – or scientists with nothing at stake except the search for truth?
I can tell you that I don’t believe a single solitary word I hear by either the governments or big business on these issues. Not a word. They, frankly, lie through their teeth. Their evidence is self-serving and it’s instructive to remember that industry spends billions of dollars a year on public relations to convince the public that they are as pure as choirboys.
I watch baseball a lot and on the TV station there are regularly three ads – one from Enbridge, one from Suncor, and one from the Tar Sands lobby. You have never seen such bullshit in your life! It staggers the imagination to think that anybody believes a single second of these ads.
We have to make changes to our lifestyle. That does not mean we have to crawl back into caves but that we must make a substantial and dedicated effort to change our energy needs and the type of energy we use.
This, surely, can be done – but we have to get started. And that certainly doesn’t involve doubling down on LNG, fracking and Tar Sands.
If we are truly in our last decade of opportunity to get started, there is no time like now.
What’s the fastest-growing sector in Canada’s economy? Given what you hear from politicians and the media, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the resource industry, especially extraction and export of fossil fuels like oil sands bitumen and liquefied natural gas. But we’re no longer just “hewers of wood and drawers of water” — or drillers of oil, frackers of gas and miners of coal.
Although extraction, use and export of natural resources are economically important and will remain so for some time, we’re starting to diversify. According to Ottawa-based consultants Analytica Advisors, clean technology, or clean-tech, is the country’s fastest-growing industry.
Green jobs boom
The firm’s “2014 Canadian Clean Technology Report”, found direct employment by clean-tech companies rose six per cent from 2011 to 2012, from 38,800 people to 41,000, with revenues increasing nine per cent to $11.3-billion. According to Industry Canada, mining and oil and gas sector revenues grew just 0.3 per cent in the same period, manufacturing 1.9 per cent and the construction industry 3.9 per cent.
At the current growth rate, Analytica estimates Canada’s clean-tech industry will be worth $28 billion by 2022. But with the global market expected to triple to $2.5 trillion over the next six years, Canada hasn’t come close to reaching its potential. It’s our choice to seize the opportunity. With just two per cent of the global market (matching our share of population), we could have a $50 billion clean-tech industry by 2020 — double the size of today’s aerospace industry.
Clean-tech also outshines other sectors on research and development investment, with $1 billion invested in 2012 and $5 billion from 2008 to 2012. That’s more than the combined R&D investments of natural resource industries (oil and gas extraction, mining, agriculture, forestry and fishing), and only $200 million less than the aerospace sector.
“If you look at the sum of the investments and revenues of all these companies, we have a significant industry today,” Analytica president Céline Bak told the Hill Times.
[quote]Given the growth in investments today, it will continue to be significant and can grow into an industry comparable in size to other significant industries, like aerospace for example.[/quote]
Sector powered by diversity
The clean-tech sector is broad. “These companies are working on problems that we all care about, like how to use the constant temperature from the ground under our offices buildings for heating and cooling and how to replace expensive and polluting diesel power in our remote communities with clean affordable energy or transforming greenhouse gases into stronger concrete to build greener buildings,” Bak said in a Vancouver Sun article. Clean-tech comprises about 700 companies in 10 sectors across Canada, including renewable energy, water treatment, green building and development of environmentally friendly consumer products.
Many experts argue that putting a price on carbon, through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, is a good way to stimulate clean-tech, by targeting greenhouse gas emitters and encouraging technologies and measures aimed at energy conservation and renewables.
Canada could lose out
But we could lose out if we take the industry for granted — especially because 74 per cent of clean-tech companies here sell products and services outside Canada, with export revenues of about $5.8 billion in 2012 and 42 per cent going to markets other than the U.S. “High-performing companies are often bought by international players that take the intellectual property, manufacturing and jobs to other countries,” Bak cautioned, adding:
[quote]The world already looks to Canada for our clean technology solutions. Isn’t it time that we did too?[/quote]
And, while the federal government has strategies to track and promote the fossil fuel and aerospace industries, it has yet to do this for clean-tech.
Diversity in nature is important — ensuring ecosystems remain resilient in the face of threats. So, too, for the economy. It’s folly to rely too heavily on extracting and selling finite resources, especially those that cause pollution and contribute to climate change and other threats to the environment and human health and survival. Canada’s economic growth potential through clean energy is huge, but it needs to be given the same priority government gives other industries.
Clean-tech may not be the answer to all our problems, but it’s a sector that offers a lot of promise for our economy and environment.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
The Simushir under tow from US tugboat Barbara Foss (via Maritime Forces Pacific Facebook)
The incapacitation of a Russian cargo vessel off Haida Gwaii caused great panic amongst all of us who watched the events unfold over the past weekend. The seas were very heavy – not an unusual state of affairs for that part of the world at this and other times of the year.
For very good reason, the Haida Nation was extremely worried and upset about the developments. It looked up for a while is if they might have to deal with this themselves and, course, although they were prepared to use and sacrifice their own vessels, none of these were built for this kind of an emergency. Eventually, the chance intervention of an American tugboat got the situation under control.
During the time of this emergency, the story was covered regularly on the BBC and CNN, in addition to our own local news. It was a national and international news event. One ship! No accident! No oil-soaked beaches! No dead and dying birds!
What about hundreds of oil tankers?
This being so with one vessel in trouble off our coast – and far from the first – what are the risks when the number of tankers off the coast is in the hundreds, plus those coming out of Vancouver and Howe Sound? The risks involved are enormous. If one vessel, not carrying bitumen, can threaten this much damage and cause so much concern, consider that we’re bound to have that happen over and over again. The law of averages means we’ll have accidents. Indeed, the law of averages is that we will have accidents on an ongoing basis – as a group of learned fossil fuel transport engineers found after examining Enbridge’s plans.
In addition to tankers carrying bitumen from the Enbridge pipeline, if, heaven forbid, it ends up being built, we have the prospect of more tankers on the south coast from Kinder Morgan’s planned pipeline expansion to Burnaby. The very minimum number of extra tankers a year coming out of Vancouver will be 404 – more than one per day. In addition to that, there will be, if the LNG plant goes ahead in Squamish, another 40 tankers coming out of Howe Sound.
(Let me pause there for a moment. It has taken us 50 years to clean up Howe Sound after Britannia mines, pulp mills and so on. We now have salmon back, herring back, shellfish back, whales back – the whole recovery has been a near miracle made possible by the efforts of the people of British Columbia. Now all of this is jeopardized so that an Indonesian billionaire can make buckets of money providing virtually no employment and no money to the local community or the province.)
Accidents happen
The companies, of course, say that they have a great safety record and that they don’t think that anything will happen. Companies say this all the time and have hugely expensive public relations departments and outside agencies to help them disseminate that message.
The problem, is obvious – notwithstanding all of the optimism of the companies and governments, accidents will happen. You cannot have something in the order of 450 huge tankers a year coming out of the harbour of Vancouver and Howe Sound without having accidents – they are inevitable.
It is not just a question of an accident that we must concern ourselves with. If the accident is going to be a benign one, or one where very little damage is done, that’s one thing. The fact of the matter is that a serious accident to a tanker will be catastrophic. Remember the Exxon Valdez, which was carrying ordinary crude oil, not bitumen. As this incident and the Enbridge catastrophe in the Kalamazoo River teaches us, is all but impossible to clean up.
Kinder Morgan would change Vancouver forever
Like many of you, I have lived in the greater Vancouver area all my life. Many of you will have been here for a number of years; even those who have just arrived will know of the beauties of our harbour, the Salish Sea, the Gulf Islands, and the southern part of Vancouver Island. For the vast majority of us, this is why we live here.
I must confess to you that I have forgotten about the beauties of the many beaches in Vancouver itself. I have forgotten the joys I had as a child and then as a younger person using these beaches. I have forgotten how important these beaches are to tourism. I have forgotten how beautiful these beaches are and how much their very presence adds to the enjoyment of people who live here.
That’s the problem, isn’t it? We all become so familiar with the wonderful surroundings in which we live that we tend to ignore them. All of these things, however, when we think about them, become hugely important to us. And we are about to jeopardize all of that in order to transport highly toxic bitumen from the Tar Sands to the Far East.
Saving BC falls to provincial, local governments
We tend to forget that the ultimate responsibility for this rests with the provincial government. We have to pretty much forget the feds. It’s true, that they are the ones that will approve the pipelines but the provincial government and indeed local governments have a great many ways to curtail them while Ottawa – the Harper version – has no intention of doing so.
Let’s face it, the federal government is hopeless. They simply do not care. They go through the motions, always knowing what the results will be.
We know that the prime minister and his idiotic finance minister, Joe Oliver, have already committed to both the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan. They really don’t care what the National Energy Board, their poodle, says anymore than they care about what the people of British Columbia think.
While they are the ones we really ought to be petitioning, we know that’s hopeless. One only has to look at what BC Tory MPs are saying. Like the little pet parrotts they are, they all squawk the government line.
The responsibility rests with Premier Clark and her government. There are a great many things that she can do to stop both of the pipelines and any subsequent tanker traffic.
Premier Clark abdicates duty
Here is the problem – premier Clark and her government have no intention of doing a damned thing.
Why do I say that?
She is in thrall to foreign energy companies. All one has to do is look at their policy with respect to liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG plants contribute tankers just as pipelines do. In the case of the one proposed for Squamish in Howe Sound, there will be at least 40 tankers per year if we accept the company’s word. Though they may not be carrying bitumen, they are hardly without risk – and catastrophic risk at that.
World-Class rhetoric
I must confess that I am sick and tired of hearing about “world-class accident prevention” and “world-class recovery” after the accident that wasn’t going to happen.
World-class means absolutely nothing. They are two words intended to comfort us all without having any specific guarantee attached to them. They are just words without substance. Moreover, what we do know of as “world-class” isn’t worth a damn if we look at the results of tanker accidents around the world.
Moment of truth
We are coming, as a people, to the moment of truth. The National Energy Board – which incidentally won’t let you ask questions of their witnesses – will approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline. That having happened, who’s to stop 404 bitumen-laden tankers?
Now is the time we must let this provincial government know, in no uncertain terms, what we feel and the consequences we will visit upon them at election time if they ignore us.
Christy Clark is the premier of British Columbia, for God’s sake! She and her government have a sworn duty to protect us and the environment in which we live. Her obligation is not to LNG companies, or the tar sands or pipeline companies, nor to those who own the tankers, but to us, the citizens and the place in which we live.
Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)
By Erin Flegg – republished with permission from desmog.ca
At a time when B.C.’s politicians are considering flooding the Peace Valley for the Site C hydroelectric dam, a new project by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says the province could be sitting on a figurative gold mine of power with low environmental impact.
The project used publicly available data to produce a database of maps and supporting information that show all the areas in B.C.that have the potential to produce geothermal energy. The project reports that, using existing technology, the province could produce between 5,500 and 6,600 megawatts of power — enough to power the whole province.
Ironically, the information CanGEA used comes mainly from the oil and gas industry, which is required by law to report on things like well depth and temperature.
The tip of the iceberg?
Significantly, information is only available for 23 percent of the province, indicating that once data becomes available for the remainder of the province, the estimates for geothermal energy production should be even higher.
In addition to comprehensive data about conditions below the surface, the report also identifies areas that, based on surface characteristics, show promise. These areas are primarily in the northeast of B.C. where access via roads and other infrastructure are already in place, largely thanks to natural gas development. Factors like these diminish initial exploration costs, a primary barrier to commercial geothermal development in Canada, making it more economically viable.
Canadian Geothermal Energy Association chair Alison Thompson said the information conforms to the highest global standards for determining energy potential.
“We have over 20,000 data points. We actually have real date. These are not estimates, there is no extrapolation,” she said, adding the report and the maps will be useful to industry looking to conduct explorations for sites in B.C.
A sustainable alternative to Site C Dam
The proposed Site C Dam would flood or disrupt over 30,000 acres of prime farmland
“The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,” the panel wrote.
Geothermal power can be build out incrementally to meet demand, rather than building one big project like the Site C dam.
A firm source of renewable energy
Geothermal power plants provide a firm source of base load power, similar to a hydro dam. Dr. Stephen Grasby, a geochemist with Natural Resources Canada, says the environmental footprint of geothermal energy is smaller than other renewable energy sources, such as wind and hydro.
[quote]For instance, the surface area required to have developments like a wind farm, that takes a large surface area and has other associated issues with things like bird kill.[/quote]
Geothermal energy requires only a well and a heat exchange system.
“Drilling is relatively low impact,” Grasby said, adding with a laugh, “Worst case scenario is you accidentally discover oil or something.”
Drilling would be controlled by the same regulations that already monitor any kind of well drilling in the province.
Canada alone in ignoring its geothermal potential
Canada is currently the only major country located along the Pacific Rim’s Ring of Fire not producing geothermal energy. A Geological Survey of Canada report recently noted that northeast B.C. has the “highest potential for immediate development of geothermal energy” anywhere in the country.
The Site C joint review panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, that BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the engineering characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources, such as geothermal.
“If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation,” the panel added.
Erin Flegg is a freelance writer and journalist, and her work appears in the Vancouver Observer, Xtra West and This Magazine. She holds an MFA in creative writing from the University of British Columbia.
