The investigation into the recent fire that destroyed the Carter home is not complete. It is a sad situation for the Carter family that they would have to lose their home, possessions and personal effects by fire and possible arson. Then there is anxiety one would feel about personal safety if it was a fire bomb that started the blaze. If there was arson involved it is also sad for the rest of us and should make us wonder about the kind of society we are evolving into.
Some folks are already jumping to conclusions about eco-terrorism and linking that to the Carter fire to his role in oil sands development. Some are even linking this incident to the drowning of the ducks on the Syncrude tailings pond last year. We need a lot more information from investigation that is going on before that leap to any conclusions.
That said, one has to be concerned when such an event happens to a family of a man in the past and current position of Jim Carter. We have seen 3 or 4 unresolved eco-terrorists bombings on pipelines in the Alberta – B.C. border of late. We saw Greenpeace able to breach security and place a banner on a tailings pond berm as a publicity stunt but the ease with which they did this trespass stunt is pretty telling and chilling if you think about it. Oil sands facilities are strategic targets especially as we tout it as the safe, secure and reliable energy source for the Americans. Alberta better be on top of the implications and consequences of that reality and ready to deal with it.
The pressure is mounting on the Alberta energy sector to get serious about the environmental consequences and practices around oil sands development. There are indications that they are feeling this pressure. Some efforts are being made within the energy sector to respond but indications are that they are not yet fully aware and conscious of the breadth and depth of their social license to operate problems. Employing PR techniques and tactics will not do it…in fact it will just make the animosity and distrust worse and deeper.
I have known and admired Jim Carter for about 14 years and assure you we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his skill and wisdom that he brought to bear in the early days of oil sands development. He and his family don’t deserve the anxiety, loss and sorrow the burning of their home has caused. I hope these incidents are shown not to motivated by eco-terrorism. I am not ready to jump to that conclusion without evidence. But I am looking forward to the results of the current investigation and will form my judgment and engage on the issues and implications, if any, accordingly.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
500 Drowned Ducks Still Haunt Syncrude and Governments
Update on the private prosecution against Syncrude over the 500 migrating ducks who drowned in their tailings pond. Shaun Fluker of the University of Calgary Faculty of Law is blogging on it at the faculty's blog cleverly called ABlawg.ca
According to Professor Fluker the action is founded on an alleged breach of Section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994. I understand there is a Canada US treaty protecting migratory bird habitat too. That brings an international persepective to the issues and Obama may be on it too.
This is federal legislation so both Alberta and Canada will be interested. The first Court appearance is anticipated sometime in February.
I am going to be watching this one very closely because I am working on it professionally from a public policy and lobbying perspective. I will keep you up to date on what is happening.
PHOTO CREDIT: /Sheryl McAuley in Flickr
Poll Shows Harper Is In Trouble With Canadians
My how the mediocre have fallen. While Harper is leading in the “Who do you think will make the best PM ?” But he is stalled at 36%. Not good at a time when we are well into serious recession, deficits and other fiscal adjustment. These are things the duplicitous Mr. Harper insisted would not happen under his superior skills and an economist and fiscal manage.
On the other hand Michael Ignatieff has soared up 12% to 23% support as the best choice for PM and he has barely opened his mouth yet…except to warn Harper, rather forcefully and effectively, if he tries character assassination attack ads again, like he did on Dion, the response will be significantly different and undoubtedly harmful to the Cons.
The Cons have been in retreat on every political front since the Coalition came forth with an alternative game plan to run the country. Harper is moving through the various stages of grief since the lost opportunity of the election. Yes he lost. He was after a majority and could deliver it even though h e had all the trump cards and superior tactical skills on his side.
Here are the Five Stages of Grief and how Harper has been responding and coping.
DENIAL: Happened right after the election when he squandered the majority over $45m of culture cuts and lost Quebec in the bargain. Harper’s rhetoric as “We won. We have a mandate to govern.” In his heart, yes he has one; he was saying “This can’t be happening to me.”
ANGER: Here we saw the anger in the pettiness and partisanship in the FU Canada (Fiscal Update) statements where he tired to bankrupt the opposition political parties and refuse women human rights to pursue pay equity and take away public service unions right to strike. The anger in Harper’s heart came out as he tried to punish other people for his own shortcomings. He almost lost his government because his anger has clouded his judgment and impaired his capacity to govern.
BARGAINING: First he struck a bargain with the Governor General to prorogue Parliament just to save his political skin. Now he is into bargaining with and around the opposition parties as he tries to draft a stimulus budget. He has stuck a committee of independent advisers to help with the budget. By doing so, he as emasculated his own Cabinet and reduced their role from mute minion to meaningless munchkins. His rhetoric now s “We will do whatever it takes to get through these tough economic times.” His heart of hearts tells him it is OK to reverse your political and personal principles to sustain power. Never mind that we mislead and lied in the election. That was then. This is now. Keep power at all costs.
DEPRESSION: We have seen the early signs of depression with the appointment of 18 Senators. His prior commitment to not appoint any Senators until he got his senate reforms done is now in the integrity slag heap. He has given up on reforming the Senate and now only wants to pursue the perks of Prime Ministerial power while he has it. Senate reform is added to the pile of broken promises and past positions of the depressed and depressing Mr. Harper that grows daily. Now he sees that he can no longer trigger an election at his whim. That is now in Ignatieff’s power. Harper knows that he will wear the political consequences of this economic recession cum depression, how can Harper the superior economics, master tactician and political wunderkind. He is coming to realize that due to hubris, history will not be kind to President Bush nor Prime Minister Harper. Pretty depressing stuff to have to deal with, given the size of the Harper ego and the depth of his arrogance!
The last stage of grief is Acceptance. We have a ways to go in the Bargaining and Depression stages before that stage comes into play. But rest assured it Acceptance will happen. It will come right after he loses the next election and it will be manifest as Harper resigns the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada as a result.
Friday, January 09, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)