CFN – With the Harper Government now proceeding at full throttle to push through the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to supply China, an unexpected crack has appeared within the governing party’s ranks. Calgary West Ultra-Right Conservative MP Rob Anders is publicly questioning the proposal to sell Canadian “Ethical Oil” resources to non-ethical Communist China, despite Ezra Levant’s invention of the ethical oil mantra becoming official government policy.

Earlier this month Sun News Network reported Anders as speaking out against the Chinese takeover of the MacKay River Tar Sands project. Anders condemned the sale of project to China, whom he describes as “the world’s worst human rights abuser.” However, in keeping with government policy, he still considers Tar Sands oil as “ethical”, but describes the Chinese as being an “unethical client.”

Anders, a staunch anti-Communist, vetoed an all-party resolution in the House of Commons to grant Nelson Mandela Honorary Canadian Citizenship, claiming that the South African leader was a Communist and terrorist. He has claimed that the Chinese Government has tried to set up “unattractive male Conservative MPs with hookers”, and has compared the 2010 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics. However, despite his anti-Communist, pro-human rights feelings, Anders stopped short of condemning the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which will export unrefined Tar Sands bitumen crude to China.

In 1994, Anders worked for Far Right Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe as a professional heckler(!) and was labelled a “foreign political saboteur” by CNN. Inhofe is a prominent science denier, who benefits from major campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, and the electric utilities.

 

Tar Sands Crude Vital for Chinese Economy

The Chinese, as part of their shopping list for worldwide natural resources and energy sources to fuel their economy, recently closed a deal with the Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation. The MacKay River plant currently produces 35,000 bbl of crude bitumen per day, but this is scheduled to increase to 150,000 bbl per day in a four-phase expansion project. As part of the same deal, PetroChina will also be taking over Dover Oil Corporation’s Tar Sands operations at the end of 2012, which will bring the total production under Chinese control to approximately 400,000 bbl per day when the MacKay River expansion reaches completion.

The pipeline, from the Alberta Tar Sands, will cross the Rocky Mountains and Northern BC to a proposed super tanker facility at Kitimat, BC. The pipeline has provoked major criticism from Canadians and people worldwide because of its potential for ecological damage to the area through which it will pass, that it is “dirty oil” insofar has it has an even greater global warming impact than regular crude oil, and for the long-term economic damage it will do to Canada.

Given that the pipeline will have a maximum capacity of 525,000 bbl/day, it will easily be able to transport the entire Chinese portion of total Tar Sands production to China. This will give the Chinese economy a major boost compared to the West – as the Chinese government will take all the profits from the MacKay River and Dover projects, they are, in effect, buying the oil for the cost of production, and not the much higher world price, giving them a major competitive advantage. However, what is not well known is that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be two parallel lines – one transporting the bitumen to Kitimat, the second (with a capacity of 325,000 bbl/day) carrying light natural gas condensates from the coast to the Tar Sands.

Normal Tar Sands bitumen cannot be pumped through a pipeline as it is simply too thick. To make it economically transportable, it must either be upgraded into a lighter, less viscous synthetic crude, which would require refining facilities in Alberta, or it must be thinned out with a much lighter hydrocarbon fluid (a diluent) – hence the second pipeline.

The light natural gas condensates will be imported from Mexico or OPEC sources, and would therefore not fit under Levant’s category of “ethical oil.” Although the Chinese will be paying for the product out of their profits, it further undermines the Canadian economy – profits are reduced, and therefore the already low taxation revenue from PetroChina will also be correspondingly reduced. In addition, the cost of the diluent will reflect in Canada’s overall balance of trade – the difference in the value of what the country sells abroad, compared to what it imports. The pipeline scheme will do nothing to reduce the influence of “non-ethical” OPEC countries on the world’s energy markets.

Stephen Harper announced to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he will make it a “national priority” to export our “energy products” (i.e. Tar Sands Bitumen) to China, and make sure there are no regulatory delays. The Northern Gateway Pipeline is now official government policy regardless of the environmental, economic or human rights consequences.

Anders May Face Consequences for Criticising Government Policy

Since taking power as a minority government in 2006, the Harper Government had strictly enforced what its senior civil servants, diplomats and MPs can say to the media.  Any of these people, whether the High Commissioner to Great Britain on a speaking engagement, or a lobby-fodder back bencher at a constituency barbecue, needs to file a “Message Event Proposal” (sometimes known as a Media Event Proposal), or “MEP” through the Privy Council Office, and ultimately the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Without an approved MEP, the person is forbidden to speak. The purpose is to ensure that whoever is speaking toes the line and only promotes official Conservative Government policy.For MP Anders to have made such a statement regarding exporting Tar Sands oil to China marks a clear rebellion against government policy, as no MEP criticising any aspect of the Alberta Tar Sands would have been approved by the PMO. Ezra Levant, author of “Ethical Oil” and the Harper Government’s Tar Sands policy considers that the Chinese will start behaving “ethically” now that they are doing business in Alberta. So far he has published no reaction to the criticism from his long-time friend Anders.

TO:      Cornwall Free News

RE:       Ezra Levant – Friend of China, but Foe to Canadians

            December 31, 2011

 

Editor:

Contrary to the innuendo in this article, no business connection exists between the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Ezra Levant. Nor does CAPP provide funding to the growing ethical oil movement based on Mr. Levant’s book and we did not help him with his research.

 

We don’t agree with all of Mr. Levant’s argument but when the alternative to Canadian oil is imported oil, our research says most Canadians agree a responsible domestic option is best. CAPP supports selling more Canadian oil in Canadian markets. Producers, transporters and regulators are examining options to transport oil from the West where it is produced to large consumer markets in Central and Eastern Canada.

 

CAPP does not advocate for “subsidizing” any country, including China. Companies from many countries invest in the oil sands, including Canada, United States, China, Great Britain, Netherlands,France, Norway, Japan, Korea and Thailand. There is a long history of partnerships and foreign investment to develop oil and gas resources in Canada. Access to capital is important for our industry and investment in the oil and gas sector benefits all Canadians. It’s important to remember that Canadians own the resources and government sets the rules for its development and collects royalties and taxes from its production.

 

Lastly, the forecast of increasing worldwide energy demand attributed to CAPP in the article actually comes from the consumer-based International Energy Agency, which issues such forecasts on a regular basis.

 

Janet Annesley

Vice-President

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)

Putting the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers above Canada

Exporting Western Jobs to Communist China

Wishful Thinking

It is important to note, however, that, contrary to Levant’s wishes, Canada is no superpower, either economically, militarily, or in the energy world. Although it is true that Canada is the world’s sixth largest oil producer, we are nowhere even close to the three giants, Russia, the Saudis, and the US. With our 3.9% contribution to the world’s oil supply and consumption of 87.5m barrels per day, all that makes us is the third biggest midget, with almost no influence to control or decide anything once supplies start tightening up and demand becomes critical. What Levant also forgets is the forecast demand in energy. According to his friend and official CAPP spokeswoman Janet Annesley, world energy demand is expected to double by 2050, i.e. to about 175m barrels per day. Tar Sands production is forecast to reach 3.5m bbl/day by 2025. If somehow this figure could be doubled by 2050, to 7m bbl/day, this would leave Canada with still only about 4% control over the world’s energy pie.Of course, none of the oil companies believe that oil production could ever reach 175m bbl/day – there just isn’t enough economically recoverable oil left in the world (i.e. Peak Oil). As it is, world producers are struggling to keep pace with current demands of 87.5m barrels, and as reserves (and therefore the amount of oil that can be extracted) are inexorably declining, the task is hopeless, even with the Tar Sands. However, if Big Oil were ever to admit this fact, their share prices would tumble to nothing – Shell paid a considerable fine for overstating its reserves in order to keep its share prices high.Canada’s contribution will become almost as futile as trying to save the Titanic with a portable Wajax fire pump. On the other hand, using Annesley’s guess, Canada’s current 2.2m bbl/day oil consumption would double to about 4.4m barrels by 2050. If we build the right infrastructure, (i.e. a pipeline to the east), we could have enough to be self-sufficient for the eventual transition to sustainable energy sources, without having to turn to even dirtier coal, and perhaps also have some left over for our friends in Europe and the US.

Remember too that the Titanic set sail with too few lifeboats. Levant’s wish to sell our natural resources (at less than cost) to China would be akin to putting this country’s small number of lifeboats in a yard sale.

CFN - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with his government, owe sophist (someone who argues with shrewd but intentionally fallacious reasoning) Ezra Levant a star columnist for Sun Media and the Glenn Beck Fox News North) big time, and are starting to repay the debt.

Levant’s whole career has been tied to or sponsored by the extreme right. As a law student at the University of Alberta, he was called before the Dean for going beyond the boundaries of free speech in criticising the University’s hiring policy towards, among others, women and native people.  During this period, he was deeply involved with getting Rahim Jaffer (later discredited for alleged drunk driving and coke possession) nominated as the Reform candidate in the University riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. He also took part in a summer internship program (1994) at the Charles G Koch Foundation (which would later be instrumental in founding the Tea Party). In 1995 he joined the Canadian extreme right Fraser Institute, where he advocated against trade unions, universal health care, minimum wages, and the Canada Pension Plan.

In 2002, Levant became the official Canadian Alliance (i.e. the rebranded version of the Reform Party) Candidate for Calgary Southwest, reportedly spending $15,000 to win the nomination. When Stephen Harper became the new leader of the party, he was “persuaded” to step aside in Harper’s favour so that Harper could run, causing Harper and the party to become beholden to him. In ceding the seat to Harper, he gave up, among other things, a solid $150,000+ salary and a gold-plated pension scheme, as well as immunity to libel laws when speaking in the Commons. What was the price for giving up all this in favour of an as yet untried political leader?

 

Master of Propaganda

Levant is probably the world’s best propagandist since Joseph Goebbels, having mastered the basic rules of propaganda like no other. Some of the primary rules for a successful propaganda campaign state that:

Propaganda must aim at the broad masses of the people, be in a popular form and at the lowest possible intellectual level.

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively or present the other side, but only present half the truth. Because the broad masses take in little and understand less, effective propaganda must confine itself to a very few stereotyped formulas and ideas.

One of the latest jingles to appear in the House of Commons and in the oil industry is the term “Ethical Oil”, taken from the title of Levant’s latest book. This is a neat title, and a catchphrase no one can disagree with. What can be better than obtaining oil from an “ethical source”, i.e. Alberta, when one considers the many “unethical” sources of oil?

The book received extensive critical acclaim from the right wing press. For example, Libertas Post, which claims to be “an official ‘socialist free zone’ where economic, political and individual freedoms are discussed, debated and celebrated”, highly recommends the book. (For the record, this site also includes what looks like a permanent link to Ezra Levant’s own site).

 

“The oil sands are not perfect, and criticizing them is fair game. But why has criticism of the oil sands been so disproportionately loud compared to criticism of other, larger, more disturbing sources of oil? Sources such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuala, the Sudan, China… the list of oil-producing nations, in large part, reads like a list of target countries for Amnesty International. Human rights abuses, crackdowns on citizens and journalists, environmental abuses – this is what, for the large part, Western countries like the United States have to do business with on a regular basis, just to keep up their fuel supply. Wouldn’t it be better to buy from a country without the laundry list of crimes to its name?

All this is true, and to give even the devil its due, Levant deserves credit for bringing the abuses committed in these countries to light. The Libertas Post review concludes with a snippet from the last chapter of Levant’s book:

“There can be no doubt: Canada does its best. We’re an energy superpower. And we’re an ethical superpower too, setting international standards for how we treat the environment and how we treat each other. And if our goal as moral citizens is to make the world a better place, then there is only one choice: to pump as much oil as we possibly can out of Fort McMurray.”

One point about which Levant seems unclear, however, is the reason the Harper Government ordered the Commons Environment Committee to destroy its draft report about water utilisation and pollution in the Tar Sands.

China is one of the countries that comes under justifiable criticism. Despite its importance in the global capitalist economy, it remains a communist country, portraits of Chairman Mao are on all the banknotes, and its human rights record is well known. In spite of major investments in green energy, it is the world’s largest source of greenhouse gasses and air pollution in general. Its annual growth in energy use is one of the major causes for continually rising oil prices, which were the trigger for the worldwide depression, which began in 2008. As the demand for oil overtakes supply, prices will continue to rise, until a deepening of the recession again drops the demand.

 

Let’s Give our Oil to China

However, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who are the major beneficiaries of Levant’s “Ethical Oil” book, are encouraging the construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline, from the tar sands to Kittimat, BC, in order to export oil to this unethical regime.

First Nations in the area of the proposed pipeline are adamantly against the pipeline, despite the fact that this is “ethical oil.” Terry Teegee, a vice-chief for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council in the Fort St. James, BC, area, has his own views on “ethical oil” and the pipeline:

“Asia Pacific countries should know they are contributing to the destruction of our land and culture by purchasing and trading “blood oil” (as some First Nations of the Tar Sands area call it); they are contributing to the genocide of First Nations culture.  Canada is just as easily to blame since they are allowing the continued destruction of First Nations land.  The Canadian Government is not living up to the fiduciary duty they promised First Nations so many years ago.  This is why we do not want the Northern Gateway Pipeline through our territories, we have seen the legacy of the “Tar Sands” and the many Enbridge spills left behind, polluting lands and water systems.  Our people steadfastly said no to this project in 2006 and they are saying it again in 2010: “No to Enbridge Pipeline!”

Geraldine Thomas-Flurer, the Interim Enbridge Coordinator of the [BC] 5 Nation Interior Alliance also makes some very valid points:

“Indigenous peoples have been adamant in bringing to the world the issues of climate change and the role that international trade agreements play within the climate crisis that we are experiencing today….  While Indigenous peoples are fighting for cultural survival, we will continue to oppose international trade agreements that fail to respect Indigenous rights and allow for the expansion of the Tar Sands and Enbridge pipelines through our unceded traditional territories.”

 

Certainly, Levant makes a strong case for oil from many foreign countries being “unethical”. What he missed, however, or at best glossed over, is the “Blood Oil” coming out of Northern Alberta.

Canada has always had a decent record of trade sanctions against various countries guilty of human rights violations or other threats to peace. In the past, trade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) brought these countries to their knees. Currently, Canada imposes sanctions against Iran and Syria, and the boycotts on trade with Libya have only recently ended. It would make sense, then, according to Levant’s logic, that we should not encourage trade with any of the countries on the “Unethical Oil” list.

Sinopec, the Chinese state-owned oil company, is making major investments throughout the world in order to secure China’s continuing oil supply for its accelerating demand. One of the targets for their investment is the Alberta Tar Sands. Why would “ethical” Canada allow a country with China’s record, both for CO2 emissions and human rights, to access and make a profit from Canadian resources which rightly belong to Canadian?

Levant’s justification, taken from his “ethical oil” website, goes like this:

While some investment in Canada’s oilpatch may come from unethical countries like China and the United Arab Emirates, those investors know that in coming here they must play by Canada’s rules. Our oil resources are publicly owned and any producer, foreign or Canadian, earns the privilege of tapping them only if it lives up to the behaviour our public insists upon. Our second-to-none standards protecting workers’ rights, worker safety, and the environment, are the same for any operator with a license to produce oil in Alberta. The codes of conduct are just as high for Sinopec as they are for Suncor.

This is an intriguing argument, especially from someone who once won a Canadian university national debating prize. Let’s analyze what he claims.

• Workers’ rights: In other words, Sinopec has to pay the going rate for the industry, otherwise no one will work for them;
• Worker safety: They have to follow the rules imposed by the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board, just like any other company operating in the province;
• The environment: Like the other tar sands companies, as long as they don’t make their pollution too obvious, and gather up the bird kills before the federal government gets wind of it, they don’t have too much to worry about. While on the topic of the environment, the bulk of the federal government’s civil service cutbacks seem to have come from the Ministry of the Environment.

 

So why would a completely unethical oil company from one of the world’s most unethical countries submit itself to these harsh rules? The answer is simple. Profit. China is continually increasing its oil dependence, but must pay world price. If it can extract its own oil in Canada, it effectively pays only the cost of production, somewhat less than world price. As China is one of the countries threatening to cause an energy famine in the rest of the world, the big winners are the communists running China, and the big losers will be Canada and the rest of the world.

 

Ethical Oil Companies in the Tar Sands

On the subject of foreign “ethical” investment in the tar sands, the top companies are:

• BP – British
  BP brought to us, among other things, the Gulf Oil Spill (but that was certainly ethical oil, so probably it got blown out of all proportion by the liberal/socialist press).
• Canadian Natural Resources Ltd (CNRL). This is a publically traded company on both the New York and Toronto stock exchanges, so it is somewhat difficult to work out just what its “corporate nationality” is. However, according to a press release, this Calgary based company drills for “ethical oil” in both Canada and the UK, and also in the very unethical (according to Levant) region of West Africa. However, given that this oil is drilled by an ethical Canadian company, the oil must automatically become ethical the moment it leaves Africa.

• Exxon Mobil. US owned Exxon Mobil regularly reports profits in excess of $10bn each quarter. Exxon Mobile, either as presently constituted or as Exxon or Mobil, prior to their merger, have an interesting ethics record.
  The Exxon Valdez oil tanker was owned by an ethical oil company, and carried only ethical oil from Alaska. Like the BP spill, it was probably an invention of the liberal/socialist media, designed to disrupt the American economy.
  Given that it is unethical to pay taxes, as it holds back business expansion, job creation and profits, former Mobil senior executive J. Bryan Williams withheld taxes on $7m in income, including $2m in kickbacks received in connection to Mobil’s oil business in Kazakhstan (one of the unethical oil producing countries). Unfortunately for Williams’s and Mobil’s job creation plans, he was sentenced to three years, 10 months’ imprisonment, a $50,000 fine, and ordered to pay the IRS $3.5m in back taxes, interest and penalties.
  The company scored a ZERO in respect to basic human rights towards their gay or lesbian employees, according to a study conducted by Human Rights Campaign. This is probably top marks on the Republican/Tea Party scale of human rights, making them truly ethical.
• Chevron – US Multinational. According to a Chevron press release, “Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry.”
  Chevron is currently facing a lawsuit of about $10.7bn from the (presumably ethical) Brazilian Government over an oil spill which lasted four days, and which Chevron claims in its press release is now substantially cleaned up.
  The company has major interests in Nigeria, Angola, Kazakhstan and Somalia, all of which are, by any reasonable definition, sources of “conflict oil.”

Chevron, or its predecessors, have been accused or convicted of significant unethical business dealings, including suppressing street cars in order to sell buses, tires and fuel (along with GM and Firestone), tax evasion, in collusion with the Indonesian government, blocking of NiMH battery technology for automobiles, environmental damage in Ecuador, oil spills in Angola and Richmond, California, sponsoring of state terrorism in Cabinda (a province of Angola), and shooting of civilian protestors in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.

Like the Chinese Sinopec company, however, Chevron is also required, in Levant’s words, to uphold “our second-to-none standards protecting workers’ rights, worker safety, and the environment….”

• Shell – Dutch, British Multinational. Shell operates in 90 countries. In Africa these include in Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia, all of which can be considered as producers of “conflict oil.”
  In 2004 the UK Financial Services Authority fined Shell £17m for deliberately overstating its reserves. These overstated reserves would have overvalued the company in the eyes of shareholders, making them believe their investment was worth more than the reality. In 2008, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Shell had misled the public in an advertisement when it claimed that a $10bn tar sands project in Alberta was a “sustainable energy source.”
  Nigeria. In 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention. Nine leaders of the Ogoni tribe of southern Nigeria who were hanged in 1995 by Nigeria’s military rulers. The lawsuits were brought against Royal Dutch Shell and Brian Anderson, the head of its Nigerian operation. In 2009, Shell paid $15.5m in a legal settlement, although they refused to accept liability.
  In 2009, Shell was the subject of an Amnesty International report into the deterioration of human rights as a consequence of Shell’s activities in the Niger Delta. In particular, Amnesty criticised the continuation of gas flaring and Shell’s slow response to oil spills.
  In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government and know “everything that was being done in those ministries”, according to Shell’s top executive in Nigeria. The same executive also boasted that the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell’s infiltration. Documents released in 2009 (but not used in the court case) reveal that Shell regularly made payments to the Nigerian military in order to prevent protests.

 

This list of ethical oil companies, all involved in the ethical tar sands, could go on, but this should be enough to get the general idea. The question is whether these companies suddenly become ethical as soon as they arrive in Alberta.

 

Canada – an Energy Superpower

Levant claims in his book that Canada is an “Energy Superpower.” On the face of it, one can easily believe so, especially as the tar sands are the second largest reserve in the world. However, this claim flops to the ground as soon as one considers world oil production.Canada’s total daily oil production in 2009 approached 4 million barrels per day – total world daily production is approximately 87.5m barrels per day. In case you don’t want to do the math, it works out at about 4.5%. An “energy superpower”? By Levant’s reasoning, yes. We even have enough oil to spare to help the Chinese in their quest for economic domination. But in reality, as we have no pipeline to Eastern Canada, we can’t even take care of ourselves.

The next article will continue exposing Ezra Levant’s grip on our government.