Monday, 16 April 2018

Confidence in Canada: Open Letter




 
April 12, 2018

The Right Honorable Justin Trudeau and Cabinet Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

cc: Premier John Horgan and Cabinet Premier Rachel Notley and Cabinet

Sent via email

Subject: Open Letter

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Cabinet,

Earlier this week Kinder Morgan announced its intention to suspend all non-essential spending on the federally and provincially approved Trans Mountain Pipeline project citing “unquantifiable risk” as a result of the continuing uncertainty created by the B.C. government. In response we are taking the unusual step to come together and call upon you to convene a meeting without delay with the Premiers of British Columbia and Alberta to resolve the impasse on the Trans Mountain Pipeline project and to clear the way for this project to proceed in the national interest.

Regrettably, this may not be enough. The continued obstructionist position of the current Government of British Columbia calls into question whether an agreement can be reached where the rule of law will prevail and commercial enterprise can, with confidence, build and operate a business in our country.

Should you and the Premier of British Columbia be unable to cooperatively resolve the current impasse within days, we then call upon you to utilize all appropriate federal powers at your disposal, including expand, if required, the Ocean Protection Plan, to ensure the Trans  Mountain pipeline project proceeds without further delay.

At stake is more than a pipeline project. The global reputation of our country as a safe and secure place to invest and do business is at serious risk.


It’s deeply concerning that a project that has gone through rigorous review, including four years of consultation and numerous federal and provincial conditions is now in this situation after being given a green-light to proceed. This threatens to provoke a crisis of confidence in  Canada’s regulatory processes with far reaching implications which go well beyond this project. It threatens to send a message to investors that Canada cannot be trusted. It puts billions of dollars of government revenue at risk—billions that pay for things that Canadians need, from teachers to MRI machines to affordable housing and further investments in protecting the environment.

Many small and medium-sized business owners, construction workers, people who support their families in manufacturing, and Indigenous Nations are now unfairly caught in the crossfire as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the project’s future and, collaterally, our country’s growing uncertain investment climate.

We appreciate your government’s support of this federally and provincially approved project. In the interest of all Canadians, your government must now make this issue its top priority. Creating certainty is of the utmost importance not just for the Trans Mountain pipeline project, but also to uphold the rule of law and Canada’s reputation as a place in which to invest, build and operate businesses.  As you are well aware, investor confidence is essential to creating  jobs, supporting healthy communities, and funding health, education and social programs.

Sincerely,



           


































Thursday, 5 April 2018

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development - March 27, 2018.

By: Chris Bloomer - President and CEO - CEPA (Pipeline Association)


PART 1 – STATE OF THE UNION

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association appreciates the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69.  I am here to talk about this bill today.  But, I have to start by giving you a brief “State of the Union” for the energy sector.  It is not good news. 

In the two years leading up to this bill you can pick your poison: Policies including a tanker moratorium off of British Columbia’s northern coastline.  Proposed methane emission reduction regulations.  Clean fuel standards.  Provincial GHG emissions regulations.  B.C.’s restrictions on transporting bitumen.  A lack of clarity regarding the government’s position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC.  And fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States. 

The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada.  It is seriously challenging the energy sector’s ability to be competitive.  

We are already in a time of profound uncertainty: New projects are at a grinding halt and we have a major problem as a sector and a country accessing new markets for our energy products to the world. 

The reality is that CEPA member companies with material assets in other countries are actively pursuing opportunities in those jurisdictions and investment capital in the oil and gas sector is moving out of Canada.  This is due in large part to the current regulatory policy uncertainty, and the potential implications of any further seismic regulatory changes directly impacting the pipeline sector in Canada.  So, the consequences are real – and sector is suffocating because of it.    

We believe that a majority of Canadians still appreciate the significant contribution the oil & gas sector makes to Canada’s economy.  We also hold firm in the belief that continued growth in the oil and gas sector is completely consistent with Canada’s 2030 GHG emissions targets. 

In the consultation process leading up to the tabling of this Bill, CEPA took some comfort and assurances from this government that any new legislation would reflect shared values focused on a strong regulatory regime, relationships, safety, environmental stewardship, public confidence, competitiveness and the kind of certainty and clarity for a reasonable prospect of actually building a new major pipeline in Canada.   

In its current form, this Bill cannot achieve that greater certainty, clarity, and predictability for projects that can extend hundreds if not thousands of kilometers across provinces, communities and Indigenous communities. 

In fact, it is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the Impact Assessment Act much less attract energy investment to Canada.  

We are concerned that all this Bill has done is frustrate Regulatory Reform in order to advance this government’s climate change agenda and has baked too much broad policy subject matter into an otherwise very technical decision-making process.

PART 2 – BILL C-69

With respect to the specifics of this Bill, this process started with the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.  The Minister was asked to review environmental assessment processes to achieve three objectives: (1) to restore public trust; (2) to introduce new, fair processes; and (3) to get resources to market. 

With the all due respect, CEPA does not believe the proposed Impact Assessment Act would accomplish ANY of these objectives.

Over the course of a year and a half of consultations, CEPA’s 200 plus pages of submissions were meant to provide thoughtful and practical recommendations to address the Government’s three objectives.   

Our recommendations were premised on the underlying need to stem the erosion of Canada’s competitive position in the natural resource sector.  They were guided by key principles that we believe would have set the framework to meet all of these goals:

1.          A process that ensures that broader public policy issues are addressed in more appropriate venues, outside of project reviews;

2.          A science and fact-based process that is coordinated, efficient, and provides clarity and certainty; and

3.          The National Energy Board as the best-placed regulator with technical expertise and full life-cycle responsibility for project reviews, operations and maintenance.



Regrettably, the Impact Assessment Act does not address these concerns.  CEPA is really disappointed that the proposed process appears to double down on the very factors that created the toxic regulatory environment for major projects that this regulatory review process was intended to fix.

The Impact Assessment Act does not address the pipeline sector’s most fundamental concern: A process that is expensive, lengthy, polarizing and ends with a discretionary political decision. 

Bill C-69 has not addressed the need to find an appropriate venue to debate and resolve broader public policy issues.  The Bill is flavored throughout with the government’s commitment to meeting climate change objectives, gender-based analysis, Indigenous reconciliation, and subjective and inherently unpredictable sustainability tests. 

Despite CEPA's very strong recommendation to remove broader public policy from project specific reviews, these issues are now explicitly included in the review process as factors to consider. 

The Impact Assessment Act will not achieve greater certainty, clarity, and predictability.  Instead, it introduces a new regulatory agency and unique new processes and information requirements that have never been tested. 

The public participation standing tests have been removed.  Science and fact-based assessments will now be obscured by the layering of other policy-based assessments that are ill defined, fluid and open to potential strategies of delay and obfuscation of the process by groups opposed to a or any project.  In short, we cannot see that timelines will improve; we expect them to be longer.

The National Energy Board, now the Canadian Energy Regulator, has effectively been side-lined with respect to major pipeline project reviews.  CEPA consistently emphasized that the NEB was the best placed regulator to oversee the full life-cycle of a pipeline from beginning to end.

Instead, Bill C-69 carves out the review of major pipeline projects and places it with the new Impact Assessment Agency.  This new Agency does not have the rich history of administrative decision-making and technical expertise of the NEB. 

Instead, the new Agency is mandated to perform a broadened role, assess a wider scope of issues, and is expected to implement the government’s political agenda related to climate change, reconciliation and gender objectives.  It is not an independent, expert regulator.  CEPA is not convinced that it will have the capacity to conduct these broadened, political reviews, even with the announcement of $1 billion of new spending to support the implementation of the Impact Assessment Act.

Given these concerns, it is hard to imagine that any pipeline project proponent would be prepared to test this new process or have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome at the end.  With built-in climate change tests covering upstream and downstream emissions, it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval at the end, because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world. 

If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation has hit the mark.

PART 3 – CONCLUSION

In conclusion, today, CEPA has offered the views of member companies based on their direct experience in investing, building and safely operating the energy infrastructure that supports the Canadian economy and the everyday lives of Canadians.  Project proponents and their investors will continue to evaluate the feasibility of developing resource projects in Canada against other investment options. 

The Government’s June 2017 Discussion Paper suggested a more balanced approach between the views of the more radical environmental elements and industry.  This Bill tilts the balance wholly in favor of the environmental perspective, some whose goals are to keep fossil fuels in the ground and never see another pipeline built.

This Bill will introduce even more risk and uncertainty.  The net effect of the Impact Assessment Act is an impractical and unworkable process that will create unmanageable uncertainty and a decision-making framework that will insert broader policy issues squarely into a process that is not equipped to resolve them.

Finally, this Bill does not provide a vision as to how it fits into Canada achieving longer term energy objectives; it doesn’t reflect the reality of the importance that oil and gas will continue to play in the global energy mix for the next several decades; and therefore, does nothing to help Canada achieve full value of its resources in the world markets.


Prosper Together, Falter Alone


I recently attended the CSEG AGM held at the Petroleum Club in Calgary which included a review of association activities over the year and a report on the financial standing of the association. Amazingly the auditor reported that a projected revenue loss in excess of $200,000 was brought down to just $3,000 largely due to the success of the Geo Convention and other events organized by the association.

The CSEG has undertaken many cost saving measures and the fact that it continues to offer worthy educational and social services in the face of dwindling membership numbers is truly remarkable. Much of the credit has to be attributed to the staff and the volunteers of the CSEG who remain the life blood of the association.

The CAGC has endured similar struggles with the downturn and slow recovery and attributes its survival to a few committed member companies who see value in having the association represent their interests with the many issues that affect our industry.

These issues include regulatory and rule changes that, could very well lead to additional costs to a member company’s bottom line, or even worse, create conditions making operations impossible.

An example of this is in Alberta is Bill 30, an “Act to Protect the Health & Well-Being of Working Albertans” which is due to come into effect on June 1st 2018. It introduces wide-ranging changes to the Occupational Health Safety requirements expected of employers, supervisors, workers, contractors, prime contractors, suppliers, service providers, self-employed and temporary staffing agencies.

Companies will have a legal obligation to provide a healthy & safe workplace and environment for all workers and the public, free of violence and harassment. They will have to control all hazards and must provide awareness training for all workers and competent supervision.  Supervisors will have a defined legal obligation to be competent and protect the health & safety of workers under their supervision. They have particular responsibilities to implement all programs as part of their company’s health & safety policies which is also a minimum requirement under the act.

In the Oil & Gas industry, larger companies already have impressive health & safety systems in place, however they rely on smaller companies to provide specialized services. These companies are likely to experience greater impacts from Bill 30 and will need to invest in safety training and developing safety systems to comply.

The act focuses on “Working Albertans”, and looks for ways to include workers in the process of managing workplace safety, for example with the requirement for Joint Health & Safety committees or a dedicated safety representative. My concern is that the increased costs to small companies could very well be the “hair on the camel’s back” that forces them out of business, which does little to keep Albertans working.

Another example is the Federal Bill C-45, an act to implement a new legal framework for cannabis production and distribution in Canada. Expected to become Canadian law this summer, this act is set to legalize recreational cannabis with conditions. There is a lot of uncertainty as to how companies will deal with this new legislation. Most Oil & Gas field occupations are of a safety sensitive nature and much has been accomplished over the last 20 years, mostly due to robust best practices and testing to enforce a zero tolerance policy for alcohol & drugs as a workplace hazard.

There has been very little guidance from the Government so far on how companies can adapt to this new legislation and there is sure to be expensive challenges before there is enough case law in place to accurately inform industry.

A good example of associations working together to produce meaningful benefit for all of their members is the “Canadian Model for Providing a Safe Workplace”, an Alcohol & Drug Guideline and Work Rule.



This best practice guide was developed jointly by the Construction Owners Association and Energy Safety Canada with representation from CAGC, CAODC, CAPP, EPAC, PSAC, CEPA and the former OSSA (Oil Sands Safety Association). It provides guidance and tools that will enable companies to implement policies that will keep their workplace safe and comply with the legislation.



The CAGC has also been engaged in several stakeholder meetings with respect to the implementation of a Woodland Caribou recovery plan as part of the Federal SARA (Species At Risk Act). These meetings have been of particular interest to our members as the ranges of several herds are in areas of high resource potential to both the Oil & Gas industry and Forestry. Other stakeholders include indigenous groups, environmentalists, municipalities, other associations and the Provincial government.

The hope is to make available suitable habitat for the species through managing industrial activity, reforesting and recovering disturbed areas (including seismic lines), discouraging known predators (e.g. wolves) and reducing competition from other species (e.g. Moose, Deer).

Representation is important at such forums to voice our concerns and ensure that we remain viable as an industry sector.

Support for the resource industry as a whole is important to the CAGC and our members, whether it be for the construction of pipelines and other infrastructure or for sponsoring industry events. We recognize that other associations play an equally integral role in keeping our industry safe, active and vital for maintaining the great lifestyle enjoyed by all Canadians. 

As incoming CSEG President Ron Newman mentioned in his address at the AGM, he is hoping to attract more corporate memberships to the CSEG. The service sector has always provided great support for CSEG events and it is time for corporations to show the same level of support for our industry.

We have received great support for Seismic-in-Motion (SIM) over the years from the CSEG Outreach committee and hope to keep offering this excellent event that presents live demonstrations of all of the seismic services and latest equipment in a typical field setting for those who would not normally be able to visit a seismic field project.

We definitely wouldn’t be able to hold such an event without support and without the many volunteers required, so I will use this message to thank all the companies and individuals who have so graciously given time, resources and financial support over the years.

Prosper Together, Falter Alone.


2018 Space Odyssey - It's all About the Data, Stupid


The 2nd annual Iot (internet of Things) Blockchain and Machine Learning conference was held in Calgary in mid-February 2018, and if you missed it, you missed excellent presentations from experts who spoke intelligently and passionately on what could be the future for Oil & Gas technologies in Canada.

I realized early into these presentations that there is a whole new vocabulary of words, acronyms and terms, about which I know very little, but as the presentations continued, I received an education that, by the end of the conference, left me feeling hopeful, excited and wanting more.

I won’t try to explain what “Blockchain” means, but will point you to the Wiki definition (below), which has a detailed definition. I have read this definition several times and still struggle with it conceptually.

It was stated that “Blockchain” is a layer in between solutions to integrate, for better, faster, transferable, verifiable outcomes. “Blockchain” will be viral on open platforms, some that don’t even exist as yet and will reduce risk, improve safety and be a $2 to $3 billion industry by 2020 in Alberta.

Being from an industry, (i.e. Seismic Data Acquisition), there were takeaway messages from the conference that I found very interesting. One such message was that “It is all about the data, stupid”, meaning that data and information about everything and anything when used collaboratively on an open platform, has enormous value.

Examples were presented demonstrating where real cost savings for Oil & Gas companies have exceeded 15% by embracing technologies to improve competencies, production and safety performance with opportunities to get even better as systems are refined.

Data being collected by sensors, pump controllers, monitors and video when transmitted in real time from well heads, pumps, pipes and valves can be integrated into datasets to optimize performance, reduce maintenance and pre-empt failure through predictive analytics.

This Predictive Analysis reminds me of the HAL 9000 computer system on board the Jupiter mission in the movie 2001 Space Odyssey. When HAL reported the imminent failure of an antenna control device, the crew retrieved the device that was found to be ok, leading to a series of events that ended in a fatal conflict between the computer and the crew. HAL continued to insist, in a dulcet, monotone voice that he is "foolproof and incapable of error".

In the future everything will be connected and there are unlimited opportunities for new businesses to replace traditional cumbersome work-intensive processes into real time order to cash processes.

Opportunities with sensors are a $50 billion industry in Alberta and software and hardware development that integrates Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can out-perform humans will revolutionize labour requirements and reduce the associated risk.

Inaccessible and dangerous areas that need inspection and repair (e.g. wind towers, pylons) will use drones and robots equipped with video and augmented detection systems to record, detect and conduct repairs, eliminating the need for, and the risk to, labour.

Autonomous vehicles (AV’s) are being used already at some Oilsands facilities and underwater vehicles (AUV’s) are being used for mapping underwater features and inspecting and monitoring underwater infrastructure (e.g. pipelines) that are inaccessible or unsafe for humans.

There are opportunities to reduce the workforce by 66% from 3 workers to 1 and improve productivity by up to 60%, which could be very necessary as the boomer generation retires. New workers will be hired for jobs that don’t yet exist or haven’t even been conceived as yet. The new labour force will be involved in designing and implementing new technologies. Academia, including the University of Calgary, is devising new programs to fill the need for coders in these emerging technologies.

Asset management and real time cloud-based web systems will replace paper systems and create new business models in the evolution of “trust” in bookkeeping, legal documents, reporting, and smart contracts will replace conventional agreements. No more Accounts Payable and Receivable systems. Billing and Invoicing will be replaced by instant automatic credits and debits as services are performed.

Another takeaway message was “Don’t be left behind, don’t delay, embrace the technology and innovation which is accelerating exponentially”

It is ok to fail, more important is, to get in the game, experiment, set easy goals, iterate, pivot and; adapt and collaborate with likeminded, passionate individuals and companies.

From a seismic perspective, I can imagine the “jug-drone”, a geophone built into a drone, with on-board guidance, unlimited power, unlimited data-storage that can fly by itself to its pre-determined location, plant itself and record and transmit acquired seismic data to a mother drone. I can see thousands of these flying in perfect symmetry from one prospect to another as they collect data to add to subsurface datasets for collaborative use in finding resources.

I’m not sure how the current proprietary nature of seismic data will be handled, but I would prefer a business model of collaboration and standardization over competitiveness and duplication, which fits into the “Blockchain” model of sharing data and information.

As we all still live in an imperfect world, there are still barriers to overcome and this will likely continue into the future. Digital systems will always have some level of risk, such as from cyber threats and hacking which means that counter measures will still be necessary to protect systems. It was indicated that 54% of companies have had cyber-attacks of some type in the last 12 months. Data security is one of the benefits of “Blockchain” on an open platform.

My hope is that the events depicted in “The Terminator” movies do not become a reality, as machines learn to program better machines to the point where they become sentient and humans become unnecessary and expendable.

Blockchain (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

A blockchain, is a continuously growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography. Each block typically contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. By design, a blockchain is inherently resistant to modification of the data. It is "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way" For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires collusion of the network majority.

Blockchains are secure by design and are an example of a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been achieved with a blockchain. This makes blockchains potentially suitable for the recording of events, medical and other records, management activities, such as identity management, transaction processing, documenting provenance, food traceability or voting.




Tuesday, 20 March 2018

The Global Warming Deception

Written By: Tim Ball, PhD, is a Victoria-based climatologist, author and lecturer, and professor emeritus, University of Winnipeg. In March 2007 Dr. Ball met with leading U.S. senators, representatives and chiefs of staff in Washington, D.C. He also testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Published: Pipeline Observer Magazine, Winter Edition

New book by the Canadian climatologist who advised Trump examines the motivations behind climate-change claims

       I studied weather as aircrew and an operations officer with the Canadian Air Force. I learned how little we knew and how bad the forecasts were. They were almost useless beyond 48 hours then, and sadly it is the same today.
       Despite this, similar computer models are used to make climate forecasts that tell us with 95 per cent certainty it will be warmer 50 years from now. What is going on? A massive deception is the simple answer.
       After the Air Force, I determined to study weather and climate. This culminated in a Ph.D. in Historical Climatology from the University of London, England.
       When I began in the late 1960s, global cooling was the consensus. I opposed that alarmist, unfounded prediction, as I later did the claim that global warming was due to humans. I knew from long-term records that the climate changes all the time, and all current changes are well within natural variability and do not correlate with CO2 changes.
        Late in 2016 I was invited, along with former Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts and climate data specialist Tony Heller, to make a presentation on Capitol Hill and another before a group called Cooler Heads. The invitation came from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who was appointed by the Trump organization to make proposals about the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overall and specifically regarding global warming.
        The EPA deliberately lost a lawsuit to the State of Massachusetts that charged the agency for failing to protect state citizens from the harmful substance CO2. By losing, the EPA forced the case to be adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. They had to make the ruling under Administrative ;aw, as Justice Scalia noted and determined that the EPA was legally required to control CO2.

Understanding the science 
  The problem is, it was the EPA that decided that CO2 was a harmful substance. The ruling allowed the Obama administration to bypass Congress to achieve its global warming policy. It became the major argument used to support Obama's push for the Paris Climate Agreement and the Green Climate Fund, the replacement for the failed Kyoto Protocol. That was a bad deal, as the U.S. Senate determined when it voted 95-0 to not even vote on accepting it.
       My recommendation in Washington was that President Donald Trump withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but not on the basis of the bad science. I warned, based on experience from teaching a science credit course to arts students for 25 years, that he would be easily tripped up and most of the public would not understand anyway.
       Wisely, he simply explained that it was a bad deal for the United States because it gave a competitive economic edge to other nations, especially China. It was also valuable that his daughter Ivanka had supported the Paris Agreement but, as a good businessperson, changed when she saw the details.
     Trump could explain that the science was premeditated and deliberately orchestrated to demonize CO2 for a political agenda, but most would not understand. Promoters of what is called anthropogenic global warming knew most people wouldn't understand the science, and exploited that.
        Most Don't Know That....
  • Plants need more atmospheric CO2, not less - optimally about 1,200 parts per million (ppm)
  • Current levels of 400 ppm are close to the lowest levels in 600 million years. 
  • CO2 is only four per cent of the total green-house gases. Water vapor is 95 per cent. 
  • In every record, the temperature increases before CO2.
  • The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models of the IPCC. 
  • Every temperature forecast (they call them projections) the IPCC made since 1990 was wrong
  • If your forecast is wrong, your science is wrong
Selling the crisis
The question is , what was the motive for demonizing CO2? It began in the 1968 when the Club of Rome decided that the world was overpopulated and expanded the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. Club of Rome member Canadian Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar in her book Cloak of Green that the problem for the planet was the industrialized nations, and it was everybody's duty to shut them down. 
      Dewar asked Strong how he planned to do that. He said he was going to the UN because: "He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, and control the agenda." After five days with him at the UN Dewar concluded: "Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda." 
      The UN agency established to examine human-caused global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was limited to only studying human causes by the definition created in Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is impossible to identify the human cause without understanding and including all natural causes. 
       This IPCC focus put almost all the attention on CO2 as the byproduct of industry causing global warming. Two warning signs of deception were that 97 percent of scientists agreed. First, science is not about consensus. Second, the research was completely concocted. 
       Actually, most scientists never read the IPCC Reports and simply accept what is publicized. Those who do read them are stunned by what they find, as happened to German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls. 
       "Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data. First I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements," Puls said, adding: "To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it." 

Surprising reactions
My challenge to the government version of global warming became increasingly problematic. They couldn't say I wasn't qualified. Attacks included death threats, false information about my qualifications posted on the Internet, and three lawsuite from IPCC members all filed by the same lawyer. 
    Most people can't believe that such things occur about opinions in a democratic society. I urge them to test the idea by telling people that they don't accept the idea of human-caused global warming. The reaction from most, who know nothing about the science, will surprise them. 
    I documented what went on in a detailed, fully referenced, book titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. A lawyer commented that it lays out and effectively supports the case, but is "a tough slog." I recently published a brief "non-slog" handbook for the majority of people, not to insult their intelligence, but to help them understand the science and its misuse for a political agenda. 
     Titled Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History, it's presented in the logical form of a criminal or journalistic investigation. It answers the basic questions for Who, What, Where, When, Why and How. 
      It provides the motive and method for the corruption of science to substantiate and bolster Trump's decision. 

Monday, 5 March 2018

Review of energy cost inputs - more regulations = delays, higher prices

By: Canadians For Affordable Energy


Canada faces persistent uncertainty about trade and competitiveness. Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s 2018 Budget did nothing to address these concerns. “I don’t think anybody expected the minister to rewrite the tax code overnight,” said John Manley, who served as Canada’s finance minister under Jean Chr├ętien and is now president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. “But this budget all but ignores Canada’s serious tax competitiveness challenges, sending an unfortunate signal to entrepreneurs and companies that are looking to invest and grow."

Can we perhaps find something positive elsewhere? Ottawa’s recently unveiled legislation to assess natural resource projects promises to shorten timelines while expanding what will be up for review. Smaller projects will be examined within 300 days and larger ones within 600 days – down from 730. This appears to be good news. Yet, the assessments of proposed infrastructure projects won’t be limited to environmental issues but will also cover health, the economy, social issues, gender and Indigenous rights. Uh-oh. If it seems like an impossible task – more review, in less time – worry not: regulators will also be granted the ability to extend those shortened deadlines when necessary. In other words, the promised timeliness guarantee is already overboard. These reforms are a regulatory game of Snakes & Ladders without any ladders.

The Financial Post reported, “the long-awaited environmental assessment reform … could dramatically alter how projects like pipelines, power lines, hydro dams and mines are reviewed.” As one analyst said, “We see nothing in these proposed changes that will attract incremental energy investment to Canada.” Less investment in our country’s traditional resources twinned with an emphasis on costly renewables will mean high energy prices, fewer Canadian resource jobs and less prosperity.

Increasingly it appears that this is precisely want the federal government wants. As the Prime Minister said one year ago, “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels but it’s going to take time and in the meantime we have to manage that transition.”

Justin Trudeau did apologize – “I said something the way I shouldn’t have said it” – but it was nonetheless a rare moment of honesty. His explanation didn’t admit any policy error, merely that the Prime Minister had misspoke. Or as Trudeau’s long-time friend and closest political advisor Gerald Butts said when running World Wildlife Federation Canada (WWF), “One hundred per cent sustainable, renewable energy is possible and economical by 2050 if we start the transition today.”

But this future can only be realized by government choking Canada’s oil and gas industry – by restricting pipelines (check), subsidizing green energy (check), making affordable hydrocarbon energy look expensive with a carbon dioxide emissions tax (check), and drowning the extraction of those resources in reams of red tape (now underway).
2018-02_ART_Stop_KM_(header).jpg
Balancing the environment, economy & B.C. politics
But if you think the Trudeau government isn’t serious enough about land locking Alberta’s oil patch you have friends in British Columbia’s government.

The Green-NDP coalition government has alarmed the country’s carbon pricing enthusiasts by fighting Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. “[B.C. Premier] John Horgan is actually trying to scuttle our national plan on fighting climate change,” the prime minister said. “By blocking the Kinder Morgan pipeline, he’s putting at risk the entire national climate change plan, because Alberta will not be able to stay on if the Kinder Morgan pipeline doesn’t go through.” So much for balancing the economy with environmental stewardship.
2018-02_Weaver_TM_tweet_(header).png
It will never happen: B.C. Greens
B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver tweeted, “it is virtually certain” the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will never be built. The infrastructure project does not have “social licence” and won’t earn it from residents in B.C.’s Lower Mainland. The pipeline’s next obstacle could be determined protestors. We’ll watch to see how far the Trudeau Liberals will go to uphold the law.
2018-02_ART_AEI_energyshares_(header).png
Fossil fuels a dying industry?
Meanwhile, the United States is expanding its production of oil, natural gas and coal and exporting more to overseas markets. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports in its Annual Energy Outlook, “Strong domestic production coupled with relatively flat energy demand allow the United States to become a net energy exporter over the projection period in most cases.”

Looking to 2050, EIA estimates the use of hydrocarbon fuels will be steady and dip just slightly below 80% in 2034, but continue to supply more than 79% of energy in 2050. Meanwhile, renewables will grow by 70% and provide less than 15% of U.S. energy. So much for fossil fuels being a dying industry.

“Despite all of the hype, hope, cheerleading, fuel standards, portfolio standards, and taxpayer subsidies for renewable energies like wind and solar [editor’s note: see Trudeau’s Canada], America’s energy future will still rely primarily on fossil fuels to power our vehicles, heat and light our homes, and fuel the U.S. economy,” concludes the American Enterprise Institute. “America’s energy future will look a lot like it does today with fossil fuels providing American consumers and businesses with low-cost, dependable and reliable energy for about 80% of [U.S.] energy needs.”

Canada is squandering its traditional competitive advantage over U.S. energy producers. As a result, Canadians will pay more for its energy needs. Worse for us: U.S. consumers will purchase Canada’s oil and gas for lower prices than Canadian households and businesses pay since they won’t be hit with Ottawa’s tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

Canadians for Affordable Energy
http://www.affordableenergy.ca/
Canadians for Affordable Energy · Canada

Thursday, 15 February 2018

Letter to BC Premier John Horgan



Honourable John Horgan
Premier of British Columbia
PO Box 9041 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria, British Columbia
V8W 9E1

February 13, 2018

Dear Premier:

I am writing about the Government of British Columbia's announcement proposing to set up a scientific advisory panel to develop recommendations regarding potential restrictions on current and increased diluted bitumen ("dilbit") transport. CEPA sees this proposal as unnecessary and duplicative of previous work conducted on this issue.

There is a significant body of research that proves the transportation of dilbit does not pose an increased risk to pipeline infrastructure or the environment. Accredited studies in this respect include but are not limited to the following:
  • Properties, Composition and Marine Spill Behaviour, Fate and Transport of Two Diluted Bitumen Products from the Canadian Oil Sands, Government of Canada, 2013;
  • Effects of Diluted Bitumen of a Crude Oil Transmission Pipelines, National Academy of Sciences, 2013;
  • Comparison of the Corrosivity of Dilbit and Conventional Crude, Alberta Innovates Technology Futures 2011;
  • The Behaviour and Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil Released into Aqueous Environments, Royal Society of Canada, 2015; and
  • Dilbit Corrosivity, Penspen, 2013.
In addition to the above research, CEPA is sponsoring a study conducted by SL Ross Environmental Research Ltd. to further assess the behavior and response options for spills of conventional and unconventional oil. CEPA is also supporting another study through the International Institute for Sustainable Development - Experimental Lakes Area (a non-government organization) to examine the efficacy of oil spill treatment strategies on several types of shorelines. The results of these studies will be critical importance to continually improving our members' world class spill preparedness and response capabilities. 

We have been an active partner and collaborator with the B.C. government and other stakeholders on B.C.'s land-based spill preparedness and response enhancement initiative since 2012. Much of your government's announcement included regulatory intentions consistent with what had previously been discussed with stakeholders. However, the introduction of an additional scientific panel on dilbit and potential restrictions on additional dilbit movement were never part of the five-year consultation process and came as a surprise to those involved. 

CEPA is unclear about what your government seeks to accomplish, given that extensive research has been conducted into the behaviour of dilbit and the nature of the product is well-understood. As an association representing an industry which is committed to continuous improvement and the highest standards of environmental performance we are eager to engage with the province on research that will continue to move the industry forward but governments must respect approvals that are in place and decisions that have already been made must be respected. 

Regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), our opinion is that further study by the proposed advisory panel would not alter the decisions reached by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and the National Energy Board (NEB). The provincial certification and federal approval for the TMEP was achieved because of years of extensive regulatory reviews and consultations which included on the record research and evidence based evaluations about the fate and behavior of dilbit. The conclusions drawn by the NEB were that existing studies enabled sufficient modelling of the fate and behavior of dilbit for the purposes of spill response planning. 

As you are aware, the federal approval for the TMEP contained 157 conditions which requires Kinder Morgan to regularly demonstrate compliance by filing updates with the federal regulator throughout the project lifecycle. Among other things, these conditions require that Kinder Morgan has established emergency preparedness and response exercise and training programs for the pipeline and terminals, and conducts full-scale emergency response exercises for scenarios which includes dilbit releases into Burrard Inlet. For these reasons, the federal government has publicly stated that the Trans Mountain Pipeline project "fits within Canada's climate strategy and meets the strictest environmental standards." The facts and evidence bolstering this statement have not changed. 

Emergency response and management is a responsibility that industry takes very seriously. CEPA's members have committed to ongoing research and continuous improvements to meet the highest safety and environmental standards, now and into the future, to ensure the development of world-leading spill preparedness and response practices. I would welcome the opportunity to meet in person and discuss the previously mentioned research as well as industry led emergency management initiatives. 

     Yours sincerely, 
              cc: 
                    Hon. Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta
                    Hon. Jim Carr, Minister Natural Resources Canada
                    Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister Environment and Climate Change Canada
                    Hon. Michelle Mungall, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, BC
                    Hon. George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, BC