Links January 6, 2012

Analysis: What did Ipsos-Reid mean about “northern British Columbia” in the Enbridge pipeline poll?

A poll by Ipsos-Reid, commissioned by Enbridge, released on Jan 4, 2012, gauging support for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, has become almost as controversial as the pipeline itself.

Ipsos-Reid says their “poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge shows that British Colombians are more likely to support than oppose the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Project.”

Most important, according to Ipsos-Reid, a majority of British Columbians are not familiar with the Northern Gateway project.

Environmental groups and media reports look at the that unfamiliarity and question whether or not the poll actually represents the views of people in British Columbia.

There were also pointed questions here in northwestern British Columbia about the figures that showed strong support, 55 per cent in what Ipsos-Reid called “northern British Columbia.”

There were also questions from those familiar with the pipeline project, posted on Facebook, Twitter and blogs about the term “oil” used by Ipsos-Reid in its poll questions.

The question
As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alberta and Kitimat, in northern BC. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Ipsos-Reid vice -president of public affairs Kyle Braid for clarification.

Overall results

According to Ipsos-Reid, the poll shows slightly more than four-in-ten (42%) residents say they are “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) with the project described above. Another three-in-ten (30%) are “not very familiar” and one-quarter (25%) are “not at all familiar” with the project.

Familiarity (“very” or “somewhat”) is higher among Northern residents (61%), men (48% vs. 37% of women) and older residents (53% of 55+ years vs. 43% of 35-54 years, 30% of 18-34 years).

According to the poll, support for the project is well ahead of opposition. Nearly half (48% overall, 14% “strongly”) of British Columbians say they support the project, compared to one-third (32% overall, 13% “strongly”) in opposition. Two-in-ten (20%) are undecided about the project.

Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups. Project support is highest among Northern residents (55%), men (58% vs. 38% of women) and older residents (58% of 55+ years vs. 47% of 35-54 years, 38% of 18-34 years).

Ipsos-Reid says it asked all respondents, on an open-ended basis, to name one main project benefit and one main project concern.
The top project benefit, mentioned by half (51%) of British Columbians, is “employment/ economic benefits”. Less frequently mentioned benefits include “export/trade benefits” (10%) and “better/ safer mode of transport” (5%).

The top mentioned project concerns include “general environmental concerns” (43%) and “risk of spills/leaks” (21%). Less frequently mentioned concerns include “general safety/ protection concerns“(7%), “pollution/ contamination” (5%) and “cost/ expenses” (5%).

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman Paul Stanway said the poll, released exclusively to Postmedia News, will set a “proper context” for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.

“The argument often made by our opponents that there is overwhelming opposition from British Columbians in general, and I think that’s far from being an accurate view of what’s going on,” Stanway told the Sun.

Defining the North

As with all polls, the margin of error raises with the smaller number of people questioned as part of the larger sample. Ipsos-Reid acknowledges this when it says

These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge. The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted online using Ipsos-Reid’s national online household panel between December 12 and December 15, 2011. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error would be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual BC population according to 2006 Census data.

So what does Ipsos-Reid mean by northern British Columbia?

Braid responded by e-mail, saying the polling company follows regional districts as defined by BC Statistics. “In lieu of providing a list of those districts, an approximate break is everything Williams Lake and above is considered North,” Braid said.

As published on the table (Tables from Ipsos-Reid Northern Gateway poll pdf) handout on the website, Ipsos-Reid interviewed 168 people in “northern British Columbia.” Braid says the 168 people represents 17% of the sample. These interviews would have been weighted down to about 7% in the overall results to reflect the actual population of the North in BC. The margin of error in the North is about +/-7.6%, 19 times out of 20.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Braid if he knew how much of the sample represents respondents who live along the pipeline route. He replied, “I do not know how many of the Northern interviews were along the pipeline route.”

That likely means that the northern margin of error is much higher. If all of British Columbia north of Williams Lake is looked at carefully, there are actually three subregions within the Ipsos-Reid sample.

West of Prince George there is strong opposition to the pipeline. East and northeast of Prince George, especially in the oil and natural gas fields around the Peace River region, there is strong support for the energy industry and the pipeline. South of Prince George, toward Williams Lake, far away from the pipeline route and not involved in hydrocarbon energy extraction, it is most likely that the respondents there would fall into the “unfamiliar” category.

Oil or bitumen?

For those who live along the pipeline route, the fact that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be carrying diluted bitumen, not standard crude oil, is a key factor among those opposing the pipeline.

In response to the question about use of the oil, Braid responded. “On the use of the word “oil”, I know that few average British Columbians know what bitumen is, so that’s no good. And we also try to avoid the use of loaded words like “tar sands” in these interviews. Using a loaded word results in a question that’s biased in one direction. And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project? I believe it’s better to keep the question as clean as possible with no messaging. And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?”

There are a couple of problems with Braid’s response, which we looked at in an earlier analysis of media coverage during the Keystone XL debate.

As was pointed out in that article, in all its filings with the Northern Gateway Joint Review, Enbridge uses the terms “bitumen,” “diluted bitumen,” or “dilbit,” not oil. Bitumen is not the “bubbling crude,” the boomer generation would remember from the Beverly Hillbillies or the oil covered James Dean in Giant.

As media critics have pointed out, the use of “oil sands” is considered a loaded term by the environmental critics, who prefer “tar sands.” The neutral term is bitumen.

Thus it can be argued the use of oil instead of bitumen, even if the poll respondents are not that familiar with the subject, is itself “a loaded word [that] results in a question that’s biased in one direction.”

Braid’s other point “And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?” It would be conventional crude, which has been coming out of wells in Alberta since 1948, that bubbling crude, not bitumen.

Finally “And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project?” That leads to the other major criticism of the poll from environmentalists, that the poll had no questions about the economic consequences to British Columbia’s tourist and sports fishing industries from any “full bore” (a term used in the JRP filings) pipeline break or even minor pipeline breach or the costs of cleaning up from a major tanker disaster as well as the consequences for tourism and the sports and commercial fisheries from a tanker oil spill.

Critics have pointed to the fact that Enbridge commissioned the poll to question its credibility, and while who pays is always a factor in looking at any polling data, overall any polling company’s success depends on the long term accuracy of its findings. In this case, it is more likely that Ipsos-Reid itself should be included in the “unfamiliar” category.

Ipsos-Reid news release on the Northern Gateway Pipeline poll

 

Related Links

Enbridge Northern Gateway blog New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

CBC News  48% support for northern B.C. pipeline, says poll

Vancouver Observer Enviros question methodology of Enbridge poll disputing Northern Gateway pipeline opposition

 

Links January 3, 2012

U of Calgary reports says exporting oil through west coast will bring billions, but no info on environmental costs

Energy

A report issued by the University of Calgary School of Public Policy says if Canadian heavy oil is piped to the west coast and then shipped to Asia and possibly California, that could add $131-billion US to the Canadian economy between 2016 and 2030.

The report suggests it offers solid numbers in favour of pipeline construction to government and industry. For example it says 649,000 person years of jobs could be added to the Canadian economy over the next few years.

The report is based on differentials on oil prices in various world markets and while the final figures are not certain, the overall tone of the report is optimistic.

There is one flaw in the report. There is no consideration whatsoever by the Calgary economists of the costs of a pipeline breach, major or minor, in the wilderness of northwestern British Columbia nor the cost of a tanker disaster on the west coast. That just does not just include the costs of an extended cleanup of a spill, it also doesn’t consider the costs to the fishery and tourism industries by any such disaster. There is no estimation of the costs to the overall business and the economy of any community affected by any spill.  Nor is there any consideration of the long term effects on the environment itself of any such accident.

Read the report here. University of Calgary report on oil exports (pdf)

Related Globe and Mail Blocking pipelines to B.C. would entail loss of billions: study

International Halibut Commission recommends drastic cuts in quotas, with worse to come

Environment Fishery

659-iphc.gifThe International Pacific Halibut Commission is recommending drastic cuts in quotas along the west coast for the 2012  season and possibly even larger cuts for the 2013 season.

For area 2B, the coast of British Columbia, the IPHC is recommending an overall quota of  6.633 million pounds, down from 7.650 million pounds in 2011, a decrease of 13.3 per cent.

Along the entire Pacific Coast, the IPHC wants the total  harvest cut 19 per cent from 41.07 million pounds this year to 33.882 million pounds in 2012.

The recommendations are based on the IPHC’s studies of the 2011 halibut harvest.

The commission says that exploitable biomass of  halibut continues to decline, reflecting lower recruitment (the number of fish that are becoming harvestable)  from the 1989 to 1997 year classes and smaller size at age.

The commission says that  while recruitment  from more recent year classes is stronger but halibut size at age continues to be much lower than that seen in the recent period (1997-1998) of historic high biomass, so these year classes are recruiting to the exploitable biomass more slowly than past year classes.

The IPHC FAQ explains this in easier terms as

For a simple question, this has a bit of a complicated answer. The simple answer is, they are still here. Or at least the same age fish are still here. For the past 15 years or so, halibut growth rates have been depressed to levels that haven’t been seen since the 1920’s. Both females and male halibut have the potential to grow rapidly until about age 10, about 2 inches per year for males and 2.5 inches for females. Thereafter, females have the potential to grow even faster, while males generally would slow down relative to female growth. Growth rates for these larger fish in the last 10 or so years are more on the order of one inch or less per year. This translates into a much smaller fish at any given age. There was a dramatic increase in halibut growth rates in the middle of this century, especially in Alaska. Sometime around 1980, growth rates started to drop, and now Alaska halibut of a given age and sex are about the same size as they were in the 1920’s. For example, in the northern Gulf of Alaska, an 11-year-old female halibut weighed about 20 pounds in the 1920’s, nearly 50 pounds in the 1970’s, and now again about 20 pounds. The reasons for both the increase and the decrease are not yet known but may be tied to increased abundance of other species, such as arrowtooth flounder, and availability of food supply

Steve Hare, the commission’s chief scientist told the Alaska Dispatch that scientists are becoming uncomfortable with the model they are using to calculate the biomass because “season after season the numbers of dead fish don’t add up correctly.”

Hare told the Alaska Dispatch that the commission is considering a new model that could mean “staggering cuts of 63 percent in the halibut fisheries to a mere 15 million pounds” in 2013.

Halibut quotas have been cut half since 2001 and the Alaska Dispatch says: “the implications of such a cut are huge — not only for fishermen of all sorts, but for small coastal communities from British Columbia north through Alaska, and for consumers.”

The quotas will be finalized and confirmed at the IPHC annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, during January 24-27, 2012.

IPHC news release Dec. 2, 2011 (pdf)

Alaska media is reporting halibut quotas must be halved, stocks in bad shape

Environment Fishery

A number of media outlets in Alaska are reporting that at today’s meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission, scientists have said that the population can only sustain  harvest quotas at half the current level.

The story comes mainly from the Kodiak Daily Mirror, with additional information from other media outlets.  There is currently no news release on the IPHC website.

The Associated Press, quoting the Mirror
, says:

Biologists say without adjusting for past overestimates, 2012’s Pacific
halibut limit would be set at 33 million pounds, down from 41 million
pounds in 2011. If an adjustment was made for past overestimates, the
sustainable catch limit may be as little as 15.3 million pounds across
the entire North Pacific.

Biologists do not know why their estimates have been consistently too high

Station KSTK, an Alaska Public Radio station is saying that the IPHC wants a 13.3 per cent cut in British Columbia’s quota to 6,633,000 pounds.

Alaska Dispatch says halibut harvest levels could go down to levels not seen since the 1930s.

The news website says: “Adult flatfish are disappearing from the population at unexplainable rates…”

Alaska Dispatch quotes IPHC biologist Steven Hare as saying that the real problem is “unspecified mortality.”

Halibut are disappearing from the population for reasons managers can only guess at. “It’s troubling,” Were managers to take these mystery disappearances fully into consideration, he added, they would be forced to recommend drastic cuts in commercial harvests.


One model that does this, he said, suggested setting catches “28 percent lower than the lowest level since 1935.” Catches, or at least legal catches, have already been pushed down 55 percent in the past decade, and they are for sure going down again

Proposed quotas according to KSTK

The staff’s 2012 catch recommendations for each area include:

  • 989,000 pounds in the Pacific Northwest area 2A which is up 8.7%.
  • 6,633,000 pounds in British Columbia area 2B which is down 13.3%.
  • 2,624,000 pounds in area 2C which is up 12.6%.
  • 11,918,000 pounds in the Central Gulf Area 3A which is down 17 %.
  • 5,070,000 pounds in the Western Gulf Area 3B which would be a drop of about 32 %.
  • 1,567,000 pounds in the Aleutians area 4A which is down about 35 %.
  • 2,180,000 pounds in the Aleutians area 4B which is 14 % down.
  • And 2,465,000 pounds in the Bering Sea areas 4C, D, and E a reduction of about 34 %.

The board will make a final decision on 2012 catch limits at a meeting in Anchorage from Jan. 24-27.

Rio Tinto Alcan to make announcement Thursday about Kitimat growth plans

Rio Tinto Alcan has called a news conference for Thursday, December 1 in Kitimat “to make an announcement regarding
the company’s multi-billion dollar growth plans.”

BC Premier Christy Clark, Rio Tinto CEO Jacynthe Cote, Jean Simon, president, RTA Primary Metal North America, Paul Henning, RTA vice president, British Columbia Operations & Strategic Projects, Western Canada and key regional stakeholders and First Nations representatives will be at the announcement at the Kitimat Modernization site during the noon hour.

The RTA news release says the announcement will be a significant event for Kitimat, the northwest region of the province, and all of British Columbia. It is likely, especially with the BC premier in attendance, the RTA is giving the go ahead for the long planned $2.5 billion smelter modernization project.

Updates

Sources have told Northwest Coast Energy News that applicants for jobs at the Kitimat Modernization Project, where the prime contractor is Bechtel, were told during the past month to wait until the end of November and that time, the applicants were told, there would probably be between 500 and 550 jobs available.

The Globe and Mail reports:


Rio Tinto to go ahead with Kitimat smelter expansion

Rio Tinto Alcan is pushing ahead with construction of a $3.3-billion (U.S.) smelter in Kitimat, B.C., even as stagnant prices have spurred a selloff of other aluminum assets.

London-based Rio Tinto PLC, which acquired Montreal-based aluminum giant Alcan for $38.1-billion in 2007, is expected to announce Thursday it has final approval to modernize the 57-year-old smelter to double its capacity

Approval will see Rio spend another $2.7-billion on Kitimat, after already setting aside $650-million towards the upgrade, raising the construction price tag more than 30 per cent from $2.5-billion. The plan includes demolishing a building and clearing space for a new plant.

Kinder Morgan aims to expand Trans Mountain pipeline: Globe and Mail

Energy Link

Nathan Vanderklippe writes in The Globe and Mail  Kinder Morgan aims to expand Trans Mountain pipeline

A second project has been launched to carry major new volumes of oil-sands crude to Pacific waters, amid mounting industry interest in exporting Canadian oil to Asia.
 
Kinder Morgan Canada has begun accepting bids from companies prepared to ship oil on a proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain system, which runs 1,150 kilometres from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C.

The Trans Mountain pipeline system, which runs from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., would be twinned to carry more crude.

The process is called an “open season,” and serves as an important kickoff to a project that has ambitions similar to the controversial $6.6-billion Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by Enbridge Inc. It also promises to raise a new front in the battle between industry and environmental critics over building infrastructure to move oil across B.C. and onto tankers.

Both Northern Gateway and the Trans Mountain expansion seek to open new access to Pacific tidewater, providing a connection to Asian markets for an industry that is increasingly eager to break its dependence on the United States as virtually its sole export destination…

Business and labour leaders show their support for northern pipeline initiatives: Vancouver Sun

Energy Economy

Gordon Hamilton in the Vancouver Sun writes Business and labour leaders show their support for northern pipeline initiatives

Sixteen business and labour leaders have signed an open letter to British Columbians urging their support for natural gas and oil pipeline proposals across the northern half of the province which they say are needed to link Canada’s energy resources and B.C.’s economic future more closely to Asian economies.

The letter marks the first public relations campaign aimed at swaying opinion province-wide towards energy projects in the North. Up until now, only regional support groups have been formed, such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Alliance, which is actively supporting Enbridge’s $5.5 billion Alberta-to-Kitimat pipeline project in communities along the pipeline route.

The letter was written by former federal transportation minister Chuck Strahl. Signatories include former international trade minister David Emerson, the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, the Business Council of B.C., the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters the country’s largest industrial association.

Cheap power comes at a price: Vancouver Sun op ed

Energy Politics

Marvin Shaffer, an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University and a public policy consultant, writes an op ed commentary in the Vancouver Sun  Cheap power comes at a price

A striking feature of the government’s jobs strategy is the number of very electric-intensive projects it entails. The strategy calls for the development of new mines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, all of which will require very large amounts of electricity.


The first phase of the proposed LNG plant at Kitimat in itself will reportedly consume some 1.5 million megawatt hours of electricity per year, or roughly one-third of the entire output of the proposed Site C dam project.


Media commentators have questioned whether BC Hydro will be able to supply these large new requirements for electricity.