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.

Syncrude Sued over 500 Dead Ducks in a Tailings Pond

The world of oil sands development just got a lot more complicated today. Ecojustice launched a private prosecution against Syncrude Canada this morning over the tailing pond drowning of 500 migrating ducks last April. This event has become symbolic about the ecological concerns around oil sands development, and tailing ponds in particular.


The action is under the Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act that prohibits deposit of harmful substances in areas frequented by migratory birds. This action is aimed at Syncrude but also targets the Canadian and Alberta government on issues of enforcement of environment protection legislation. Both governments promised to pursue the environmental legal issues at the time of the ducks drowning from the residual oil in the tailing ponds.

A recent science-based study on oil sand impact on migratory birds was released by Alberta’s Pembina Institute, the Boreal Songbird Initiative and the Natural Resources Defense Council based in Washington D.C.


The potential long term impact of oil sands development on all migratory birds in the Alberta portion of the Boreal Forest ranged from 6 million to 166 million bird lost in a 30-50 year period, depending on the pace and nature of oil sands development.

This new legal action launched against Syncrude is supported by Sierra Club and Forest Ethics. Forest Ethics are the same folks who effectively took on the Canadian forestry industry a decade ago with the famous full page Victoria’s Secret ads in major American newspapers.

The accusation being made against Alberta and Canada governments are the long delay in prosecuting the “wildlife disaster” of the 500 dead ducks and enforcing the law. The reasons for the legal action expressed by the sponsoring ENGOs is wildlife and human health concerns all around the tailing ponds and oil sands development practices.

There is another Alberta government study in process and pending release on concerns of human health in the aboriginal populations in Fort Chipewyan, down steam from the oil sands. There is no indication when that human health study will be completed and released publicly either.

At a recent meeting in Edmonton with experts and industry dealing with oil sands tailing ponds an industry spokesperson suggested that the solution for the toxic tailing ponds would be to clean up the water and release it into the Athabasca River.

These stewardship and environmental issues on oil sands development are getting more complicated and more energized as time goes on. In our November 2007 research we polled 4600 Albertans on their values about oil sands development. We found the most important issue of concern was habitat protection. CO2, water usage and reclamation were also major concerns from our study. The drowning death of 500 ducks has most of these elements gathered together in one tragic and resonant event.

Stay tuned. With Obama’s environment and economic transformation agenda, this drama has only just begun.

Media Layoffs Threaten Journalism

With the layoffs in MSM and the decline of journalism will the blogosphere mature enough to help fill the gap? Most political bloggers I know do it for free...not without bias - but that is usually obvious and stated up front.

We bloggers don't usually break news. We respond and comment on the stories in the MSM for the most part. Can bloggers become more like professional journalists? Should we? I think No and No!

Blogging is not professional journalism...but could it be an alternative in the hands of some well trained and dedicated folks? But doing it for a living? I admit blogging is good for business but my business is not blogging. I don't see an workable business model for blogging...or am I missing something?

That said, where will be get authoritative, authentic and informative news if the MSM as well know it disappears?

Uncle Jay Explains: Jan. 5, 2009

Monday's suck. But Uncle Jay and his Monday explanation of the news are a little bit of sunshine in a cold and dark winter's day. Insightful and funny. Enjoy

Believing is Seeing in Politics and Life

The very quotable Marshall McLuhan once said “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.” We are all subject to this subjectivity and selectivity in how we allocate our time and attention and our opinions. We will also tend to ignore new information or contrary data that does not fit our preconceived notions, beliefs and opinions.

WARNING! This is a longer post than usual...so relax and reflect with me for a few minutes.

Reading Lorne Gunter’s column in the Edmonton Journal this morning gave me a chance to reflect on just how this can work. Lorne is a noted columnist of the “right” persuasion and a fan of conservative policy and ideology. When you read him you can clearly see that frame of reference. What was interesting me this morning was to consider what he sees when he looks at certain events and what he concludes from them given what we know about his political beliefs. This is not unique to Lorne. We all do it but we should all try to be aware of it and try to be open to other points of view. Especially if you are trying to run a country with a minority government.

The Conservatives think they unconditionally won the last election. But they do not have a majority and therefore have to learn to govern with a compromising consciousness. Unlike the last Parliament, they now have to accommodate enough opposition objectives or they risk defeat. This is a bitter pill for Harper to swallow. His recent FU Canada (Fiscal Update) showed that he not only gagged on the bitter pill of policy compromise and political accommodation, he damn near choked on it. As a result he enabled and emboldened a Liberal–NDP coalition that was ready, willing and able to defeat and replace him. Harper cut and ran to the Gov Gen and begged her to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote he was destined to lose.

In that context I read the Gunter’s piece and about what he sees and seems to believe about Ignatieff and the coalition. To reinforce McLuhan’s comment, I offer some of my own believing is seeing observations on the same issues and events. I too have a filter and a lens through which I view the world. Go figure.

THE COALITION IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE COALITION!
Lorne’s piece invites us to “…assume the coalition is dead (and 99.9 percent is)” and that “...Ignatieff is keeping the possibility of a coalition alive rhetorically because without the threat of the coalition toppling the Tories…the Liberals’ bargaining position would be greatly weakened.” “It is not…in Ignatieff’s interests over the next three to six months to keep the collation alive.”

It seems both wishful and wistful thinking to invite us to assume the coalition is dead. There is still a signed agreement outlining it terms and conditions of the coalition and how it would operate. In that sense it is very much alive and full of political potential. Its sole purpose is to be a threat to topple the Tories, and then govern, if necessary. If the Tories don’t govern like a respectful minority government there will be a non-confidence vote to turf them. The coalition may not form the next government as a result of defeating the Tories. What if the GG decides there should be an election instead? Given that possibility, the coalition is hardly a "power grab" by some opposition political leaders as Harper's hype would try to sell us.

Besides, this possibility of a coalition is exactly how our parliamentary system of government works. It is not a sinister plot by Ignatieff and Layton. It is their duty as opposition to keep testing and trying the government. So keeping the coalition alive, even if it is in hibernation for the winter, is very much in Igantieff’s best interest in his duty to keep the government on it toes or to cut the toes off if they cross the line.

IGNATIEFF IS TOO AMERICAN TO LEAD CANADA!
Lorne implies Ignatieff is more American than Canadian referencing a “…old New York Times column championing American empire and referring to ‘we’ Americans."

My gosh how defensive can you get? Ignatieff has returned to Canada, run for a party leadership, coming in second, and the successfully ran for parliament and is now the interim leader of choice of the Liberal Caucus and party elite. Besides he has already effectively responded to the context of such “we” American slurs in subsequent essays and interviews. In the globalized reality and our closeness to the Americans, one would think Ignatieff's education, expertise, international and first-hand American experience would be an asset. Surely it ought not disqualify him from Canadian politics.

This is typical and tired Conservative rhetoric akin to American Republican Karl Rovarian tactics. If anyone has been American in their approach to governing Canada it has been Stephen Harper. His foreign policy and economic policy totally aligned with the Bush White House. This is well documented. His adoption of a presidential style of leadership is also renown, even to the point he now speaks to us on policy issues and events through a Press Secretary, just like President Bush.

IGNAGIEFF SEEMS TO ACCEPT QUEBEC AS A SEPARATE NATION!
Lorne suggests Ignatieff will “…have to live down his signature on the coalition agreement.” The reason is because the “…first line talks about the coalition begin in the best interests of ‘Canada and Quebec,’ as if the two were separate nations already.”

Interesting admission that there is an actual coalition agreement that exists don’t you think? So lets deal with the merits of the comment. Stephen Harper set up his last election run by publicly acknowledging “Quebec as a nation.” He also said, contrary to all the evidence, that there was a “fiscal imbalance” against Quebec’s interests within Canada and that he would resolve it as Prime Minister. Both of these are soft-nationalists hot buttons and have been used for political pandering purposes for decades, all the way back to Mulroney at least.

Cynical political opportunism was at the root of Harper’s pandering to Quebec in this way. By the way, Harper conveniently ignores the historical fact that he came into federal politics through the Reform Party. Reform started as a political force partly in reaction to such federal government pandering to Quebec.

The Reform Party had a platform plank about too much political control in central Canada. The Reform mantra Harper also espoused was “The West Wants In.” He actually fans the flames of separation in Alberta every time he does this Quebec pandering. His recent political tactics toward Quebec have had that effect in Alberta recently.

Ironically Harper was one of the signatories to the famous Alberta Firewall Letter encouraging Premier Klein to extricate Alberta from some core Canadian policies and programs. Talk about living down signatures and engaging in political opportunism! Harper’s name comes up more often than anyone else’s in recent history if those are your criteria for criticism.

WE NEED TO BECOME MORE POLITICALLY AWARE AND MORE MEDIA LITERATE
There more. But my point is Lorne’s lens focuses on issues and events but only in a certain context. We all do this and it is our right to speak out in a free and democratic country. What citizens need to be aware of and careful about is taking some time to get more media literate.

As traditional media’s effectiveness and even its viability is being threatened by fragmentation, competition and recession, its capacity to gather and give us the news is diminished. The Internet’s influence as a news source is growing. According to Pew Research, it is ranked and the #2 new source now, behind TV and ahead of newspapers.

If the Web is now a significant news source, where will the authoritativeness and authenticity of the “reporting” we can trust come from? How will we know we can trust and believe news and information when we actually see those items that capture our time and attention? Who will help us understand what is important and critical versus what is trivial and superficial? How will know if something we see, hear or read is just misleading spin or pure and dangerous propaganda?

We all have more data and information than we can handle. Where will the wisdom come from to help us make sense of all those inputs? How will we be able to put it all into a meaningful context in ways that creates some useful knowledge that we can believe in if and when we see it?

Beats me! Anybody out there got any ideas?