Read this story form the Washington Post, which reports that Obama is expected to reject the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline today. (Jan. 18, 2012)
The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.
However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline.
The various spokespeople for supposed “grassroots” pro-Tar Sands and pipeline organization EthicalOil.org have steadfastly maintained their campaign has no connection to the oil and gas industry or the Harper Government. But as the links between these groups continue to pile up, that contention becomes harder and harder to swallow.
I witnessed conservative pundit Ezra Levant debut his “Ethical Oil” concept when he came to Vancouver to debate the Wilderness Committee’s Ben West in late 2010. The premise Levant laid out at the Rio Theatre – essentially, that bitumen from Canada is the “fair trade coffee” of the world’s oil supply because this country has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia or Iran – was being parroted soon thereafter by newly minted Environment Minister Peter Kent.
The synchronicity of talking points between Ethical Oil, Enbridge, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (the oil and gas industry’s official lobby) and the Harper Government should be our first clue that these entities are working together on some level.
“Ethical Oil” didn’t just spring from nowhere – it was carefully conceived in the manner of major advertising campaigns and the work of Republican strategist Frank Luntz (who coined “the death tax” in order to push lower estate taxes, and encouraged the Bush Administration to re-frame global warming as “climate change”, for instance). In fact, what we are presently witnessing around the Enbridge debate is the full-force implementation of American-style political campaign tactics – where everything is built around a single, simple concept – like “socialist” Obama-care (right!), “tough on terror”, or Orwellian distortions like the “Patriot “Act – which, no matter how illogical, gain traction through relentless, monosyllabic repetition, delivered via the triple threat of corporate media, government and corporate-backed lobbies, “think tanks” and pr firms.
The parallel messaging extends to the notion of “foreign meddling” in the National Energy Board review of Enbridge’s proposal, now underway. The contention – from both Ethical Oilers and Stephen Harper, Industry Minister Joe Oliver and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty – is that because some large US philanthropies are donating money to campaigns in BC opposing Enbridge’s proposal, the decision making process is being “hijacked” by “radical environmentalists” fronting for American interests. I won’t go into this argument any further – for Stephen Hume and Terry Glavin of the Ottawa Citizen have both nailed the subject in their columns this week. The main point I wish to make is the extraordinary parity of messages coming from two entities that allegedly have no connection.
We don’t know where Ethical Oil’s funding derives from – it’s certainly not from $10 grassroots donations! – but here’s what we do know about the connections of this organization and its spokespeople to the federal Conservative government:
1.Ezra Levant is the former publisher of the conservative magazine the Western Standard, author of the book Ethical Oil and host of a political talk show on the Sun News Network. He is also the man who stepped aside for Stephen Harper in a 2002 byelection in Calagry Southwest so that the new Alliance Party leader could win a seat in parliament. Levant was apparently reluctant to do so at first, but eventually ceded to public pressure – thus doing a big favour for the future Prime Minister.
Prior to that bit of political gallantry, Levant had a long history of campaigning for key Reform/Alliance candidates. According to Wikipedia, “While he was a student-at-law, Levant was an active political organizer in the Reform Party, and guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer (as the campaign manager for his nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona and later as his communications-director during the 1997 Federal Election) and Rob Anders to win party nominations. In 1997, he went to Ottawa to work for the Reform Party, becoming a parliamentary aide to party leader Preston Manning and being put in charge of Question Period strategy.”
Mr. Levant has also worked at both the right-wing Fraser Institute and the Charles G. Koch Institute – a think tank sponsored by the Texas oil billionaire family which is one of the leading financial backers of both the Republic Party machine and the oil lobby.
2. Levant resigned his duties as EthicalOil.org spokesperson soon after he launched the book and website, handing the role over to one Alykhan Velshi. A 29-year old lawyer, Velshi has been a top Conservative staffer for a number of years. He served as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s director of parliamentary affairs and communications until the 2011 federal election. Prior to that he worked for then-Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird.
In 2011, Velshi briefly left the Harper Government to lead EthicalOil.org, only to return to Parliament Hill in late fall 2011 as the director of planning for the Prime Minister’s Office, no less.
Mr. Velshi’s mom also recently obtained a plum appointment by Industry Minister Joe Oliver (he who dismissed Enrbridge’s legions of opponents as a handful of environmental radicals in a recent open letter) to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Opposition was quick to slam the hire as a patronage appointment. NDP MP Charlie Angus told Embassy Magazine, “There are a lot of credible engineers out there, but there’s not a lot of credible engineers whose sons are closely tied to the prime minister, Jason Kenney, and their ethical oil campaign for the tar sands. This is another case of who you know in the PMO.”
3. Mr. Velshi handed off the Ethical Oil baton to a 26-year old conservative law student at the University of Calgary named Kathryn Marshall this past fall. According to the Ottawa Citizen, it turns out Ms. Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Harper’s former strategic planning manager.
Watch Marshall get slaughtered by Evan Solomon on Inside Politics (note how Ms. Marshall refuses a dozen times to divulge whether her organization is bankrolled by Enbridge – if you still believe the Ethical Oil argument after watching this, I’m afraid you’re beyond help):
It is also worth noting as an aside that former Conservative minister David Emerson is today helping the Chinese buy into the Tar Sands. In 2009 Mr. Emerson became a member of the International Advisory Council for the Chinese Investment Management Corporation, which recently purchased an $801 million stake in Tar Sands properties near Peace River, Alberta. This on top of a long list of major recent Chinese investments in the Tar Sands. And of, of course, Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently revealed that it was one of 10 companies which ponied up $10 million each to sponsor Enbridge’s campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline – some of the others we know about are major multi-national players based in Europe and the United States. Talk about foreign intervention in Canadian pipeline politics!
You can bet the Ethical Oil crew and Harper Government will carry on with the exact same talking points and revolving door connections, all the while maintaining the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.
It’s all just a big coincidence.
And if you believe that I’ve got some pond-front property in northeast Alberta you might like to buy.
Read this piece in the Huffington Post Canada which makes the case for why, despite all the rhetoric about jobs from the Tar Sands, Canada’s oil economy actually costs us more jobs in other areas. (Jan. 5, 2011)
Just because something is a bit complicated, it doesn’t mean you can ignore it, especially when it’s hurting you.
And yet, this appears to be the case with the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the past several years — 627,000 by one measure — mostly in Ontario and Quebec where these jobs have historically existed.
The phenomenon even has a name already: “Dutch Disease.” Canada now has a bad case of it, yet you won’t hear the government in Ottawa talk about it, since that would run counter to its blinkered agenda of accelerating the strip mining of Northern Alberta to push more oil through pipelines to China and America.
The term “Dutch Disease” was coined in the 1970s after the Netherlands discovered a large natural gas field. The country’s exchange rate became tied to the rising price of natural gas, pricing its manufacturing goods out of international markets and leading to job losses.
In 2011, the Canadian dollar traded on average above the U.S. dollar for the first time since 1976. This puts an extra burden on Canadian companies who export, since it makes their products less competitive versus products from other countries.
Read this outstanding piece by Stephen Hume in the Vancouver Sun, dissecting the argument from the Harper Government and oil lobby, which alleges “foreign billionaires” are unduly influencing the opposition to Enrbidge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline and influencing the National Energy Board’s review of the project. (Jan 9, 2012)
EthicalOil.org, founded by conservative gadfly Ezra Levant, adopts this argument, declaiming against “foreign puppets” like West Coast Environmental Law, Alberta’s Pembina Institute and others challenging expansion of oilsands development, transportation infrastructure and diversified global markets for synthetic crude. Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on the bandwagon, claiming that foreign money seeks to subvert Canada’s regulatory process.
American foundations have donated about $300 million to such organizations over the last decade or so, therefore these groups must be part of a sinister conspiracy by Americans seeking to influence Canada’s policy agenda.
But wait a minute, if this crude nationalism applies to a few environmental groups, shouldn’t it also apply to other organizations that receive funding from “foreign billionaires?” Enbridge, for example, says it has organized about $100 million in backing from oil industry interests, some of them foreign-owned corporations. Are they trying to hi-jack the regulatory process?…
…The Fraser Institute reports nine per cent of its funding from non-Canadian sources — about the same amount of non-Canadian funding reported by the Pembina Institute — although exactly who the foreign donors to the Fraser Institute might be isn’t listed in annual reports. However, according to a report by Greenpeace using U.S. sources, some comes from American foundations. Another puppet?
Shell Canada, Imperial Oil, British Petroleum Canada, Ultramar Fuels, Enbridge, Sinopec International and so on are all owned and controlled offshore. Are they puppets of foreign billionaires?
If foreign control is a genuine concern for EthicalOil.org, should it turn its attention to Canada’s oil industry? More than 35 per cent of all the assets and more than 40 per cent of the profits from oil and gas extraction and related activities in Canada are under foreign control.
Watch this video from CTV, featuring a discussion with federal industry minister Joe Oliver and a lively debate between representatives of First Nations, environmental groups and the organization “Ethical Oil.” (Jan. 8, 2012)
Enbridge is proposing two pipelines to Kitimat BC to take Tar Sands gunk (more politely “bitumen”) to tankers who at 300 per year will take it to China as is, or to the United States for refining, thence China.
Today I want to deal with the pipelines only. The horrible consequences of tankers on our coast are for another column.
First off, there is no question that there will be leaks and that any leak will be serious and in a remote area. The lines will cross over 800 rivers and streams, all fish bearing – three of which are important salmon spawning rivers.
Two questions arise. When there’s a spill somewhere in the heart of wilderness, how long does it take to find it and, once found, what can you do about it?
The answer is you don’t know and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Here is the interesting point – in their promotional materials, Enbridge expressly admits that there will be spills because they talk not of eliminating leaks but of “managing” them.
That last line is critical because it’s Enbridge’s confession that they cannot prevent spills – in fact the confession is certified by this release called Enbridge Line 6B Response, wherein Enbridge talks about “risks”, opening with this:
Because of their location and the products they carry, pipelines may come in contact with water, bacteria and various chemicals, all of which can corrode steel. Both the interior and exterior of the line are potentially subject to corrosion. We combat [not eliminate – my comment -RM] corrosion by:
using high-quality materials and anti-corrosion coatings
scheduling regular monitoring and inline inspections to check for corrosion
scheduling excavation and repair programs identified by inline inspections
using cathodic protection (a low level electrical current) to inhibit corrosion of underground pipelines
using modelling tools to predict corrosion growth rates along pipelines
using inline devices known as “pigs” to clean and inspect pipelines from the inside
using specialized corrosion inhibitors within the pipeline to address internal corrosion”
Thus the candid admission that there will be spills.
Under Managing Stress Corrosion and Cracking, Enbridge says:
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a crack initiation and growth process that can occur in steel pipelines. Research has shown that SCC is caused by a number of factors, including pipe material, stress and the environment surrounding the pipe. SCC typically occurs on the exterior of the pipe. This type of cracking has the potential to penetrate the steel and cause a pipeline break.
You will note that there is no action to eliminate stress corrosion
.
Under Setting Leak Reduction Targets And Performance Goals: ”
We believe that pipeline safety and reliability begin with prevention. This means recognizing conditions that have been known to cause failures in the past – then working to minimize the risk.”
Again, Enbridge does not talk about eliminating the “risk” but managing it!
This release confirms what The Common Sense Canadian has been saying all along: spills from pipelines are not “risks” at all but dead certainties.
There is more to it than this. Throughout the debate there has been no mention of outside causes such as terrorism or vandalism. Think on that a moment – 1070 km of dangerous Tar Sands gunk over a wilderness area and no one is considering these threats!
If there is a leak from any reason, how does Enbridge respond? How do they find the problem and once having found it, how do they get to it? Moreover, how do they get heavy equipment to the site, and once there, what the hell do they do about it?
No matter what is said, and by Enbridge’s confession, Pipeline ruptures cannot be stopped but are dead certainties, the only question being the damage done. In our case, by the nature of the location the resultant spills will create appalling, ongoing and long-term consequences.
Read this report from The Washington Post on the Chinese state oil giant’s purchase of 100% control of the MacKay River Tar Sands project – the first time a Chinese company has done so. (Jan 2, 2012)
China will take over full ownership over a Canadian oil sands project for the first time after Athabasca Oil Sands Corp announced Tuesday it sold the remaining 40 percent of the MacKay River oil sands development to PetroChina for US$673 million.
The deal continues a trend that has seen China’s state-owned oil companies invest billions of dollars in exploration or production ventures in Canada, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.
But China’s state-owned oil companies have preferred to take non-operating or minority stakes in oil sands projects in Canada until this latest deal.
The deal does not need the approval from the Canadian government under the the Investment Canada Act.
Athabasca had previously sold PetroChina a 60 percent stake in two oil sands projects, including MacKay river, and the possibility of the Chinese taking over full ownership was included in that deal and approved by the Canadian government.
Read this interesting story from The Globe and Mail regarding the key geological challenge facing TransCanada’s controversial proposed Keystone XL.
Boiling sands are areas where sandy soil is so thin that groundwater can
bubble up through it to the surface. In Nebraska, they are found in the
Sand Hills, an ecologically sensitive region of grass-covered dunes
underlain by a giant freshwater aquifer, called the Ogallala, that
sustains agricultural production down the centre of America.
For TransCanada, Nebraska would come to form the heart of a fierce
opposition to a $7-billion pipeline project that has now been put on
hold, after a groundswell that started in Cornhusker country swept
through activist environmental groups to Washington, D.C…
…TransCanada saw the Sand Hills as any pipeline builder would – as an
engineering challenge, one that could be managed with special
construction techniques and a tailor-made plan, drafted after speaking
with local experts, to rehabilitate unearthed land.
But as TransCanada developed its Keystone XL plan, the world was changing. (Dec. 24, 2011)
I must say I was surprised to see that Conservative leader John Cummins supports the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat and I have since wondered if that would impact the NDP, the Liberals, both – or anyone.
John has never been strong on complicated issues and I wonder if he realizes that by supporting Enbridge he is also supporting tanker traffic? This may come as a surprise, nay shock, to Mr. Cummins, but it’s like the old song, “you can’t have one without the other”.
Perhaps Mr. Cummins has forgotten that Enbridge would cross 1000 rivers and streams, including 3 major salmon spawning rivers. Or does he have trouble with geography and thus is unable to trace these rivers into the Pacific Ocean thus doesn’t think there are any salmon around?
I wonder what’s next? Will we soon have a statement from Mr. Cummins that he favours fish farms as long as they do it right? Will we see him embracing his old Tory comrade, John Duncan, who is the only politician I know who likes fish farms and a man Cummins heartily disliked in his previous life?
Mr. Cummins has long had trouble with First Nations, especially in the area of fish – does the fact that First Nations oppose Enbridge and tankers account for the Tory leader’s decision?
I can’t see this announcement affecting the NDP one way or another – their goal remains namely getting 40% of the popular vote.
Maybe this shows that the same old whacko right-wing bunch still controls the unhappy band of no-hopers called the BC Conservative Party and that Cummins fooled people like me who thought he had a bit of decent Red Toryism in him.
————————————————————————————————————————–
In other matters, I followed much of the Cohen Commission and it seems to me that one thing has been clearly established: the fish farm industry has been obstructive in the extreme, withholding evidence and lying through their teeth.
Here is the meat of the matter – hundreds of thousands of penned fish provide a huge number of hosts to become infected and thus create a huge aura of disease that migrating salmon must go through. Be it viruses or sea lice, the fish cages become so infectious that wild fish passing them can’t help being stricken. In other words, migrating salmon can deal with lice and disease when it’s in the normal quantity – in nature’s balance – but they haven’t a chance passing fish cages.
The Cohen Commission has exposed a corrupt industry that puts money far ahead of moral obligation. It does more than that, for when you analyze them alongside other industries in the environment, they demonstrate beyond doubt, whether you’re talking power, mining, extracting, transporting product – none of them gives a damn about the environment. Corporate Responsibility is an oxymoron.
What truly makes one want to throw up are the ads these lying bastards display and the shit that pours from their flacks. The news media that take their high priced ads and give endless free space for the flacks are beneath contempt.
Hard as it is to believe, the politicians are even worse. There’s Premier Photo-op in her year-end review saying that she will wait for all the evidence to come in before dealing with pipelines and tankers.
What evidence to come in? Another Kalamazoo spill from Enbridge? Another Exxon Valdez? Some help with basic arithmetic showing how leaks and spills are not risks but downright certainties?
You can measure the Campbell/Clark governments concern about our cherished environment and all within it by comparing it to the concerns of large corporations – except it’s worse, for the corporations have no morality, while the governments hold our possessions in trust; they have a solemn moral obligation to the voters.
To say they all have the morals of an alley cat does a grave injustice to cats.
Read this blog from the Natural Resources Defense Council, detailing how the forced inclusion by Republicans of a requirement for President Obama to make his decision on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline in 60 days may very well amount to a Pyrrhic victory, forcing Obama to kill the pipeline altogether.
NRDC responded by calling out the inclusion as nothing but a political ploy. My colleague Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, issued the following statement:
“Special interest riders do not belong in legislation designed to
help the American people. Republicans took the payroll tax-cut extension
bill hostage and delivered a year-end bonus to Big Oil. The president
went along in order to save hard-working Americans from a tax increase
on January 1, 2012. We get that.
“But with the Republicans forcing the president’s hand, he will have
no choice but to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as not in the
national interest.”
The President said last week that he would not accept the inclusion of the pipeline tacked on to the tax extension legislation.
Yesterday evening, a senior Administration official made it clear the
President intends to stand by his statement. In a Reuters piece
entitled, “Obama backs tax deal but pipeline now in doubt”,
the senior official is quoted saying that Republican insistence means
the pipeline ”almost certainly will not be built” because the President
has made clear that he will not approve the pipeline without time for an
adequate review of the health, safety and environmental risks.
This
view was echoed by Senate Democrats. Senator Schumer, commenting to
Bloomberg News, said that the inclusion of the provision was a “Pyrric victory” for the Republicans because the President won’t be forced into a decision. (Dec. 17, 2011)
