According to the Globe and Mail, Canadian Premiers are about to sign an agreement that would fast track pipeline projects. The 34-page-report describes how to deal with the opposition Energy East, Kinder Morgan, Northern Gateway and Keystone XL faced from environmental groups and First Nations. It suggests that red tape be cut down so decisions can be quicker. If the initial responses from community leaders are an indication, BC says NO to “Canadian Energy Strategy”.
Business as usual not good enough
“I was rather surprised to read the article and I question the urgency and rush. If there is a rush, it is that we diversify our economy instead of doubling down on an industry that is oversupplied globally,” said Green MLA Andrew Weaver.
“A document prepared for a premier’s meeting doesn’t come close to developing a national energy strategy,” says Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan.
[quote]If they want social license to move fossil fuel products, they will have to be much more inclusive and listen to the citizens of their provinces and territories. Business as usual just isn’t good enough.[/quote]
Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says, “The draft report appears to be outdated and out of step with both current oil market realities, and the strong opposition by most Canadians to building oil pipelines and expanding oil sands extraction without a view to adding value in Canada. Canadians are also clear about their unwillingness to put up with anything short of meaningful limitations on GHG emissions.”
“If what is being reported in the Globe and Mail is accurate, it is extremely short-sighted. We need a genuine shift in our approach to climate change, not some closed-door deal that is going to help the companies and not help the public,” said Bob Peart, Executive Director of Sierra Club BC.
She added that when constituents raise questions about pipelines or Climate Change, they should be adequately considered.
84 year-old retried librarian Barbara Grant getting arrested at Burnaby Mountain (Burnaby Mountain Updates/facebook)
Bob Peart found the way in which the premiers are trying to cut the voice of the Canadian public out of decision making process disturbing.
“Someone said to me the other day, historically we elected governments to govern and now all they do is rule. There is a difference between ruling and governing. Governments today rule and doesn’t give much room for citizen’s concerns to be put on the table.
“That means you have to yell and scream and build up a public wall of noise. Sometimes they listen to that, but they usually don’t, so you end up having to go to the courts or be like Burnaby Mountain and have people marching,” he said.
Federal election will test pipeline policies
Canada appears to be approaching a crossroads. It is not certain that corporations will continue to exercise the same degree of control as they have in recent years. Peart stressed the need for people to vote in the upcoming election.
“The studies are pretty clear – if voter turn-out is low it favors the right. Generally it is the progressive people who are discouraged and don’t vote,” he added.
“Canadians want and expect to have more say, and I think we will witness that voice during the federal election in October,” said Marc Eliesen.
Premiers could pay political price for pushing pipelines
Flanagan said the “Canadian Energy Strategy” originated with Albertan concerns about access to markets. It is important for premiers negotiating an energy strategy to hear that they “must also consider Canada’s contribution to the fight against Climate Change.” They have to realize “it is not politically advantageous for a premier to sign on to an agreement like this.”
Ex-Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas shaking hands with BC Premier Christy Clark in 2014 (BC gov photo)
Republished with permission from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Policy Note.
By Marc Lee
Last week, the BC government released the text of its Project Development Agreement with Pacific Northwest LNG (led by Malaysian state enterprise, Petronas), considered the front-runner in getting BC an LNG export industry. The agreement goes to the BC legislature this week in order to convince Petronas to make a “final investment decision.” There are still other barriers to this project going forward, due to First Nations rights and the province’s environmental assessment process. The project hit a major snag when the Lax Kw’alaams first nation balked at Petronas’ proposed site for its LNG terminal. Also, the Gitga’at first nation has just launched a legal challenge for not being consulted in the development process.
Where’s the money for BC?
As far as the Project Development Agreement goes, much of the concern raised has been that the BC government is locking in the tax and regulatory regime for 25 years into the future. Changes made by subsequent governments – to the LNG tax, a special tax credit on corporate income tax, the BC carbon tax, and anything else that would affect project costs – would essentially have to pay compensation to Petronas. It is understandable why Petronas would seek such provisions, as this is a low-margin industry, and without them the company could not justify laying down tens of billions of dollars in capital investment.
However, what’s most disturbing is that this is a massive privatization of a public resource, for which the people of BC will get very little in return. Let’s look at the numbers:
Asian LNG prices have plummeted over the past year
Phase one of the project would produce 12 million tonnes of LNG per year for export, with a second phase that could raise that to 18 million tonnes. The actual amount of gas extracted, however, would be about 25% higher because of the huge amount of gas that would be used to extract, process, transport and liquefy the gas into exportable product.
For BC, there are two potential sources of gains: the revenues to the provincial government; and gains in employment.
Public revenues for BC depend on what price Petronas is able to get for LNG in Asia, but prices for LNG have crashed along with oil prices. It costs about $10 per mcf (thousand cubic feet) to land LNG in Asia due to the high costs of liquefaction and shipping, whereas current prices in Japan, Korea and China are much lower ($7.45 to $7.85). So any company exporting BC LNG in the current market would be losing lots of money.
Petronas can benefit despite low prices
In spite of these horrible economics, it is possible that Petronas can justify paying a premium in order to secure supply over multiple decades, or its hope is that LNG prices will rise back to earlier highs. The initial hype for LNG was based on prices around $16, which seems completely unrealistic, especially given slowing demand for LNG worldwide, combined with lots of new (mostly Australian) LNG coming into the market.
So let’s assume landed price of $12, or about $2/mcf in profit, and 12 million tonnes (=576,000 mcf) of LNG exported per year. Based on that, over the 25 years of the agreement, the landed value of that LNG would be about $173 billion, and Petronas’ profit would be almost $29 billion.
Loopholes, slashed rates mean few export taxes for BC
BC lowered its corporate income tax rate for LNG to 8% so this would represent about $1.8 billion in corporate income tax over the 25 years. That said, this revenue may not be new money – the industry and government are now arguing that LNG exports are necessary to displace lost sales to the US.
BC also introduced a 3.5% LNG income tax, but allows companies to fully deduct capital costs before paying the full tax, a process that would take 8-10 years. This notably puts taxpayers on the hook for reduced revenues should there be cost over-runs (and this is an industry known for its cost over-runs). Over 25 years, BC would collect $600 to 700 million in LNG income tax assuming no cost over-runs.
A fracking operation in BC’s Montney Play (Damien Gillis)
Royalties are the other key revenue source. It is important to remember that royalties are not a tax, but the public’s share of the revenues for the exploitation of a public resource. In recent years, BC has been charging low royalties to keep production high, largely due to credits to companies for fracking operations. Those low royalties have averaged 7% per year, and assuming that rate over 25 years, this would amount to about $4 billion in royalties. A new royalty agreement with the proponents suggests these could be much lower, although it is hard to say how much.
Adding these together, BC would get about $6.5 billion in additional revenues over 25 years, or just over $200 million per year. Compare that to a provincial budget of $46 billion per year, and total provincial debt of $43 billion. There are also costs to the public sector associated with infrastructure, services and so forth, so we should really be looking at net revenues.
Revenues would go up if Petronas builds phase two, and its export capacity increases to 18 million tonnes per year. And prices in Asia could venture higher, thereby increasing corporate profits and BC’s share. On the other hand, I do not account for “transfer pricing,” whereby companies shift costs in order to minimize their global taxes payable.
Jobs in the hundreds not thousands
What about jobs? The Petronas environmental assessment application estimates a peak of 3,500 temporary jobs during the 3-year construction phase of the project. After that, only 200 to 300 permanent jobs. There would likely be some additional employment upstream due to increased fracking as well, but in total the job creation is very small given the size of the venture. And that’s assuming all of these full time jobs hire people who would otherwise be unemployed; if they just shift from another part of the economy the benefits are much less. In comparison, BC has 2.4 million employed people.
For all of the hype about LNG creating jobs and eliminating our provincial debt, these real-world numbers are underwhelming to say the least. Having campaigned on that hype in the provincial election two years ago, it appears our provincial government is willing to accept a bad deal over no deal.
Such large segments of the province’s population have made their opposition to the proposed Site C Dam known, that this has become a defining moment of our “democracy.” Premier Christy Clark appears to be willfully ignoring the will of the people. She saw fit to put Vancouver’s $2.5 billion worth of transit improvements to a vote, so doesn’t a $9 Billion dam – whose need has not been demonstrated – merit the same direct democracy? If her government truly believes it is acting in the public’s interest, BC should hold a plebiscite on Site C.
Many voices oppose dam
To a large extent, the people appear to have made their opinion known.
Richard Bullock, who was Chair of the supposedly “independent” BC Agricultural Land Commission until the government fired him so they could put in someone more obedient to their bidding, will be one of the speakers at this year’s “Paddle for the Peace.”
The Metro Vancouver board, which represents the majority of the province’s inhabitants, called for a two year moratorium on this project.
The First Nations Leadership council – representing the three biggest provincial First Nations leadership groups – passed a resolution calling on the Federal and provincial governments to halt construction while these court cases are in progress.
Treaty 8 First Nations are vehemently opposed to this project – having launched 6 legal challenges against it – as it would violate their treaty rights and flood or disrupt over 30,000 acres of their territory.
Even the retired Chair of the Joint Review Panel for Site C, Harry Swain, has raised grave concerns about the project and process by which it is being pushed ahead.
Premier won’t let courts decide
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip is among the BC First Nations leaders demanding a halt to Site C Construction (Damien Gillis)
Premier Clark is not willing to let the courts decide whether the government can legally break Treaty 8 and proceed with a project that many believe is against the public’s interest.
The recent press release announcing 24 “authorizations” for the project was accompanied by the hypocritical statement, “consultation with Treaty 8 First Nations began in August 2014 and concluded last month.”
Ms. Clark still has the option of taking this decision to the people with a plebiscite.
When push comes to shove
The people of BC also have a choice. We can either allow the government to proceed to trample the rights of its’ citizens or, hopefully in a non-violent manner, resist. Though Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, was speaking on behalf of First Nations in his recent press release, his comments apply to the democratic rights of all British Columbians:
[quote]If construction begins on Site C, it will be an obvious message that this government has deliberately ignored constitutionally protected Aboriginal Title, Rights, and Treaty Rights. The BC Government is hoping either Treaty 8 First Nations expend all of their energy and means to defend their territories in the courts or concede their rights for agreements that minimizes any benefits to Treaty 8 First Nations and absolves the government of any and all liabilities. UBCIC will always support Treaty 8 First Nations and if necessary I personally pledge that I will stand with the peoples of Treaty 8 and of the Peace Valley in front of bulldozers and dump trucks to prevent this project from proceeding.[/quote]
A culturally modified tree tagged by LNG contractors (Graeme Pole)
By Graeme Pole
Thoreau said, among other things, “…beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.” Aboard the BC Ferry Northern Adventure, departing Prince Rupert and bound for Haida Gwaii, I trained my camera on the southern tip of Digby Island, recording images through a liquid sky. Three months earlier, while our family had picked a route through hemlock, cedar, and beach logs on that island, we had encountered a team of “archaeologists,” meticulously scribbling notebook entries as they decorated ancient spirit trees with fluorescent yellow flagging tape. New clothes.
Madii-Lii Camp, a First Nations-led blockade of LNG pipelines (Chris Zazula)
Confronted with a red cedar far too massive to encircle open-armed, and draped with yellow plastic, our youngest daughter asked me that day why the flagged trees were so special. Her question was genuinely innocent. My impromptu reply surprised me for being as inspired as it was brief: “Every tree is special.” I withheld elaborating. I could not bear to unload on our then seven-year old, half a lifetime’s cynicism derived from matters environmental.
The bearers of that flagging tape, who had helicoptered to work from Seal Cove that morning, and who would helicopter home that afternoon, needed to document every instance of culturally modified tree on south Digby Island. This, so that Aurora LNG could comply with a tedious impediment to business, known as an environmental assessment process, before intending to proceed, with the blessings of governments, to utterly destroy the place.
Legions of “biostitutes”
As the Northern Adventure chuggedalong, I attempted to visualize Aurora LNG’s conceptual plans (three of them) for berthing facilities among the islets off the southeastern tip of Digby Island. Those berths would accommodate ocean-going vessels 345 metres long – ships that would load and transport a dangerous cargo closer to human settlement (Dodge Cove, Metllakatla, and Prince Rupert) than the LNG industry itself deems safe. How can anyone in Prince Rupert get a good night’s sleep anymore?
Lelu Island and Flora Bank (foreground) – site of controversial proposed LNG plant (Skeena Watershed Conservation Society)
Some contractor on the company’s payroll had supposedly done the fieldwork; had checked the soundings and the substrate, had given a cursory nod to wild species and natural processes, had deep-sixed concerns over risks to human life and to the circulating atmosphere of the planet, and had nonetheless drafted the plans. How much money does it take, how much take-home pay, to utterly pervert a person’s connection to place, to fresh air, wild things, and clean water; to permit a person educated in environmental science to say: “This will work. Build it here. We can mitigate. We can get to ‘yes’.”
I now agree with a sentiment that I initially had found repulsive: These people, doubtless well-intentioned at the outset, and now with diplomas and degrees now in hand, have become biostitutes. And there are legions of them, ATV-ing and helicoptering their per-diemed ways across the wilds of BC.
A bald eagle wheeled by. I watched the wind pummel the bird as it turned a wing skyward and fought to hold its track.
North of Hazelton
The Kispiox River, north of Hazelton, BC (Graeme Pole)
As Digby Island fell away to stern, a woman interrupted my silent lament, joining me at the starboard railing where I sought shelter from the rain under one of the lifeboat davits. She asked where I was from. “North of Hazelton.” Brief rain-soaked silence. “Beautiful country,” she replied. “My son has been working there for two years with an environmental company. Finding the best place for the pipeline to go.”
When we made landfall at Skidegate, Premier Clark and Petronas were the top story on the CBC Radio news. The Petronas board of directors had given Pacific Northwest LNG conditional approval. TransCanada Pipelines was already saying that it would begin, within six months, construction of the fracked gas pipeline that would supply the LNG plant proposed for Lelu Island in the Skeena estuary and, perhaps inconsequentially, wreck the place some 300 kilometres upstream that my wife and I had chosen to make home, exactly sixteen years ago.
No matter that the federal environmental assessment of Pacific Northwest LNG – the destination of that proposed pipeline – was still underway, with the principal concern being impacts to wild salmon. No matter that Madii ‘Lii Camp of the Gitxsan First Nation nobly shuts down a 32 km length of the proposed pipeline’s route on unceded territory. No matter that this one LNG plant would increase the province’s greenhouse gas emissions by 8.5 percent over 2012 levels, at a time when law states that the province must decrease those emissions by 20 percent from 2007 levels. No matter that the “clean” label of LNG is a lie – the lifecycle emissions of shale gas converted to LNG are 43 percent dirtier than burning coal to achieve the same BTUs.
Ex-Petronas CEO Shamsul Abbas with BC Premier Christy Clark
No matter that two of BC’s LNG proponents have atrocious environmental and human rights records elsewhere in the world. Sukanto Tanoto, president of Woodfibre LNG (proposed for Howe Sound), has been called “Indonesia’s lead driver of rainforest destruction.” In 2012 he was found guilty of US tax evasion and agreed to pay over $200 million in fines. Petronas has been accused of participating in “environmental genocide” in Sudan. (During her Asian LNG junkets, Premier Clark posed for photo ops with Tanoto and with Shamsul Abbas, then CEO of Petronas.)
No matter that the Blueberry River First Nations, in part seeking to thwart the upturn in fracking that the LNG industry would require, have filed suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia over the breach of Treaty 8 that the oil and gas industry has brought to bear on their traditional lands. No matter. No matter. No matter. A chaos of vain carts before a stampede of proud horses.
“Generational opportunity”
For northwestern BC, Premier Clark’s ”generational opportunity” of an LNG industry requires of locals – who have a storied history with the comings and goings of boom and bust industries – an acceptance of more new clothes. A plague of white pick-up trucks descends on the landscape while helicopters buzz overhead at the edges of human settlement, sometimes at rooftop level. People who live elsewhere deem what will be imposed on the landscape of home, and why, and that it will be good for all. Motels and truck rental companies have a brief field day. Communities grapple with the ethics of huge money being proffered them by the agents of corporations from afar, who, until the dossier was dropped on their desk, had no idea where Hazelton was, or Gingolx, or Lax Kw’alaams.
Environmental consultants pop up in empty second floor suites all over Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert, sometimes above the vacuous, street-level presence of their corporate employers. Smalltown main street becomes a meet-and-greet, “we are listening” playground for the denim and plaid, dressed-down suits of oil and gas corporations, domestic and foreign. And everyone knows that all these people want to do is to sell enough snake oil to allow the serpent to slither westward to the coast, to deliver its venom and devour a landscape, before it moves on to its next meal.
What money?
The provincial government claims that a billion dollars of taxable commerce has already taken place in BC’s new LNG economy. That’s a lot of leased trucks, hotel rooms, and restaurant meals. The revenue to the province (perhaps 70 million tax dollars) will not even begin to compensate for the government’s absolute giveaway of the methane resource. No net export taxes will be paid by LNG proponents until the capital costs of their projects have been recouped. The rate of levy then due the government will be less than you and I pay on a bag of potato chips.
Chevron’s Gorgon LNG plant in Australia (Chevron)
Petronas and the government forecast the corporate investment in Pacific Northwest LNG, its pipeline, and its fracking fields at 36 Billion dollars. The government cannot estimate its own LNG expenses already incurred, but to anyone who has lent even a cursory ear to the media, to the parade of announced pay-offs to First Nations, and to the glut of government-sponsored open houses, it is evident that the sum already far exceeds 70 million dollars. It is well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, with pledges to First Nations of $1.6 billion more over the next 40 years.
If the experience of the LNG industry in Australia were to play out in BC, there could be project cost overruns that approach fifty percent. Thus it would be decades after the first LNG shovels were put in the ground before the taxpayers of BC might see a nickel of return. Yet governing politicians continue to utter lies about the economic benefits of the industry almost nightly on the news.
Fear, distrust and grief
Going broke and dealing with a poisoned land are potential long-term fallout of the proposed LNG economy. In the present, nothing of lasting value has been created by its supposed billion dollars of activity. To the contrary, much of lasting harm has come to pass. Fear, distrust and grief have been bred in the hearts and minds of those who live on the land and who love it the way that it is, along with a sense of betrayal that is profound.
Gitxsan members blockade Highway 16 (Photo submitted)
How far will the people of northwestern BC bend before they break? How much crap are they willing to take from a governing party that they did not elect; from an industry that they did not ask to trespass in their home? How much longer can they live in a mythical land that is off-the-radar of those in other parts of the province, just enough of whom apparently thought that the BC Liberals were a good idea?
As I arrived in Queen Charlotte City and the radio news concluded, I could still feel the damp, the rain, and the wind of earlier that day, as Lelu Island had fallen to port. And I knew – damp or not – that the inherent condition of that intertidal realm would not be enough to prevent the ignition of northwestern BC in the coming social and environmental firestorm.
LNG as metaphor
From wellhead to waterline, and yes, even out to sea, LNG has become a metaphor for many things. Rendered to fundamentals, the proposed industry represents for BC and Canada a place of clear reckoning: Accept the industry, and nothing about how we care for the Earth will change at all, let alone for the better. Oppose the industry, and we buy time for the Earth, its people, and its wild species and natural processes while we (perhaps) collectively figure out less harmful ways and means to exist here.
Governments long ago, at the bidding of their corporate patrons, reached their sell-out decision points. Individuals from all walks are just now waking up to this. We will have to co-operate; will have to intend a different reality if a different reality is to come to pass.
Billions will drop at the slightest shaking from the money trees of industry and government. That’s nothing new. The takers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will take. Those opposed will fret and will hold their higher ground. The ocean will pulse twice daily on the shores of British Columbia, like a measuring heartbeat.
But beware. This will go on for but a while longer, until and if each of us takes on the new clothes that the Earth and the ticking times require.
Graeme Pole is a resident of the Kispiox Valley and the publisher of nomorepipelines.ca
Former Council of the Haida Nation President Guujaaw (left) and Heiltsuk resource management director Kelly Brown at last week’s peace treaty celebration in Bella Bella (Damien Gillis)
Three powerful coastal First Nations are banding together to protect Pacific herring – a marine resource integral to all of their cultures. The Nuu-chah-nulth of West Vancouver Island and the Haida today signed onto a declaration by the Heiltsuk Nation of BC’s central coast to defend herring against unsustainable commercial fisheries.
“Today, we have taken the first step in what will be a long and important journey,” said kil tlaats ’gaa Peter Lantin, President of the Haida Nation.
[quote]This declaration is a commitment by our Nations to collaboratively protect herring stocks using our traditional laws. Our success in implementing this declaration will benefit all British Columbians by ensuring the health of the herring, and by extension, every species that depends on them.[/quote]
Council of the Haida Nation President Peter Lantin standing in solidarity with Heitlsuk protestors outside of Canfisco – a key processing plant for commercially caught herring (Dan Pierce)
The signing comes amid the Assembly of First Nations gathering in Ottawa and on the heels of a seminal potlatch in Bella Bella last week during which the Haida and Heiltsuk celebrated a historic Peace Treaty between their two nations. The president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, Debra Foxcroft, joined in the festivities too, along with hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, each of whom vowed to work together to protect indigenous title and rights and the environment in the face of intense pressure for industrial development.
“For decades our herring have been overfished and mismanaged by the DFO,” said Foxcroft on signing the herring declaration. “The last two years have been particularly contentious. Just when it looked like herring in our territories were starting to recover, the Minister decided to open our territories to commercial roe herring fisheries in 2014, contrary to the recommendation of the Minister’s own senior staff in DFO to keep our territories closed until the herring recovered.
“The Minister acted on her own accord, and in doing so forced our Nations to go to court to protect herring in our territories…We seek a new way of doing business with Canada that will properly manage herring as they try to rebuild.”
While the Haida and Nuu-chah-nulth were able to halt planned commercial fisheries in their territories this past Spring through the courts, the Heiltsuk had to take to the waters and occupy the local DFO office to protect herring stocks. The result was an intense standoff, documented in these pages, which saw the gillnet fishery scrapped – but only after a stealth seine opening by DFO during which commercial boats scooped up 680 tonnes of herring from Spiller Channel in Area 7.
Even with the pressure of the DFO occupation and the backing of other nations like the Haida and Nuu-chah-nulth for province-wide protests, it was ultimately the lack of available fish that forced the gillnet fleet to depart empty-hulled – vindicating First Nations’ and independent scientists’ contention that a commercial fishery is unsustainable at this point.
Fighting for a sustainable alternative
Heiltsuk fisherman Jordan Wilson reels some unique “spawn on bough” roe (Ian McAllister)
The Heiltsuk and other coastal nations employ a sustainable fishery in which herring lay their prized roe on kelp and hemlock boughs, swimming free to spawn another day. By contrast, the commercial seine and gillnet fisheries capture and kill millions of herring just to harvest roe from a small percentage of mature female fish. “Our nation has a proven Aboriginal right to fish and harvest spawn-on-kelp and it is our responsibility to ensure this fishery remains sustainable,” explained Marilyn Slett, Chief Councillor of the Heiltsuk Nation.
“This Declaration provides guidance on effective legal and policy frameworks that will ensure that we, as stewards of our lands and waters, continue to protect our resources for future generations.”
The Heiltsuk are currently in negotiations with DFO for a co-management agreement that could help to ease tensions in advance of next year’s herring season.
The following letter was written by the Paddle for the Peace Planning Committee in response to an article in the Toronto Star which stated that events like the upcoming Paddle for the Peace (July 11th) were on terrorist watch lists.
Dear Editor,
According to the Toronto Star (March 30, 2015), the Federal government has included the Paddle for the Peace on a terrorist watch list. And here we thought we weren’t getting any attention. We are in good company, though. Also on the list is a physicians’ group opposed to child poverty, Mother Theresa, and a senior’s quilting group from Bugtussle, Saskatchewan. In an effort to save our government security agencies time, not to mention the Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money, we’d like to present a brief resume of some of the key players on the Paddle for the Peace planning committee. It is a rogues gallery indeed.
Retired primary school teacher Ruth Ann Darnell is the Chair of the Peace Valley Environment Association. She has been working to save the Peace Valley from Site C since the 1970s. Back then, Ruth Ann’s subversive activities were hampered by the fact the Internet was decades away from being created. After a long day of teaching five year olds to read, she just never had the time or energy to trudge down to the Fort St. John library to research DIY incendiary devices.
After teaching her sixteen year old son to drive, local children’s clothing retailer Danielle Yeoman knew she was one of those rare talents every ISIS recruiting officer dreams of discovering. She desired to really put her nerves of steel to the test. But her terrorist career was over before it was started when she learned those torso belts packed with explosives add at least six inches to your waistline. I mean really, there are limits to what a girl will do to support a violent fanatical cause.
When she was a little girl, Diane Culling dreamed of becoming a pot-smoking tree-spiker fighting to save the rain forests of the Sudan. Unfortunately she found the required cannabis consumption affected her fine motor skills. She kept hitting her own thumb with the hammer. In the end, she was forced to limit her mind-numbing activities to sitting through endless BC Hydro consultation meetings.
Local business owner Wendy Crossland’s membership application was regretfully declined when the Al-Qaeda executive realized she never stops smiling and laughing. They might be a blood-thirsty terrorist organization, but they do have some standards.
And then there’s Tony Atkins. He was in from the start and in it until his untimely death from cancer a few weeks ago. Educator, tireless community volunteer, virtual saint, and all-round asset to Fort St. John. He won’t be there in the flesh at this year’s Paddle, but believe me, he will be there in our hearts.
So, that’s just a few members of the notorious PPPC (Paddle for the Peace Planning Committee). There are others, but they’re like Voldemort – we don’t even say their names out loud.
To our friends at Canada’s spy agencies – I hope this helps. If you want mug shots and finger-prints please meet us at our rendezvous site on the west side of the Halfway River bridge on Highway 29 on July 11th. Bring a spare shirt in case you drip pancake syrup. And don’t forget your life jacket; because, after all, at the Paddle for the Peace we are all about public safety.
Across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Victoria, a brownish haze clings to the Olympic Peninsula’s shore. There are reports of ash raining from the sky in Vancouver, Salt Spring Island and Nanaimo. The sun was a reddish-brown color in Qualicum Beach. There are severe wildfires along the West Coast, from Alaska to California. There may be more than drought behind the fires: Is this Climate Change?
Heating up
“Climate change is producing hotter, drier conditions in the American West, which contribute to more large wildfires and longer wildfire seasons,” a 2014 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists concludes.
Some of the statistics:
“The western wildfire season has grown from five months, on average, in the 1970s to seven months today. The annual number of large wildfires has increased by more than 75 percent.
“The expense of fighting wildfires and protecting life and property from harm is nearly four times greater than it was 30 years ago and has exceeded $1 billion every year since 2000 (in 2012 dollars).”
What was once called California’s drought now extends from Mexico to Alaska.
So far, this has not translated into fire damage, though statistics on the Cal Fire website show more fires than at any other period during the drought.
Yet, as Cal Fire Captain Kendall Bortisser told NBC news, “The danger is always there. We’re not getting the rains, the fuels are dry, they’re volatile.”
Season starts early in Washington and Oregon
This is the second year of drought for Oregon, and it has now reached Washington state. Seattle, where the LA Times quips, “the sun does not appear before July 5,” has just gone through the hottest June on record.
The National Interagency Fire Center identified Washington and Oregon as two of the three U.S. states where, “the majority of the wildfire activity remains…” Fire season started “three to five weeks ahead of schedule” in the Pacific Northwest and many believe this is going to be the pattern for years to come.
“This is a stress test for 2070. We’re being tested now with the warmth and lack of snowpack that will be typical at the end of the century. How do we get through it?” asked Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington.
Alaska smashes records
There is a new record in Alaska. The previous one was set in June 2004, when 216 fires consumed 1,153,257.9 acres. On June 29, the folks at Alaska Wildland Fire information posted that 399 fires had already burned some 1,600,000 acres in 2015.
“In the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the country, with average temperatures up by nearly 3°F.” they wrote on Climate Central.
[quote]Alaska’s wildfire season is about 40 percent longer now than it was in the 1950s. The first wildfires start earlier in the year, and the last wildfires are burning longer into the fall. Overall, the wildfire season has increased more than 35 days and is now more than three months long, running from May through early August.
Rising temperatures across Alaska have been concurrent with the rise in the number and size of Alaskan wildfires. Years with the hottest May to July temperatures also tend to be years with the most fires, and the greatest area burned.[/quote]
BC’s firefighting budget already blown
BC fire fighters in action (August Gregg/Flickr)
According to the Globe and Mail British Columbia has just gone through the warmest winter and spring since 1948. Sierra Club BC says there hasn’t been a Spring this dry since 1937, and there is no rain in sight. A Level 4 drought rating, the highest on the scale, is in effect for southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands.
The province’s firefighting budget is already spent. This is not a problem in and of itself, because the province deliberately keeps the budget low to avoid trapping money that could be used elsewhere. Yet there are currently 184 active wildfires and 9 evacuation orders in effect. A provincial fire information officer told the Globe and Mail, “The fire activity we’ve been seeing and the fires of note, we usually see that in July-August, not May-June.”
Dr. Michael Brauer, professor in UBC’s School of Population and Public Health, said the fires are starting early this year. He hasn’t seen any quite as intense as yesterday, or early this morning, since Burns Bog was on fire a decade ago.
Smoke on the water
The haze at Qualicum Beach on morning of on July 5 (Roy L. Hales)
Driving home from a family gathering in Victoria on Sunday, I could not help but notice that the haze extended for hundreds of miles up the east coast of Vancouver Island, hiding the mainland from view. It grew stronger as we proceeded North.
There was a faint trace of smoke in the air at Heriot Bay, on Quadra Island. The stench became pervasive on Cortes Island, where it would otherwise be possible to mistake the incoming haze for fog.
There was a faint trace of smoke in the air at Heriot Bay, on Quadra Island.
The smell was much stronger by 4:30, when we returned to Cortes Island. A number of residents have confirmed that the smoke thickened around supper time. Two kayakers said they could no longer see across Squirrel Cove.
Dr Brauer explained yesterday in terms of two events. The Sechelt fire “looked pretty dramatic, but the air quality measurements at ground level were quite low. Then, late in the afternoon, around 4:00, is when things got really bad. I haven’t confirmed this, but it sounds like that is from fires near Pemberton.”
Someone traveling from Victoria to the Lower Mainland said the smoke didn’t seem to get bad until they got onto the ferry. Then it seemed like a thick fog on the ocean’s surface. It persisted as they drove to the Surrey-Langley border.
Haze could persist
As of 5 am on Monday morning, July 6, 2015, Environment Canada was predicting “widespread smoke” for the Lower Mainland, Greater Victoria, eastern Vancouver Island.
Later that morning, air quality advisories were “continued for Metro Vancouver, Greater Victoria as well as east and Inland Vancouver Island.”
The wind changed direction again later in the morning morning, and “appears to be clearing things out” of the Lower Mainland.
“There are fires in Washington state that may impact us if we keep having the wind come from this direction. Probably not today, but perhaps by tomorrow. Right now, the Lower Mainland is surrounded by fires on at least three sides, so even though this smoke might clear out we could get hit with some other smoke,” said Dr. Brauer.
Is this climate change?
Dr. Brauer does not believe you can “tie one event to Climate Change. We have evidence over the last twenty years, or so, that the climate has warmed and we are seeing fires start earlier and the fire season last longer.”
Sierra Club BC was much more assertive in their press release today, “With most of the summer still to come and no rain in sight, there have already been 843 fires, and 129,028 hectares burned. Climate and conservation scientists are predicting hotter, dryer conditions for British Columbia over the coming decades, with massive consequences for our forests.”
There are credible experts who believe that, with proper regulation and enforcement, it is possible to have a trustworthy fracking industry. They also say this does not yet exist in North America. Personally, I think the industry is out of control and BC’s government is desperate to get in bed with it.
Last week the government released a report from Ernst & Young (EY), based upon which Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman says, “British Columbians can have confidence they are benefiting from a clean, well regulated natural gas industry.” Does Ernst & Young’s LNG report vindicate BC?
Report ignores climate impacts of fracking
This “Review of British Columbia’s Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Framework” failed to consider some of the most serious issues of this debate.
LNG plants produce big emissions
The Review does not use the term “Climate Change” and only mentions greenhouse gas emissions as outside “the scope of their project.” The Oil and Gas Regulation “does not place limits on the fumes generated by hydraulic fracturing activities.” There is no discussion of the effect LNG development will have on the province’s emissions targets.
BC would have to build 5 LNG terminals would to achieve the scale Premier Christy Clark talks about. That could add 73 million tonnesof carbon pollution, which Sierra Club BC says is “almost 20% more than B.C.’s entire 2013 reported emissions” (i.e. more than a doubling of the province’s entire current carbon footprint).
Matt Horne, of the Pembina Institute says it might be possible to build one large terminal, or two small ones, and still keep our emissions in check – to which Jens Wieting, of the Sierra Club, responds, “Is it worth the gamble!”
Yet Premier Clark joined the “Under2 MoU,” whose members agree to “reduce their greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 95% below the 1990 benchmark by 2050, or achieve a per capita annual emission target of less than 2 metric tons by 2050.”
Secret fracking chemicals not addressed
Another serious limitation of the Review is its failure to discuss the fact industry is allowed not to disclose some of the chemicals it uses by branding them a “trade secret.” This topic was dismissed as falling under Federal jurisdiction.
According to a 2014 study from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Center, more than 100 billion gallons of waste water have been injected into the province:
[quote]Wastewater is not tracked after disposal” (and) the fate of this massive quantity of wastewater is unknown … We don’t really know what toxins were in the waste water, or how much may have leaked into ground water or surface water. … Wastewater from fracking operations can contain radioactive materials, toxic metals like lead and arsenic, carcinogens like benzene and hexavalent chromium, chemicals used in fracking and high concentrations of salts.[/quote]
According to a spokesperson for the ministry, companies must submit information about the chemicals they use on the FracFocus portal. This includes the “trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients, Chemical Abstract Service Number, maximum ingredient concentration by additive (% by mass) and maximum ingredient concentration in fluid (% by mass).”
Companies face penalties if they do not use FracFocus, but can withhold information about their trade secrets.
The Review said BC’s process is “comparable or better than other jurisdictions in chemical fluid disclosure.” This is true – the trade secret loophole is used through-out North America.
Abuse of short-term water permits
The Review does not deal with alleged abuses of back to back short-term water approvals. This allows companies to obtain water without going through the level of oversight connected to a water license. According to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell, more than half the water used for fracking in BC, is obtained this way. In many cases, gas companies are taking water from the same sources that communities rely upon. For example, “Encana draws millions of litres of water from the Kiskatinaw River” – a key source of water for Dawson Creek.
Eoin Madden of the Wilderness Committee says “no one is watching how much water is disappearing” and the losses are “in billions of litres.”
This could become even more of an issue as the West Coast’s drought spreads to BC, but Ernst & Young’s discussion is limited to mentioning that companies using short-term approvals must report their monthly usage.
Cumulative effects
One of the “opportunities” the Review identified is to “Consider cumulative effects by taking a broader view in planning future development. This approach can better protect against potential cumulative impacts, including environmental outcomes that may not be visible when using a more granular, activity-based process.”
See no evil, hear no evil
Ernst & Young put a high priority on the “development of appropriate requirements related to baseline testing and ongoing monitoring of surface or groundwater quality around production zones.” This “would provide an additional data to support results-based regulatory requirements and to monitor compliance.”
A related recommendation called for “baseline testing and ongoing monitoring of domestic water well quality around production wells.”
Amanda Frank, from the Center for Effective Government, gave a much clearer explanation:
[quote]You might have seen the film Gasland, where folks will turn on their taps and light the water on fire because of methane contamination, but unless operators have actually done pretesting of this water you really can’t say fracking did it. You might be absolutely sure, but you don’t have the scientific evidence.[/quote]
Texas landowner Steve Lipsky has sparked a battle over fracking and water contamination (image: Gasland II)
A spokesperson from the Oil and Gas Commission said he was only aware of one alleged water contamination incident, from the Hudson’s Hope area in 2012, and “the BC Oil and Gas Commission’s Compliance & Enforcement Branch which found no basis to indicate that hydraulic fracturing that had occurred in the area had any bearing on the water quality in the wells.” To which Calvin Sanborn, Legal Director the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Center, responded, “The politicians will tell you there are no confirmed cases of water contamination. That’s because they haven’t hired anyone to look.”
Shaking all over
One area where BC has done well is monitoring seismic activity. The report “Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Horn River Basin”(2012) documents 272 “events” that “were caused by fluid injection during hydraulic fracturing in proximity to pre-existing faults” between April 2009 and December 2011. Though most were too small to feel, the biggest was 3.8 on the richter scale. The report added that there were another 8,000 “high-volume hydraulic fracturing completions…with no associated anomalous seismicity.”
A second study, “Investigation of Observed Seismicity in the Montney Trend” (2014) reported 231 seismic events, ranging from 2.5 to 4.4, between August 2013 and October 2014. None of these activities resulted in injury or property damage.
Magnitudes increasing in Alberta
If this makes you nervous, consider that more than 400 oil and gas related tremors have been recorded in Alberta between 1985 and 2010, and fifteen of them had a magnitude greater than 3.5. There was a 4.4 seismic event at Fox Creek earlier this year.
Gail Atkinson, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Induced Seismicity Hazards at Ontario’s Western University, observed, “the magnitudes have been increasing every year.”
Oklahoma breaking seismic records
Damage from Oklahoma’s 2011 fracking-related earthquake (Brian Sherrod, United States Geological Survey)
Similar observations have been made in Oklahoma, where earthquakes were not common prior to 2009. A record of 222 quakes was set in 2013 and broken in the first four months of the next year. The tally was close to 500 by the time 2014 was over and now that record has been broken. There were 468 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater during the first four months of 2015. The state’s energy regulator called it a game changer when another 35 quakes of 3.0 or higher struck in the week of June 17 to 24. There were another 10 in the next three days.
The industry keeps telling us there is no cause for concern, these are are all minor events that cause no damage, but a study from the University of Oklahoma suggests otherwise. The state’s largest ever earthquake was a 5.6 “event” that struck Prague on November 6, 2011. Pavement buckled, 2 people were injured, and 14 homes were destroyed. Seismologist Katie Keranen believed it was caused by injection wells used by the oil and gas industry.
This was not a view shared by Oklahoma’s official seismologist, the Corporation Commission or the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers).
Ernst & Young gives BC fracking its stamp of approval
A fracking drill in BC’s Montney play
After reviewing British Columbia’s reports of seismic events, Ernst and Young recommended more data be collected so that the Commission could “better understand the behavior of hydraulic fracturing indifferent formations.”
“Overall, hydraulic fracturing is well regulated in BC,” Ernst and Young claim in their “Review of British Columbia’s Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Framework“. They 3 areas where the BC Oil & Gas Commission is “demonstrating leadership or particularly effective regulatory practice” and 23 “opportunities” for improvement.
Ernst & Young added, “None of the opportunities that we identified in the three categories constitute major failings of the regulatory framework, nor do we believe that there are any significant sources of risk that remain untouched by regulation.”
The report was published on March 3 and the provincial government waited until June 18 before releasing it to the public.
In the accompanying press release, Rich Coleman, Minister of Natural Gas Development, boasted:
[quote]This independent report confirms what we’ve been saying for years – British Columbia has a robust regulatory framework governing hydraulic fracturing. In fact, this is the second recent impartial review to find B.C. has a strong regulatory framework. British Columbians can have confidence they are benefiting from a clean, well regulated natural gas industry.[/quote]
I wonder how much the government paid Ernst & Young for this “independent” report?
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip is among the First Nations leaders demanding a halt to Site C construction (D. Gillis)
BC Hydro is intent on bulldozing ahead with Site C Dam construction in the coming weeks, despite seven different federal and provincial court cases currently in progress over the $9 Billion proposed project. That attitude is rubbing First Nations leaders the wrong way.
Hydro above the law?
The First Nations Leadership Council, comprised of the three big provincial First Nations bodies – the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the BC Assembly of First Nations – came out swinging Thursday in defence of the Treaty 8 First Nations whose land would be flooded by the dam.
“The provincial government seems to have tunnel vision when it comes to building this project. Pushing ahead with construction activities at this time is premature and dishonourable,” said Robert Phillips of the First Nations Summit political executive.
[quote]All citizens of BC should be deeply concerned; by denying the Treaty 8 First Nations their day in court, the government is making an outright statement that they are above democratic rights and the judicial system. This approach is unacceptable and an affront to the cultivation of constructive government-to-government relations between the provincial government and BC First Nations.[/quote]
Dawson Creek councillor: lawsuits are like a lien
The statement comes on the heels of a 30-day notice from BC Hydro that work on the project could commence as soon as July 6, regardless of multiple ongoing court cases. The revelation baffled Dawson Creek Councillor Charlie Parslow, who confronted Site C Community Relations Manager David Conway at a recent council meeting. Conway told council he expects these cases “will be ongoing through the early stages of construction.”
According to the Alaska Highway News, “Parslow said he was ‘shocked’ that BC Hydro is not waiting on the outcomes before putting shovels in the ground.”
“I would have thought it’s like buying a house,” he told the local paper.
[quote]You don’t own it until there’s been some research on whether the title is clear, that there are no liens against it. In my naivety I thought these lawsuits were like a lien against a property. I thought it would be an impediment to them clearing land and blocking rivers.[/quote]
Hydro, province up to their necks in lawsuits
Two of the cases are being brought against the dam are by local farmers and landowners, while another pair are on behalf BC Treaty 8 First Nations, with their Alberta Treaty 8 neighbours pursuing their own federal and provincial cases. A final case, brought by the Blueberry River First Nation of northeast BC, is a wide-ranging challenge based on broken treaty promises which threatens all future development in the region.
Crown shut down
A recent attempt by the federal crown to gut key provisions from the BC Treaty 8 case was rejected by the court. The next phase of that case goes to court this summer, after Hydro’s planned construction start.
Scarring the land and relationships
“The provocative activities that the BC government is recklessly trying to advance are irreversible, and will leave an irreparable and permanent scar on the land,” said UBCIC President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.
[quote]These deliberate actions will also indefinitely scar BC’s relationships with First Nations. If construction begins, it will be understood as a clear message that this government has absolutely no respect for the Treaty 8 First Nation people, and is blatantly disregarding constitutionally recognized Aboriginal Title, Rights, and Treaty Rights. Further, rushing ahead of the courts to build this project is an irresponsible and negligent use of tax dollars.[/quote]
The BC Treaty 8 First Nations leading these court actions are currently in the midst of a funding drive to support their legal activities. They have already raised over $50,000 towards these efforts, while their farmer neighbours raised well over $200,000 over the past year.
Resource Works ED and ex-Vancouver Sun deputy editor Stewart Muir (Resource Works – Flickr CC licence)
I am, as readers well know, a babe in the woods when it comes to matters of journalism. Ever naive, I read the papers in awe and know that all times they have my better understanding of affairs at heart.
Well then, imagine my horror when I found that my hopes and dreams had been dashed. I’m like that little boy seeing his idol, Shoeless Joe Jackson, arrested for cheating, mumbling through tears of disappointment, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” Here’s how it happened.
About a year ago, one Stewart Muir, for nearly 14 years the Deputy Managing Editor of the Vancouver Sun, founded an organization called Resource Works, stated to be an independent organization dedicated to bringing people together to come up with sensible answers to environmental concerns. (As the Duke of Wellington said when a man accosted him on the street with “Mr. Robinson, I believe”, “If you’ll believe that you’ll believe anything! “).
Now comes the part where, if you’re a believer in newspaper honour and ethics, you’d be wise to pour yourself a stiff drink.
Dangerous liaison
The first thing available to you when you “Google” Resource Works is a document called “About Resource Works“. It’s bright and full of pretty videos and even prettier statements about Resource Works. When you get to the bottom, it’s black as the inside of a goat with barely legible grey printing. Scroll down – make sure you have lots of light – and there’s a heading called “Partnerships”, which tells you, “We’re proud to work with a diverse range of partners“.
And who are these partners?
Under “P” just above RBC Royal Bank – are you ready for this? – none other than the Vancouver Province!
In the name of God, the Province, Resource Works, and by logical extension,Woodfibre LNG, are partners!
In short, Postmedia, which includes the Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the flagship National Post are shills fora highly controversial undertaking which we expect them to hold to account on our behalf!
This is a good moment to look at how a newspaper ought to behave, as outlined in the Pew Reseach Centre’s nine core principles of journalism:
[quote]While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favour. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers.[/quote]
I can’t imagine any publisher or editor arguing with the proposition that their papers cannot place themselves in a conflict of interest, real or perceived, any more than a Member of Parliament or MLA can. Remember the merry hell the media raised with then Premier Vander Zalm when he confused his role as premier with hustler of a theme park?
Industry gets easy ride from papers
Let’s look, then, at two environmental issues which have come to the fore since the Campbell government came into power in 2001 and see if we can spot a conflict of interest?
During that time, The Sun and Province each had a political columnist, Vaughn Palmer for the former and Mike Smyth for the latter.
First, a quick look back at Palmer’s columns during the NDP decade. He was thorough, critical, and accurate. He almost single-handedly brought down the Glen Clark premiership with his coverage of the fast ferry fiasco. I can’t think of any issue where the NDP of that decade got an easy ride from Palmer – nor, for that matter, should they have
Starting in 2001, Palmer changed from being a government critic to being only a critic of things that were not going to get his newspaper into trouble with the government or advertisers.
Example: Early in his regime, Campbell brought in a new energy policy which, with the exception of Site “C”, forbade BC Hydro from creating any new sources of power and gave that right exclusively to the private sector. This “Run Of River” policy is, far from being a benign as advertised, hugely destructive in several respects. Prominent economists added the concern that BC Hydro was losing buckets of money by being forced to buy private power at several times the cost of either importing or making the power themselves.
Private power play
This was a big election issue in 2009, every bit as egregious a sin, hell, far more egregious than the Fast Ferries debacle. There was the documented damage to rivers not just by dams (the private power people preferred “weirs”) but roads and power lines to the critical insect population, the resident trout that were seriously imperilled, as were spawning salmon, and thus gulls and eagles – a plethora of issues.
Palmer rarely covered this policy and when he did, it was usually in defence of it. For 14 years, Palmer and Sun editorials have spared the Liberals from a moment’s discomfort on this subject!
Palmer ignores troubling LNG facts
Fast forward to more recent days, the Christy Clark government and LNG. Clark, apart from making a horse’s ass of herself with promises of a hundred billion dollar Prosperity Fund, has displayed child-like indifference to the many serious issues involved.
Sukanto Tanoto (right)
For starters, wouldn’t you think that Palmer, would havethoroughly investigated the background of Sukanto Tanoto, the man behind Woodfibre LNG?
There are, of course, many other concerns about LNG, including fracking, transferring natural gas to the plant, converting it into LNG, and the hazards of producing it and loading it for transport. Again, one would’ve expected Mr. Palmer to examine this issue pretty carefully. To the best of my knowledge, he has not written a word on these problems.
Neither has Mike Smyth for the Province written much critical on these two enormous issues.
Why would these men avoid these two major topics. They are both skilled writers and it’s hard to explain their silence. Could they be under outside pressure? That suspicion certainly crosses the mind.
Postmedia sells journalistic credibility to oil lobby
Last year, the Vancouver Observer reported on a Postmedia presentation that outlined a content strategy including several Financial Post “Special Report” sections, with topics to be arranged by Postmedia and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The partnership also includes 12 single-page “joint venture” features in newspapers across the country. Those are different from “special reports” in that CAPP fully directs the topics and Postmedia writers just pen them.
This note from Douglas Kelly, the publisher of Postmedia’s National Post, may help explain these, ahem, corporate blow-jobs:
[quote]From its inception, the National Post has been one of the country’s leading voices on the importance of energy to Canada’s business competitiveness internationally and our economic well being in general. We will work with CAPP to amplify our energy mandate and to be part of the solution to keep Canada competitive in the global marketplace. The National Post will undertake to leverage all means editorially, technically and creatively to further this critical conversation.[/quote]
Now there’s “arms length” journalism for you! This helps explain the Sun and Province’s support for the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, opposed by many municipalities and citizens affected by the project.
A lucrative partnership
Resource Works and the Province have had a very profitable time as partners.
RW teamed up with the paper to produce a weekly feature on how important trade, industry and resource development are to the B.C. economy. Combining company propaganda and being partners, one can assume that the financial deal was very favourable to the Province.
Postmedia alum Muir gets lots of op-ed ink from his old employer
The Province also gave a similar podium to Resource Works adviser Dan Miller, who was briefly premier as the New Democrats imploded in 2000. Miller is a long-time resource industry evangelist and a consultant with PR powerhouse National Public Relations, which has Enbridge as a client. Partners, you see, are nothing if not loyal.
Clearly, Postmedia takes its obligation as RW’s partner very seriously indeed!
Did Resource Works doctor interview?
But could it be that despite all this, Resource Works is still telling us the true state of affairs?
Screen capture of alleged interview by Meena Mann (left) with Dr. Mike Hightower (right), which appears to have been doctored
To answer that, I’m going to poach on my own column, here, of March 15, 2015. I’m satisfied that it succinctly and fairly sums up the situation.
The Province and Sun haven’t uttered a peep of concern about the adequacy of Howe Sound to handle LNG tankers. Perhaps this has something to do with their partnership with their old colleague Muir and his Resource Works – d’ya think?
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 VancouverProvince (surprise, surprise!) 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:
“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.”
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.
Dr. Finn, aformer 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!
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.
Resource Works’ distortions continue.
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: “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.”
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!
Over the decades, I’ve seen unscrupulous people misquote judges but never have I seen a situation like this where the judge’s words were completely made up to suit!
Credibility gap
Surely, one’s entitled to conclude that this sort of dissembling, distortion, and outright misrepresentation colours all of the presentations of this outfit not to mention their partners, Postmedia.
What we have then is an organization, Resource Works, set up to deceive people and they’ve diligently done just that. They pretended initially that they were “independents” only trying to get a dialogue going between people but, as anybody who takes a glance at this issue would quickly confirm, this was barnyard droppings. RW is clearly a shill for Woodfibre LNG, plain and simple.
Part of this process of deceiving the public comes in what Resource Works does not say. It’s interesting, for example, 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?
To make matters much worse – and the purpose of this column – is that one of the largest media corporations in Canada is involved up to their ears in this sham – I nearly said scam – and no longer can make any pretence at providing independent information for its readers. It’s like a clock that strikes 13 – you can never trust it again.
Is that overstating the matter?
I think not.
Circling the drain
By their own clear admission, Postmedia is in deep financial trouble, laying off and buying out huge numbers of employees. Their stated reason is lack of advertising revenue. Does this affect their reporting of what advertisers, current and potential, are up to? Does it impact on how they report on governments supported by those advertisers? Has it made it attractive enough for them to ignore time-honoured journalistic ethics and make unholy alliances? These thoughts are bound to occur to one.
When you read nothing from either the local paper’s political commentators on the downside of the Woodfibre LNG proposal, given that Postmedia’s a partner, does it not immediately occur to you that something’s strange here? Here’s an issue which may bring down the Clark government and both Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth, political commentators, are apparently not interested!
Can we trust anything concerning LNG when it appears in Postmedia? Can they be trusted to fairly presentopposition to Woodfibre LNG? What are they not reporting?
My father used to say, “Rafe, don’t believe everything that you read in the newspapers.” I change that advice to my children and grandchildren by saying, “apart from the comic strips and possibly the Obituary Page, don’t believe a damn thing you read in the newspapers!”
Unless, of course, you believe in the Easter Bunny, think slot machines are fair and are interested in buying a bridge I have for sale.
