Tag Archives: Oil and gas

Clark, Harper, Enbridge Taking Suicidal Risks With BC’s Future

Share

Today, because events are moving so quickly, a twofer for you.
 
First, Premier Clark is in one hell of a jam and it’s scarcely improved with a man who I bet left the inner staff of Attila the Hun to join with Madam Photo-op by name of Ken Boessenkool, who amongst other clients worked as lobbyist for Enbridge for two years! What the hell reason could she give for this kind of move?

This woman is out of control. She’s in a political hotbox like President Gerry Ford was when he took over the mess Nixon left him. In fact she’s in a box Houdini couldn’t have escaped.

She’s trying to distance herself from the disgraceful reign of Gordon Campbell and now finds herself in the midst of the worst environmental fight probably in history. The proposed Enbridge Pipeline and resultant tanker traffic is straight from the Gordon Campbell/Fraser Institute playbook and it isn’t working out quite like the Liberal advisors had expected. In fact, Clark is facing, and knows she’s facing a political storm that makes Bill Vander Zalm’s troubles look like a kid’s fight in a sand box.

The trouble is, the public is onto them. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that a rupture or spill is inevitable and that the word “risk” has been replaced by “certainty”. Clark has this problem: the project only has the support of the “right” and the pretty far right at that. This problem wasn’t seen by the likes of Patrick Kinsella and other handlers – it’s called believing your own bullshit.

The NDP, and, of course the Greens have staked out the “no bloody way” voters and you might think well, so what’s the problem?

It’s called The Conservative Party and John Cummins. Without them, Clark might have been able to hold all the non NDP vote and been able to hold on. I doubt that because the government is in deep doo doo on so many fronts. With the Conservatives in the picture it’s Adrian Dix’s dream come true. Not only is their enemy divided but he has a good chance with the voter who perhaps doesn’t like anybody very much but tends to vote right rather than left.

If Ms. Clark were surrounded by happy campers, perhaps the Libs could hang on. The cold fact is that she only had one caucus member who supported her leadership and because he was given a cabinet seat – and then screwed up – she has a nest of adders in her caucus, many of whom will be looking at their own ridings and grasping at the life saver as they jump ship.

The pipeline/tanker issue has Clark buried. She knows it’s a terrible idea for the province and the people but can’t say so because she’ll lose her supporters.

She can’t say yes without jeopardizing her election chances.

She’s apparently without sufficient courage to say “no” and say “to hell with the right”, inside or outside the party, run on that stance then say, “Mr. Dix, we both agree on the pipeline/tanker issue now lets get down to the issue of which party should run this province.”
 
She doesn’t have the jam to do that so even the faint chance of a May 2013 victory is all but gone.

————————————————————————————————————————

Secondly, let us get some things straight for the times ahead – there will be leaks and spills from the pipeline and tankers no matter how much trouble Enbridge goes to avoid them. We’re being asked to commit environmental suicide – by Enbridge, the federal government and, by strong inference, Premier Clark.
 
My old and perhaps late friend, Bud Smith, says we cannot demand perfection. The trouble is, that is precisely what is demanded from Enbridge and its tanker clients because anything less will permanently damage the world’s last great rainforest – it cannot be remedied.
 
The route Enbridge’s pipelines would travel is for the most part inaccessible except by helicopter, meaning that even if there were measures to fix an oil spill (there aren’t) there is no way it could be handled (see map below).

The proposed pipeline crosses several mountain ranges and nearly 1000 rivers and streams, including at least three major ones where hundreds of thousands of salmon spawn. This is a region which caribou, grizzly bears, other species of bear, including the rare Spirit Bear, deer and moose inhabit. It is, in short, an ecological treasure.
 
But let’s play along with Enbridge and let’s say that there is only a one in 100 chance of a leakage. Look at the map and see where that 1 in 100 is going to strike…are you going to gamble away our wilderness on these odds?
 
Forget about the environment for a moment and look at it as a cost-benefit analysis. Given that the leakage will come in a wilderness which will likely be only reachable by helicopter making any equipment for a clean-up out of the question, is the financial gain to BC worth this likely consequence?
 
This is a critical question, for the record is clear – you simply cannot clean up an oil spillage wherever it may occur.
 
The fact is, except for a few low paying white collar jobs there is no gain for BC. We are letting Enbridge use our wilderness to transfer Alberta’s toxic gunk to Kitimat to be shipped down our highly sensitive coast line to Asia and America. Does that sound like a good deal to you?

I don’t want to deal with economics here but simply the wilderness of the province of British Columbia.
 
We must understand that Enbridge has an unbelievably bad track record. Since 2002 their American subsidiaries alone racked up 170 leaks, and the company itself had a staggering 610 leaks from 1999-2008, including a 2007 explosion in Minnesota that killed two men and brought it $2.4 million in fines – this in addition to a 2003 gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 in Ontario. More recently there is the Kalamazoo River spill in July 2010 which will never be cleaned up.
 
I leave it thusly:
 
Is there any set of circumstances, other than an assurance of God Himself, under which you would approve any pipeline going through our precious wilderness?

Share

Groups Opposing Enbridge Worried They May Lose Their Charitable Status

Share

Read this story form The Globe and Mail about the fears some environmental organizations face of losing their charitable status as a punishment for speaking up against the controversial proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Jan 13, 2012)

Environmentalists are fearful that the Conservative government is planning to limit their advocacy role after Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained that groups flush with “foreign money” are undermining a controversial pipeline review.

Mr. Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver stoked activists’ fears in recent days by lashing out at environmental groups that have taken money from U.S. donors to build opposition to the $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry oil-sands bitumen to the British Columbia coast.

The Conservative-dominated Commons finance committee is set to begin a review of the charity sector, and several activists say government MPs have told business groups that the committee will look at the environmental sector’s transparency, its advocacy role and the flow of funds from outside the country.

PMO spokesman Andrew MacDougall dismissed as “speculation” the concerns that the government is targeting the environmental sector. He said Ottawa is focused on streamlining the environmental-review process so that groups can’t employ delaying tactics, echoing Mr. Oliver’s pledge to introduce new rules in the coming months…

…But John Bennett, executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, isn’t reassured.

“I’m quite convinced that we’re the next on the hit list of this government that doesn’t know how to find compromises but only bully people,” Mr. Bennett said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/foes-of-northern-gateway-pipeline-fear-revoking-of-charitable-status/article2298276/

Share
Team

EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government

Share

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.

It remains to be seen how effective these tactics will be with Canadians. Already there has been some surprising push-back in the mainstream media – from Stephen Hume’s shrewd analysis in the Vancouver Sun this week, to tough questions from CTV News and the CBC’s Evan Solomon (a must-watch) and Anna-Maria Tremonti (a must-listen) in recent weeks. At least some of the nation and province’s top political commentators aren’t falling for the Ethical Oil routine.

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.

Share

Why the Tar Sands are a Net Job Loser for Canada

Share

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 more: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/matt-price/canadian-oil_b_1180255.html

 

Share

Stephen Hume’s Must-Read Dissection of the “Ethical Oil” and Foreign Intervention Argument

Share

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.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Spin+cycle+pipelines+foreign+interests+hits+warp+speed/5970190/story.html

 

Share

Watch CTV Debate on “Ethical Oil”, Enbridge

Share

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)

Watch video: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120108/Northern-Gateway-pipeline-hearings-to-start-in-BC-120108/#ixzz1itu47dVh

Share
Enbridge's 2010 spill of over 4 million barrels in Michigan - still not cleaned up

Enbridge Admits There Will Be Spills

Share

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?

A good example of how Enbridge handles spills is found in the spill in July 2010 in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, a highly populated area. It took several days to get to the spill and in nearly 18 months Enbridge has not come close to cleaning it up!

In fact it’s not possible to clean up oil spills – the Exxon Valdes spill in 1989 is still not cleaned up.

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.

We simply cannot let this happen.

Share

Peter Ewart on Recent Enbridge-Ipsos Poll and Disinformation Tactics

Share

Read this column form Peter Ewart on Opinion250.com about the recent Ipsos poll for Enbridge claiming to show more British Columbians support the company’s controversial proposed pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Kitimat than oppose it. Ewart sets this poll within the larger context of a disinformation campaign in which Postmedia has played a critical roll – including its much criticized recent handling of the Gitxsan story. (Jan 6, 2012)

One of the aims of disinformation campaigns is to shake the resolve of people. And we are seeing ample evidence of this in the campaign to sell the Enbridge pipeline which, if constructed, will stretch across the lands and waterways of Northern BC and result in major oil tanker traffic in the ocean waters off BC’s Pacific coast.
 
Recently, an Ipsos-Reid poll, released exclusively to the Postmedia News chain, is alleging that, by a whopping 48 to 32 percentage, most people across the province are now in favour of the controversial pipeline. This poll, of course, was commissioned and paid for by the Enbridge Corporation. The results are almost the exact opposite of another poll conducted by the Mustel polling group in 2010 and commissioned by pipeline opponent group “Forest Ethics”. That poll showed a 51 to 34 percent margin against the pipeline. The gap between the two polls is stunning.
 
Nonetheless, despite the huge disparity in poll results, the Postmedia News chain was quick to punch out headlines such as: “New poll points to pipeline support”, as well as articles claiming that the poll could be a “game changer” for project opponents. For its part, Enbridge has issued a statement that the “new poll” will set a “’proper context’ for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.”
 
Share

Former “Ethical Oil” Chief and Conservative Staffer’s Mom Gets Plum Govt Appointment

Share

Read this story from Embassy Magazine on the recent appointment of former top federal Conservative staffer and Ethical Oil spokesperson Alykhan Velshi’s mother to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – which has led the Opposition to denounce the move as a patronage appointment. (Jan. 6, 2011)

The mother of a top Conservative staffer and former adviser to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is the newest member of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, raising opposition concerns over whether it was a patronage appointment.

Rumina Velshi recently retired from a decades-long career with Ontario Power Generation. She is the mother of Alykhan Velshi, a lawyer in his late 20s from Toronto, who made a name for himself on Parliament Hill over five years on and off as a Conservative staffer.

Most notably, he worked as Mr. Kenney’s director of parliamentary affairs and communications before the 2011 federal election. He defended Mr. Kenney on several controversial topics, including when the federal government blocked outspoken former British MP George Galloway from Canada in March 2009, based on what it believed was his support for the Palestinian group Hamas. Mr. Galloway later filed a lawsuit against Mr. Velshi and his boss, claiming that they had defamed him.

Read more: http://embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/top_conservative_staffers_mom_gets_nuclear_regulator_gig_01-05-2012

Share

BC Government to Review Fracking for Impacts on Human Health

Share

Read this story from The Globe and Mail on the BC government’s decision to launch a review into controversial oil and gas practices, including hydraulic fracturing and flaring to determine what impacts they may be having on human health. (Jan. 3, 2012)

The B.C. government has launched a review to determine if controversial practices by the oil and gas industry such as fracking and flaring pose a threat to human health.

“We want to do this so we can all have some peace of mind,” Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom said Tuesday.

Premier Christy Clark promised a review during a public meeting in Fort St. John last March in response to a question from Lois Hill, a hay farmer who lives on top of the Montney Shale gas field near Dawson Creek.

“It’s a start,” Ms. Hill said Tuesday. “We had asked for something much broader, but I’m hopeful that we can turn this into something we need to happen.” She wants a formal registry of residents who have suffered adverse health effects because of exposure to toxic gases. Some northeastern B.C. residents have blamed sour gas leaks, for example, for severe health issues ranging from cancer to depression, but it’s a link that industry has not accepted.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/bc-launches-review-of-oil-and-gas-industry-practices/article2290621/

Share