Daily Archives: January 12, 2015

How Trans Mountain Project Will Pump Profits to Its Texas Owners Charting the Houston-driven inner workings of Kinder Morgan.

Posted on by

While doing work as an Intervenor for the Board of Friends of Ecological Reserves in the National Energy Board hearings on the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion proposal , we have received notice throughout the past few months of the posting of many motions and questions to the Board from Intervenor Robyn Allan. The incredible amount of research she has done may be accessed on the NEB website:  https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/Open/2451015

By Robyn Allan, Monday, January 10– TheTyee.ca

U.S.-based Kinder Morgan says its Trans Mountain expansion project represents financial and economic benefit to the Canadian economy, and our federal and provincial public treasuries.
Who would spend a year investigating such claims, rooted as they are in complex tax law, regulations and corporate structure? I did.
What I found made me conclude the opposite — Kinder Morgan drains financial wealth from our economy and does not pay its fair share of taxes.
I have written about the project’s complicated design to yield meagre tax revenues for Canadians in a previous Tyee article.
Now let me examine just how Canadian Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. is. The answer: hardly at all.
Pop the hood and take a look at Kinder Morgan’s inner workings and the idea that this is a Canadian company operating for the good of Canadians is dispelled quicker than Kinder Morgan can say injunction.
If you are bored by arcane discussions of corporate structure and governance, that may be just what Kinder Morgan is hoping. Please bear with me. It’s critical we know who really runs, and benefits from, Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.  —From the boys who brought us Enron

continued at: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/01/12/Trans-Mountain-Texas-Profits/

CHART.KMStructure_page_thumb

Click to enlarge (some browsers may require a second click to further enlarge image). Kinder Morgan corporate chart prepared by Robyn Allan. Graphic design by Karl Jensen.

 

Who pays for the real costs of the Oil Industry

Posted on by

We often hear that we need to extract oil and ship it overseas in order to support “Canadian jobs and the Economy”  I thought I would provide in this post a few links here to some references worth noting on the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry in Canada . GF

1. In July 2014, The Pembina Institute published a report titled: Fossil Fuel Subsidies: An analysis of federal financial support to Canada’s oil sector.
Published July 10, 2014 by Sarah Dobson, Amin Asadollahi

“The oil industry provides economic benefits in the short and medium term, but more permanent external benefits are less certain and are countered by the sector’s environmental impacts. This paper provides an analysis of federal financial support for the oil sector as well as recommendations on policy options. It recognizes progress made by Canada in phasing out certain subsidies, while noting that remaining federal direct and indirect support measures are largely inefficient and unnecessary.”

2. Fossil Fuels – At What Cost? Government Support for Upstream Oil Activities in Three Canadian Provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland & Labrador

Abstract:    Continue reading →

Economic Impacts of an Oil Spill

Posted on by

This  recent cover story by Lovel Pratt in the Whatcom Watch Onlinehttp://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1795 is well worth reading for Metchosin residents .
Examples it has stated:

  • “The consequences are huge: The Department of Ecology(Washington State)  estimates that a major oil spill in the state would cost 165,000 jobs and $10.8 billion in annual economic activity.
  • However, these figures are undervalued because, in addition to being two years outdated, this estimate does not include any costs associated with the impacts of oil spills to privately owned shoreline and water-view properties.”
  • “Property owners may be required to evacuate if faced with fire danger and/or air pollution from emissions of benzene and other volatile organic compounds. If evacuation is not required, shoreline and water access could be cut back or prohibited. Water views would be spoiled by oil slicks and noisy cleanup operations, and oiled shorelines would likely be mechanically cleaned by pressure washing and bulldozing.–Property owners also face losses to assessed values. A study conducted in British Columbia revealed that privately owned properties can lose from 10-40 percent in value, and even properties near spills that are not directly affected can lose value by association.”
  • “Typical homeowner’s insurance would not provide compensation in the event of an oil spill. Pollutants are excluded in property policies unless the coverage is specifically defined to include the pollutant. According to my local insurance agent, unless a homeowner’s policy specifically covers oil spills, there would be no compensation for loss of use or loss of value resulting directly or indirectly from an oil spill. Further, it would be both difficult and most likely quite expensive to find such coverage.
  • “The Exxon Valdez oil spill, which hasn’t been completely cleaned up after 25 years, still has continuous and compounding environmental and economic impacts.8 Washington State can’t afford that tragedy. The 165,000 jobs and $10.8 billion in annual economic activity don’t accurately estimate the costs that such a catastrophe would have on the state.”
  • See the well-referenced article here: http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1795
  • Thanks to Andy MacKinnon for pointing to this.