Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring is a Priority for Albertans

We Albertans own the oil sands.  They are becoming increasingly concerned about how this vital resource is being developed in our name.  There is a very clear set of priorities to guide and drive the development of the oil sands from the values research Cambridge Strategies has done in conjunction with the U of A based Oil Sand Research and Information Network.  

Environmental monitoring of oil sands development is one of the top three most important value concerns of Albertans.  Reclamation and habitat protection are the others followed by greenhouse gas emissions and water usage.

It is encouraging to see the federal and Alberta government getting together to address this concern.  The disgraced provincial water monitoring approach of oil sands has been abandoned.  Now we see the federal government pushing ahead with the announcement of a $20million Lower Athabasca Water Quality Monitoring Program.

The Alberta government is now effectively engaged in this ecological monitoring responsibility now as well and in collaboration with the federal government and industry.   Environment Minister Rob Renner acknowledges that the environment is a shared constitutional responsibility with the federal government saying some monitoring will be fed lead and others will be a major Alberta responsibility.

This is very encouraging but we need this work to be evidence based done by independent expert scientists.  We must keep all politicians in all orders of government out of the processes and reporting.  We need open access to the data and peer reviewed reporting of findings as well as full disclosure of the implications of findings and recommendations that come out of the water monitoring.

We can't trust the politicians not to interfere with this work for political purposes.  We also can't trust industry to self monitor or to control the environmental monitoring agenda. This water monitoring has to be done collaboratively between governments and in conjunction with industry.  That seems to be the case now and I am most encouraged by how this is coming together between the two orders of government and the involvement of industry.

Travis Davies of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers speaking on behalf of the industry hits a few key points going forward saying: "We are happy to be judged by good science.  We think it's a very important piece of where we want to go, which is long-term, responsible development."  (emphasis added)  CAPP goes even  further to properly frame the water monitoring initiative saying "We're certainly willing to pay our share, provided that governments collaborate and that the final product is effective, efficient and avoids duplication." (emphasis added again).

I am not a big fan of those who think government should be run more like a business.  They are very different animals and government is more often more complex than most businesses.  That said, I add the emphasis in the CAPP quotes because they underscore some necessary lessons governments can learn from the oil sands business. I applaud the CAPP emphasis on science based, long-term approach to responsible development done with an collaborative, effective, efficient approach that avoids duplication by governments.  I also add a caution to avoid gaps in the monitoring approach too.  That was a major problem with the former discredited Alberta water monitoring work.

Albertans should be pleased with this new approach to ecological monitoring by governments and industry.  We overwhelming believe (89%) that the oil sands are important to our future prosperity.  We don't trust federal or provincial politicians to manage this resource responsibly.  We strongly believe (87%) that industry must be held responsible for any ecological damage it does from oil sands development.  About 2/3 of Albertans accept some degree of federal role in the oil sands.  So this collaborative inter-governmental ecological involvement in oil sands will not offend Albertans.  But some actions and attitudes by government approach to oil sands development will offend us.

The entire field of ecological monitoring of the oil sands has to be done independent of government and industry interference and with a long-term view not tied to any investment interests, political agendas or election cycles.  The duty to ensure responsible development of the oil sands is a shared function of the federal and provincial governments along with industry.  Albertans own this vital resource and we need to ensure it is exploited in a integrated responsible way. We need to see oil sands developed with an integrated economic, environmental, social, political and cultural perspective, not just jobs and investment.

We need to look at governments as our property managers and industry as our contractors to grow the wealth from this asset.  We need to make all of them accountable to the greater good of all Albertans, including future generations, not just shareholders, bankers and other economic stakeholders.  There is a lot of fixing that has to be done to return the confidence and pride of Albertans about oil sands development. The joint effort this water monitoring heralds is a strong and positive step in the right direction.

Peter Kent Steps In It Over Oil Sands & It Will Stick to Him

UPDATE:  Here is another link to the Saturday Globe and Mail on "Harper's Oil Sands Muse" that supports my concern in this blog post.

Here is a very important story out of the Hill Times about Minister of the Environment Peter Kent that is worth reading and reflection.  It is about the simplistic opening comments by Peter Kent the newly minted Harper Minister of the environment.  Mr. Kent is a seasoned and competent journalist but as a politician, not so much.

It appears that the primary briefing book for Mr. Kent in his first foray on to the Harper front benches was Ezra Levant's oil sands book "Ethical Oil."  The Hill Times story says Mr. Kent was staking out his position on oil sands to align with the uber-conservative Mr. Levant before he even considered the larger picture of the challenges and opportunities inherent in the oil sands.  Don't get me wrong, Ezra's book makes a good point but one that is insufficient to justify free market unfettered development of the oil sands.  Being the best of a bad lot is not good enough. Geopolitical issues around oil production and marketing are significant to Albertans and Canadians.  But that does not absolve Albertans as owners of the oil sands from our responsibility to be concerned for the environment, social, habitat and other consequences of oil sands development beyond getting rich quickly.

I am a big fan and supporter of oil sand development but recognizes we can and must exploit this resource more responsibly and in so many ways.  I have no problem with the Minister of Environment quoting from books written on themes within his jurisdiction. Might I suggest (by way of shameless plug) that he also read Green Oil by my business partner Satya Das or Peter Silverstone's "The World's Greenest Oil" for a broader deeper understanding of the problems and positive possibilities of responsible and innovative oil sands development.  Full disclosure, I published Green Oil. I admire the initiative of super-citizenship Dr. Peter Silverstone.  He is a psychiatrist who takes time to be an active Albertan and is one person who realizes his personal responsibility as an owner of the oil sands.  By writing his book, he has shown what engaged informed citizenship really is all about and what a difference one person can make.

So why would a guy with Mr. Kent's credentials, experience and journalistic ethic be caught taking an obvious  pre-emptive political strike position in his new portfolio that is purely ideological and tactical?  Why would he be caught commenting the way he has on the oil sands before having the advantage of a full briefing on the topic?  why would he not give himself a chance to grasp the complexities and nuances of his portfolio, especially relating to oil sands?

Is this a cost of doing business that if you want to sit in the Harper Cabinet, you have to toe a line?  Is this just the most recent example that a Cabinet Minister's Job #1 in the way Harper rules is about pursuing political positioning and running roughshod over any aspiration of good governance?  Was that homage to Ezra's "Ethical Oil" the price Kent had to pay to be in Cabinet?  Was this the initiation test of his allegiance to the Prime Minister and a condition of his appointment?  Makes you wonder what other explanations there could be for such a misstep by a sophisticated experienced journalist must know a thing or two about abuse of power.

Good government is always good politics.  Pure politics is hardly ever good government.  I wonder if this kind of political push by the Prime Minister for propaganda over policy is the real reason the former Progressive Conservative Jim Prentice prematurely quit politics. We will never know but we ought not to be so naive that we don't consider that as a real possibility.  Sad isn't it!

Mr Kent first utterances has to be a serious disappointment to the oil sand industry too.  His political  and governance missteps may impact his future in the next election but so what.  Politicians are notorious for thinking short term and for personal political advantage. Industry, however, has billions of long-term dollars invested.  They are at risk over volatile prices, world-wide recessions, environmental policy uncertainty and the rise of alternative energy sources.  Uncertainty and risk management are facts of life for the oil sands industry, now and well into the future.  They also realize the depth and breadth of their struggle to justify their social license to operate in this complex social, economic, ecological and political culture.

The oil sands industry, like politicians, are charged, tried and convicted in court of public opinion.  Industry  has more at risk as I see it.  There is an allure of short-sighted expediency but they realize they have to take a more complex world view in what they do and how they do it.  Industry must take a long-term perspective to justify the large up-front investments and taking on inherent duties like reclamation.  That is a complex current responsibility but decades away from being delivered and that is even more uncertainty.  The oil sands operating culture is more complex and controversial than superficial gamesmanship artificial chaos of power politics that we see as core characteristics of too many of our so-called political "leaders."

Being cozy, co-operative and collusive with the federal and provincial governments has worked for the industry up to now but it is an obviously mistaken and insufficient industry strategy going forward.  My work with the industry tells me they get this.  They are adapting appropriately, and cautiously, to appeal directly to the citizens as owners of the oil sands as they attempt to justify their social license to operate and exploit this valuable resource for the benefit of employees, shareholders, suppliers, citizens and future generations.

My betting is behind industry to do the right thing on their social license sooner than later. Unless we change governments or our government change their political culture I despair that they will ever do the right things for the right reasons in the right way at any time soon.  Citizens have to insist that our industry tenants and our government property managers start doing a much better job of serving the greater good and not just serve their self-interests as they develop our oil sands property.  Time for Albertans as owners to raise the expectations bar on themselves too. We have to get better informed, effectively active and unshakably insistent that the oil sands development is done right. After all it is all being done in the name of Albertans and Canadians.

What Do Albertans Expect as Owners of the Oil Sands?

There is a PR and spin battle going on for the hearts and minds of the public over oil sands.  The battle is between the Government of Alberta the oil sands industry and some segments of the ENGOs (Environmental Non-government Organizations.)

The prime targets are Albertans, Canadians, businesses outside of Alberta who benefit from oil sand development and key American politicians who are fixated on a “dirty oil” message around the oil sands. The tactics being used to various degrees by all contestants are paid advertising and PR spin. 

We see the ENGO tactic of Corporate Ethics International paying for bill board advertising in a four select US cities calling for a “Rethink” of traveling to Alberta due to our so-called “dirty oil.”  There were some significant factual errors about the size of oil sands mining operation in the Corporate Ethics messages. It became a game of “he said - she said” generating more heat than light about the reality of the oil sands.

But there are other media motivated manoeuvres being employed by ENGOs.   Just yesterday Greenpeace performed another one of its publicity stunt and will get a bunch of media coverage as a result.  They hung a banner from the iconic Calgary Tower and message was “Separate Oil and State.”  Two protester wearing Premier Stelmach and Prime Minister Harper facemasks were chained to oil barrels with “Dirty Oil” written on them.  Eight of these Greenpeace protesters were arrested and that will give the story some legs in the media.

We see the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers running magazine and television ads using real people involved in oil sands technology, research and reclamation in an attempt to get an authentic human connection to the industry efforts to justify their social license to operate.

The Stelmach government is launching another quarter million dollar newspaper advertising push to “tell the world about the oil sands.”  Early indications are these ads are aimed at Albertans and Canadians and if that is the case that is hardly “telling the world.”  The recent rejection of a Letter to the Editor by Premier Stelmach to a Washington DC newspaper resulted in the purchase of a half page ad in that paper to run the letter as a way to get the message out to key US politicians.  Last time the Alberta government launched a paid advertising campaign on the oil sands it earmarked $25 million dollars glossy advertisements.  There was also some misleading in the content and context discovered in the campaign and it was quietly abandoned.

That is all by way of background for what I really want to talk.  If you want to connect with the hearts and minds of the public you should try to find out want is on their minds and in their hearts first.  Then you should talk to the public about oil sands matters that concern them.  There is a need for a conversation between government and industry about the responsible and sustainable development of the oil sands.  After all it is Albertan’s who own the oil sands.  

But are paid advertising campaigns anything close to a “conversation” with the public.  The paid advertising approach is often seen as self-serving one-way messages to the public.   There is a place for paid advertising in communications.  But in complex matters like oil sands development advertising alone is no substitute for substantial, authentic, accurate, clear and resonant conversations with the public.

So what is it about oil sands development that the Alberta public is concerned about?  What information do they want?  What do they believe ought to be the values used by decision makers as their oil sands are being developed?  How confident are they in the decision makers in government and industry about oil sands development?  At Cambridge Strategies we have designed and deployed a random sample survey with 1032 Albertans to get at what is on their minds and in their hearts about oil sands development. 

I will be doing more blog posts on this in the future but for now I want to delve a bit deeper into a survey finding that was reported in the Edmonton Journal today under the headline “Many Albertans Onside with Gov’t Handling of the Oilsands.”  It is very difficult to take a statistic and isolate it from the larger context and write a meaningful headline that also grabs attention.  So I will temper my criticism because while the headline is accurate I am not sure it really captures all the implications and essence of the findings.  That requires a bit more reflection and interpretation. 

There were some survey questions that were attitudinal and not part of the value choice questions in the conjoint study.  So they are more like opinion polling questions and relate to a moment in time only.  The value choice conjoint questions on what Albertans believe should guide and drive policy decisions on oil sands development are a more reliable source of what people want and expect over time for oil sands development.

Here is a more comprehensive look at how “onside” Albertans are with the government handling of the oil sands.  

The question asked was:  “The Alberta government is responsibly managing the oilsands.”  The response was:

•                 Completely Agree                                           6%         
•                 Agree                                                            25%
•                 Slightly Agree                                                 34%
•                 Slightly Disagree                                             17%
•                 Disagree                                                         13%
•                 Completely Disagree                                         5%

While there are more Albertans who agree (31%) than disagree (18%) with how their government is managing the oil sands there is a more interesting and significant factor in this answer.  Look at the mushy middle opinion.  Over half of Albertans slightly agree or slightly disagree with this statement.  These people are fluid and more undecided in their opinions.  If they move in one direction or another, that will have enormous impact on our attitudes as owners of the oilsands.  It will have consequences for politics, elections and social licenses for industry to operate in the oil sands – which is a public property.

What is it that would make Albertans in the middle group move one direction or another?  If the hearts and minds of 51% of Albertans are up for grabs what would influence them to shift one way or another about how they feel their government is doing in terms of responsible management of the oil sands.  This is not a minor issue because the survey also found that 89% of Albertans believe the oil sands are either Extremely Important (47%) or Very Important (42%) to Alberta’s prosperity.

Another serious influence on this question is how much confidence Albertans currently have in the political leaders and parties who must make public policy about what constitutes responsible and sustainable oil sands development.  That result is also in the Edmonton Journal story but it needs to be more directly related to the first question.  Again this must be looked at in terms or a possible trend. 

The question was: “Who do you trust the most to responsibly manage Alberta’s growth.”  Premier Ed Stelmach of the Progressive Conservative Party was at 23%, Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Alliance was 19%.  David Swann of the Liberals was 9% and Brian Mason of the NDP came in at 4%.  The largest segment was None of the Above at 45%.   This indicates some potential for change in Alberta politics but there is not viable political alternative in the minds of most Albertans these days.

There is great deal more opinion related results in the survey and they are published at the Edmonton Journal Notebook Blog too.  It is important to review them all and consider the implications as whole and not just individual questions.

                 

The CAPP Oil Sands Survey - Is it Informative or Misleading?

Yesterday the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) released two opinion polls on the Alberta oil sands and said the results gave “…the oil sands industry a candid perspective on the views of Canadians on the development of the oil sands.”


The CAPP new release quotes Imperial Oil CEO Bruce March saying “Canadians are telling us that we need to do better. We have received a clear message: the economic and energy security benefits of the oil sands cannot come at the expense of the environment.” Here! Here!

HAS THE OIL INDUSTRY HAD A CHANGE OF HEART?
I applaud the effort of CAPP to better understand what sustainable and responsible oil sands development means. The hearts and minds of the project developers may be coming around and the attitudes may be changing from the arrogant and threatening approaches they assumed in response to the Royalty Review Panel proposals. They even when over the line so far as to sponsor an Astroturf website on the royalty issues back in the day.

There is good work being done by some enlightened oil sands developers that on mitigation and some even on prevention of environmental impacts but it is late coming and sporadic, to say the best.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLING IS AS MUCH ART AS IT IS SCIENCE
I am not a pollster or a statistician but I am a student of public opinion and public policy. But boy-oh-boy the process, content and presentation of the CAPP surveys shows that they still have lots to learn about being clear, transparent and accountable when they do public opinion research reporting.

We sponsor a lot of research for clients of value drivers on public policy issues and we know how much of an art it is. Read the great piece in the Globe and Mail over the unreliability and huge “margin of error” in the monthly Stats Can unemployment report. Heather Scoffield’s piece entitled “Extremely Influential, Notoriously Unreliable” says it all but read the column for an in depth review of this reality.

IS THIS JUST A "PR" EXERCISE?
Is this poll and its release just a communications exercise? The language of the news release indicates it is more than just PR but the process, results and the lack of rigour (to put it politely) in the presentation makes CAPP's intentions suspect.


Here are some of the difficulties I have. The methodology shows that we do not actually have a survey of “Canadians” as the news release touts. We have a barely adequate same of 425 Edmontonians in one instance and 429 Torontonians in the second survey. While Torontonians may presume they speak for Canadians. As an Edmontonian, I can assure you we share no such presumptions. CAPP knows better.

The small sample size means the margin of error is very large, 4.8% and there were two different time frames for each survey. Edmonton was surveyed in the first half of June and Toronto was done later in the month and into July. This difference in timing could make them two very different and non-comparable survey results.

What if 500 ducks drowned in oil sands tailing ponds mid June and not in April? That would impact and change the opinions of one survey to the next. Obama was campaigning on dirty oil and Dion was into his Green Shift in June of 2008 and there was lots of media happening. Why didn't they survey both cities at the same time? And why did they only do two cities and not a national survey? beats me.


PRESENTATION OF RESULTS LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED
The presentation of the pie charts doesn’t show the data used to calculate the charts. They also say the results are the “mean of the first and second represented.” Why did they do that and why use means? Providing the actual numbers would be so helpful to reassure that this presentation is accurate and representative.

The Public Policy Priorities question is framed around the “next federal election” and the “next provincial election.” Why would they tie the question to a federal election that is not contemplated or even wanted and provincial elections are a long way off in Alberta and Ontario?


Why not just ask what are your public policy priorities and not politicize the question if you are look for authentic data? Tying it to and hypothetical election means the dominant answer is going to likely be “Other/No Opinion.” That skews the results and its usefulness. Take out the “Other /No Opinion and the top three are consistent as Economy, Healthcare and Environment. Note Climate Change is separate from Environment and #4.

The findings on the “…greatest environmental concerns about the oil sands activity in Alberta” are essentially the same as we found in our Discrete Choice Modeling survey done in November 2006. The top 2 value drivers in our survey were Habitat Protection and Carbon Emissions. They were followed closely by water use and reclamation concerns. Only about 25% has no concerns or no opinion. CAPP finds does not even ask about tailing ponds and reclamation in its survey which was done 2 months after the drowning of 500 migrating ducks in a tailing pond. Why not, given the timing? It was news all around the world.

The Bar Graphs in the CAPP presentation uses a typical technique that can mislead and even go so far as to misrepresent the data. The “Y” (vertical) axis usually is presented as a 100% scale. That way there is a sense of relative opinions between alternative answers and the overall impact of the results. CAPP never uses 100% in its “Y” axis presentation and that gives a skewed appearance to the data.

They top out their graph presentations at 60%, 50%, 45% and40%. On the very last question, the biggie about if people think it is possible to balance economic benefits and protect the environment they use 70%top scale. They had to because the results showed 60% of Edmontonians and 50%+ (we are not sure of the exact number based on the presentation) agree this is possible.

Not using 100% on the “Y” axis can be seen as a “slick” presentation technique. Not doing the “Y” axis consistently in the presentation is even worse. This does nothing to help provide clarity and consistence and meaningful representation of the data. Again the lack of the actual numbers used to calculate the graphs is an omission that is irritating at least.

I know of some of the great science-based environmental work some individual oil sand developers are doing. I want to give CAPP and the oil sands industry generally the benefit of the doubt but they don’t make it easy.


I will deal with the implications of the findings of the survey in more detail in a later post.