Joyce Nelson
Rabble : June 16, 2014

By 2012, the U.S. was awash in light sweet crude from (fracked) shale oil deposits in Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere. With Midwest and Gulf Coast refineries configured to take heavy oil, that light crude has been looking for a refining home.

Just months after the 2012 Bilderberg meeting, media reports revealed that Royal Dutch Shell and BP (whose executives were at the secret conclave), trading firm Vitol and three other (unidentified) shale oil producers in the U.S., had applied to tanker their fracked light crude from the U.S. Gulf Coast up to Eastern Canada for refining — replacing conventional imported oil.

With those shipments now underway, the next stage in the plan is for the tankers to be refilled with piped tar sands dilbit (from Enbridge’s Line 9 and TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East pipe) for shipment to Gulf Coast refineries and to Europe.*

A March 2014 report, “TransCanada’s Energy East Pipeline: For Export, Not Domestic Gain,” released by the Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Equiterre and Environmental Defence states that nearly all of the 1.1 million barrels per day of tar sands crude to be carried by the pipeline would be exported unrefined.

The Council of Canadians also stated that the pipeline “would help spur an up to 40 per cent increase in tar sands production at a time when First Nations downstream are calling for an end to further expansion.”

The Globe and Mail has noted that tar sands producers “can recoup costs before paying money [royalties] to the government” — a major reason why tar sands expansion is ongoing. The tar sands industry is about 70 percent foreign-owned, with Rockefeller a controlling shareholder in several of the key companies.

The opening line of the environmentalists’ report reads: “TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline is not a made-in-Canada energy solution.” That seems to have prompted some revisionist spin.

Revisionist spin

On March 27, both The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post carried a lengthy Reuters article claiming that TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East pipeline project is the October 2012 brainchild of the New Brunswick government and Irving Oil — a “Plan B” in the face of U.S. opposition to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

The article states:

In October 2012, representatives from Irving Oil and New Brunswick’s government traveled to the western Canadian oil hub of Calgary to present their alternative: a west-east oil pipeline that would go all the way to the Atlantic. Irving Oil had asked for the meeting, according to a person who attended. Waiting from them in a conference room were Canadian provincial energy officials, executives from TransCanada, and representatives from industry heavyweights Canadian Natural Resources [Ltd.], Imperial Oil, Suncor, and Shell Canada. Representatives of all the companies involved declined to comment on the record about the meeting. Alberta’s oil minister, Ken Hughes, whispered into the ear of his counterpart from New Brunswick, Craig Leonard. Never before, Leonard remembers Hughes saying, had he seen so many of the major oil sands players together in a single room. And they were listening keenly.

Despite the breathless prose, it’s likely that 2012 Bilderberg participants (including Shell and BP executives) had tacitly approved the pipeline five months earlier.

Indeed, the May 2012 Bilderberg conclave seems to have been focussed on pipelines.

“Top headache”

Daniel Estulin, the foremost (non-member) expert on Bilderberg, reported that the “top headache” for the Bilderberg participants at that May 2012 meeting was Russian President Valdimir Putin because of his “opposition to war in Syria and Iran,” his “belligerence with respect to U.S. bases encircling Russia” and his plans for another natural gas pipeline to Europe that “could turn into a major victory for Russia” at the expense of competing plans backed by Bilderberg members.

Some 30 per cent of Western Europe’s natural gas has been coming from Russia, with most of it provided by a pipeline network centred in Ukraine.**

Estulin reported a Bilderberg “campaign to delegitimize Putin,” financed by “some very angry and powerful Anglo-American elites.” Present at that 2012 conclave was then-Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, now U.S. Secretary of State.

The 33-member Bilderberg Steering Committee includes Richard Perle, Project for the New American Century member and one of the key architects of the 2003 U.S. War on Iraq. In 2004, Perle and David Frum (co-authors of the book An End To Evil) were advocating for “regime change” in so many countries that they were said to have an “agenda for a Hundred Years’ War.”***

The February 2014 ouster of Ukraine’s democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych is now seen by many observers to have been a coup orchestrated by Anglo-American interests hoping for a new Cold War. Calling Ukraine “a CIA theme park,” John Pilger wrote for UK’s The Guardian that Ukraine “is being torn apart by fascist forces unleashed by the U.S. and the EU. We in the West are now backing neo-Nazis in a country where Ukrainian Nazis backed Hitler.”

That’s not how the crisis is being portrayed in much of Western corporate media, but as Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger has said, “It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true.” 

With no official parliamentary debate, Harper in May sent Canadian troops to Ukraine-related NATO exercises. The EU, worried about meeting long-term fuel needs, is now considering backing away from a proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) which would curtail the import of tarsands crude. Simultaneously, TransCanada Corp. is “accelerating efforts” on its regulatory filing for the Energy East export pipeline extension.

Canadian petro-state

While Indiana’s Mitch Daniels was speaking at Bilderberg 2012, Indianapolis-based indystar.com reported that “the meeting this year will cover topics as diverse as energy, cyber security and the future of democracy.”

On that third topic, Harper was clear when he spoke last year at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — another Rockefeller founded/funded organization (for U.S. members only). On May 16, 2013, when asked by CFR’s Robert Rubin about risks to Canada, Harper mentioned “household debt,” “security risks” and then he said, “There’s always the risk of people picking the wrong government, but my primary job is to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

He got a laugh with that line, but less than a year later, the grossly misnamed “Fair Elections Act” has just been rammed through Parliament. Its terms will prevent any real investigation of future electoral “dirty tricks.”

(read the full article at Rabble)

—
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

First Nations Going to Court United Against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project

Today, we unequivocally reject the Harper Government’s decision to approve the Enbridge Northern Gateway tanker and pipelines project and First Nations will immediately go to court to vigorously pursue all lawful means to stop the Enbridge project.

We have governed our lands, in accordance to our Indigenous laws, since time immemorial. Our inherent Title and Rights and our legal authority over our respective territories have never been surrendered.

Our inherent rights are human rights constitutionally enshrined, judicially recognized and embodied in international legal instruments including the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This project, and the federal process to approve it, violated our rights and our laws. We are uniting to defend our lands and waters of our respective territories. Our rights and laws compel us to act.

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway tanker and pipeline project exposes all communities from Alberta to the Pacific Coast to the undeniable risk of pipeline and supertanker oil spills. First Nations and the majority of British Columbians believe this project poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the health, the safety and livelihoods of all peoples throughout this province.

We will defend our territories whatever the costs may be.

Council of the Haida Nation

Gitanmaax Band Council

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs

Gitgaat

Gitxaala

Gitxsan (Delgamuukw)

Haisla

Heiltsuk

Kitasoo Xai’xais

Lax kw’alaams

Metlakatla

Nadleh Whut’en

Nak’azdli

Neskonlith Indian Band

Office of the Wet’suwet’en

Saikuz First Nation

Takla Lake

Tlazten

Tsetsaut / Skii km Lax Ha

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Wet’suwet’en First Nation

Williams Lake Indian Band

Xatsull

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

Coastal First Nations

St’at’imc Chiefs Council

Tahltan Central Council

Yinka Dene Alliance

BC Assembly of First Nations

First Nations Summit

Union of BC Indian Chiefs

(Source: The Nelson Daily)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Truth-out : June 15, 2014

US EPA’s 503 sludge rule (1993) allows treated sewage sludges, aka biosolids, to be land-applied to farms, forests, parks, school playgrounds, home gardens and other private and public lands. According to a recent EPA survey, biosolids contain a wide range of mutagenic and neurotoxic chemicals, which are present at a million-fold higher concentrations (ppm versus ppt) compared with their levels in polluted air and water (1). Biosolids contain all of the lipophilic (fat-soluble) chemical wastes that once polluted our rivers and lakes, but which now settle out at sewage treatment plants and become concentrated in sewage sludges. Most biosolids contain ppm concentrations of heavy metals, including chromium, lead, and mercury. They contain similarly high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and semi-volatiles, such as bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, Benzo(a)pyrene), and polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners (PBDE flame retardants). Most biosolids also contain pathogenic agents and ppm levels of many common drugs, including ciprofloxacin (Cipro), carbamazepine (Tegretol, Equetro), and fluoxetine (Prozac).

While working at EPA Dr David Lewis published evidence that teenager Shayne Conner (of New Hampshire) died and other neighbors were harmed from living near land applied with sewage sludge (Lewis et al 2002). He furthermore became involved after dairy herds of two Georgia farms (McElmurray and Boyce) were poisoned after grazing on sludged land. He testified in lawsuits following each incident, against his employer (EPA), which is where many of the following depositions were obtained. The following article is an excerpt from Chapter 4 (Sludge Magic) of his new book Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits. The lawsuits referred to are Lewis v. EPA 1999; Lewis v. EPA 2003; and USA, ex rel. Lewis, McElmurray and Boyce v. Walker et al. 2009. The depositions below piece together an unprecedented and coordinated multi-agency scientific scheme involving EPA, USDA, local and city municipalities, Synagro Technologies (a waste management company), various universities, and the National Academies of Science. The effort was intended to misleadingly present sewage sludge as scientifically safe, to hide the evidence that it was not, to deliberately misreport the contents of municipal sludges, and smear David Lewis with a scientific misconduct charge after he blew the whistle.

(read the excerpt from Chapter 4 (Sludge Magic) of Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits at Truth-out)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Tom Philpott
Mother Jones: May 28, 2014

The rapid emergence of nanotechnology suggests that size does, indeed, matter. It turns out that if you break common substances like silver and nickel into really, really tiny particles—measured in nanometers, which are billionths of a meter—they behave in radically different ways. For example, regular silver, the stuff of fancy tableware, doesn’t have any obvious place in sock production. But nano-size silver particles apparently do. According to boosters, when embedded in the fabric of socks, microscopic silver particles are “strongly antibacterial to a wide range of pathogens, absorb sweat, and by killing bacteria help eliminate unpleasant foot odor.” (By most definitions, a particle qualifies as “nano” when it’s 100 nanometers wide or less. By contrast, a human hair clocks in at about 80,000 nanometers in diameter.)

According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN)—a joint venture of Virginia Tech and the Wilson Center—there are more than 1,600 nanotechnology-based consumer products on the market today. If SmartSilver Anti-Odor Nanotechnology Underwear sounds like a rather intimate application for this novel technology, consider that the PEN database lists 96 food items currently on US grocery shelves that contain unlabeled nano ingredients. Examples include Dannon Greek Plain Yogurt, Silk Original Soy Milk, Rice Dream Rice Drink, Hershey’s Bliss Dark Chocolate, and Kraft’s iconic American Cheese Singles, all of which now contain nano-size titanium dioxide. As recently as 2008, only eight US food products were known to contain nanoparticles, according to a recent analysis from Friends of the Earth—a more than tenfold increase in just six years.

All of which raises the question of safety. Radically miniaturized particles are attractive to the food and textile industries for their novel properties. Nano-size titanium dioxide, for example, is used as a color enhancer—it makes white foods like yogurt and soy milk whiter, and brightens dark products like chocolate. But what unintended effects might it have?

That’s where the nano story gets murky. Remarkably, the US Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the safety of the food supply, both 1) acknowledges that nanoparticles pose risks that are substantially different from those of their regular-sized counterparts, and 2) has done nothing to slow down their rapid move into the food supply.

Back in 2012, the FDA released a draft, pending public comment, of a proposed new framework for bringing nano materials into food. The document reveals plenty of reason for concern. For example: “so-called nano-engineered food substances can have significantly altered bioavailability and may, therefore, raise new safety issues that have not been seen in their traditionally manufactured counterparts.” The report went on to note that “particle size, surface area, aggregation/agglomeration, or shape may impact absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) and potentially the safety of the nano-engineered food substance.”

What FDA is saying here is obvious: If nanoparticles didn’t behave differently, the industry wouldn’t be using them in the first place.

So what’s the remedy? Rather than require rigorous safety studies before companies can lace food with nanoparticles, the FDA’s policy draft proposes “nonbinding recommendations” for such research. Even that rather porous safety net doesn’t yet exist—the agency still hasn’t implemented the draft proposal it released more than two years ago.

(read the full article at Mother Jones)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

The Straight Goods

What is going on with LNG for export development in British Columbia, it really is an important question?

For several years at least we have been hearing about our financial saviour in waiting, the LNG industry, in the last year this fledging industry’s rosy forecast have been front in center in expensive ad campaigns, the promise of a need for millions of workers, the promises of $trillions of dollars in revenue, numbers so large, numbers so lucrative that soon our roads will not only get the potholes fixed but be repaved with gold, wealth beyond our dreams, who needs “chump-change” tar sand coinage when British Columbia can start our own mint fuelled by natural gas..

Why the delay, why the holdup, for years LNG producers have been talking a good game and they really have spread LNG promotional sauce liberally over the last 18 months, so why is nothing happening, why indeed..

Companies pitting countries against each other, the race to the bottom, who will giveth the most, who will look the other way while corporate corruption skews the books, plays the field and creates another corporate welfare industry..

Alberta, a $6 billion dollar deficit this year, their 5th deficit in a row, all the development, foreign investment, big corporate takeovers with massive premiums paid on share prices, the most oil and gas production in their history and the deficits to Government are growing exponentially each year…Why, how can this be, by accident, by market forces, or by sinister corporate design, the race to the bottom, subsidies, kickbacks, financial fraud and offshore tax havens, you can`t name just one of those items because those corporate activities are all in play, all of the time, including deliberate corporate fraud…

Let’s look at Australia, $100s of billions of dollars have been and are being invested in LNG export terminals and related facilities, every LNG project from every company doing business in Australia, every single project is and has gone over-budget by 30%..40%..50% even by 100% in some cases…A Chevron LNG plant build, Chevron’s Gorgon LNG plant has ballooned from a $30 billion dollar build cost to now an estimated $60 billion dollars plus. And Chevron isn’t alone, every company building similar facilities have seen similar cost over-runs. Coincidence, bad luck, how about deliberate guile and deception, how about corruption, ingrained systemic corporate corruption..

What if I told you the Australian Government pays 30% of all LNG capital costs, meaning company X building an LNG export terminal in Australia, they budget $30 billion dollars for the build, $10 billion dollars of that money comes back to the company as tax breaks and or subsidies, and just imagine if the corporate petroleum industry and their many partners colluded to bring build costs up, and up, and up, projects all running 40%..50%..60%..100% over budget, with winks and nods and corporate guile company X doesn`t receive $10 billion dollars back from the $30 billion dollar build but receives back from Government(public tax dollars) a sum of $34 billion dollars on an inflated $100 billion dollar build..In a sense, systemic corporate corruption has found a legal loophole to have the general public in Australia pay for the entirety of the LNG plant builds…!

With a wink, with a nod, supplier A doubles his prices, producer Q triples his cost, all bills flow to the general corporate contractor where this excess gravy is skimmed right back to the general corporate builder….In other words it`s a ponzi scheme, exactly what is going on in the Alberta tar sands, the more oil production being done the financially poorer the province gets, British Columbia LNG exporters want in on the action,….
_______
From Perry Williams and Jennifer Hewett….

“Australia’s biggest ever resources development, Chevron’s Gorgon liquefied natural gas project, faces a $20 billion cost blowout to more than $60 billion because of the high dollar, union demands, high-cost local manufacturing and productivity issues……

The Gorgon cost blowout means the budgets of new LNG projects in Australia and Papua New Guinea have increased by more than $35 billion since May last year.

On Monday, ExxonMobil, Oil Search and Santos raised their estimated cost of PNG LNG by $US3.3 billion to $US19 billion and cited the higher than expected Australian dollar, delays in accessing land, bad weather and logistical difficulties.

PNG LNG is just the latest in a string of cost rises among Australasia’s unprecedented line-up of LNG construction ventures.

Woodside Petroleum’s $15 billion Pluto venture ended more than a quarter over budget, while BG Group and Santos have both had to lift the cost estimates for their coal seam gas-based LNG projects in Queensland.”

http://www.afr.com/p/national/huge_lng_cost_blowout_kaLHigEKnRVunB0go7TRkJ

http://www.arcticgas.gov/2012/cost-overruns-could-hurt-competitiveness-australia-lng

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/bgdot/9244190/BG-Group-shares-hit-by-5.4bn-cost-overruns-on-Australian-LNG-project.html

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62e4f5e8-3f84-11e2-b0ce-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2KdUKKDdT

http://www.smh.com.au/business/too-much-too-soon-has-left-lng-industry-overstretched-20120803-23kit.html

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=36651&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/11/19/shell-having-second-thoughts-on-australian-lng-investments/

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/drunken-insights-lead-the-lng-debacle/

If you peruse those above links the picture becomes very clear, LNG is a welfare industry on steroids, the Australian Government will probably never get back their investment of public tax dollars

You see what is going on, imagine $300 billion is being spent on LNG facilities in Australia(It`s true), guess what, the Australian public has to surrender back to the corporation…$100 billion dollars…And if that $300 billion dollar upfront cost was really only $100 billion in value. With winks, nods and monies flowing from Company X’s left hand to the Company X’s right hand…Then in reality the tax payer is paying for everything, in other words, corporate welfare on steroids…

The exact same scenario is playing itself out in Alberta, the petroleum producers are crying about paying discounts to the refiners, paying a per-barrel discount of up to..$30 dollars per barrel, yet these oil extractors also own the refineries, in other words, Alberta Tar oil, (which is more expensive to refine because tar oil has to go through what is called an up-grader first, then on to a regular refinery) is being peddled cheap to the refiners, this allows the tar oil extractors to claim big losses in the oil patch, it allows companies to pay almost no royalties, just look at Alberta’s massive yearly deficits that have all accrued under a Stephen Harper oil obsessed Federal Government, coincidence?. Not a chance..

These so-called steep Alberta oil extract discounts are not being passed on to consumers, prices at the pump are at record highs, what we are witnessing is big corporate oil companies have figured out ways to avoid paying any taxes, one hand of a company that pays royalties to Governments loses money to avoid paying anything, the right hand of the company that refines, gets the discounts, make huge margins of money, money not subject to capital gains or royalties, it`s all a shell game designed by big oil to avoid paying any taxes, hence Alberta running its 5th straight massive multi-$billion dollar deficit, this deficit $6 billion dollars…

This linked story by Robyn Allen explains the Alberta discount oil shell game in detail

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/01/29/Canadian-Oil-Producers/)

So LNG exporters are proposing spending $150 billion dollars on LNG facilities in BC, and if like Australia the projects all balloon way over budget, let`s say they claim spending $300 billion dollars after all is said and done…..

Well, blow my socks off, I was wondering why there was delay after delay for actually starting the builds of any of the proposed LNG facilities in British Columbia, I`m not wondering anymore, the one issue front and center, securing long-term contracts from Asian buyers at lucrative prices has been a non-starter, no one will sign the papers, that reason is obvious, the price is low, there`s a world glut including China itself which has a 300 year domestic supply of natural gas, LNG exporters are just like our IPP run of river companies who did nothing, built nothing, acted only on their own behalf, laid out no money to build 1 kilowatt of power without 30 and 40 year guaranteed contracts, contracts that Gordon the thief Campbell was more than willing to sign IPP`s did not take one single risk, we, that taxpayers, the BC Hydro ratepayers were ripped off…

So anyway, here I was musing to myself as to why BC LNG exporters, why the proposed LNG exporters who by the way have already been granted export licenses haven’t pulled the go-ahead and build lever, finding countries to sign long-term energy buying contracts has been problematic at best, in other words, there are no takers…The other issue is a cheap supply of electrical power, no, make that other issue LNG exporters wanting a free supply electrical energy, LNG exporters require massive amounts of electricity to freeze natural gas, LNG producers do NOT want to use their own product to generate electricity, they want Site-C dam built and they want IPP expensive power, with a caveat, they want you the taxpayer guaranteeing the payment to IPPs for 40 years, they want this expensive niche power for virtually free, only one problem, there is no free power, these IPPs are guaranteed $140 kilowatt or more, guaranteed for 40 years, and as we are dumping excess power now, no buyers, LNG exporters are using that exact argument to justify free power, that and the we must be competitive with other countries argument..

I knew those above two issues were major stumbling blocks for the emerging corporate welfare industry, but today it was confirmed by a representative CAPP(Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) that these are issues, and more, Jeff Morrison confirmed that LNG producers, proposed builders of LNG export facilities in British Columbia, LNG pipelines, LNG terminals will not build anything unless……

Unless the BC Government and the Federal Government agree to allow 30% capital cost allowances, meaning they want a 30% subsidy on the money spent building facilities, the CAPP representative claims that unless BC and Canada MATCH the capital building allowances of Australia they won’t be able to compete…!

Blow my socks off, read again what is going on with cost over-runs in Australia, picture this, LNG facility builders(on paper) claim to spend $300 billion dollars, you taxpayers are on the hook for $100 billion dollars, meaning we the public, the Government won’t see one single $dollar of real money until we surpass $100 billion in LNG royalties paid, only after that, after the $100 billion mark in royalty revenue would we see any money at all, and I doubt we will ever see that amount of royalties paid..

And if LNG exporters, like the Tar sand diggers, claim discounts to their right arm refining buddies, if world LNG prices are so low that royalties aren`t paid at all, then we will find ourselves like Alberta, more and more environmental damage, more and more tar sand extraction and more multi-$billion dollar deficits..

[…] A representative from CAPP, Jeff Morrison speaking on behalf of BC’s LNG industry said […] LNG facility producers like Apache, Chevron, Shell, EnCana gas, all of them want and need to have the LNG industry re-classified as a manufacturing industry and be able to have the ability to write off all provincial taxes plus a 30%(To match Australia) capital expense subsidy..

And yet Christy Clark’s jobs advertising blitz, her advertising the hell out of a LNG future paved with gold, claiming $trillions of dollars for BC, millions of needed workers, the talk of lucrative Asian pricing, just build it and gold will rain from the sky, and as I and others suspected, behind the scenes, tax breaks, subsidies, capital write-offs, bribery, subtle threats, pitting country against country is going on…If this industry is so lucrative why won’t they build it on their own dime, why do they need re-classification, why the need of huge subsidies..

This is indeed a boondoggle in the works, Cheniere energy in the USA has signed long-term energy buying contracts with Asia, at about 1/3 of the proposed selling price Christy Clark and Pat Bell talk about. At $6 dollars per unit these expensive proposed British Columbia LNG freezers will never make money or even pay for themselves, let alone supply BC Governments substantial revenues..

Cue up February 11th..10:00 am, fast forward to just past the 10:30 am news..

http://www.cknw.com/news/audiovault/index.aspx

Listen to CAPP representative Jeff Morrison on cknw cry for Government handouts and subsidies, listen to Jeff Morrison using the (we must be competitive with what the Australia Government offers card) And if the next country or Province offers even more corporate tax incentives (Right movie industry?)

LNG producers can’t get long-term energy buying contracts, 2 export licenses have been already been granted, 1 of them for almost 2 years now, what are they waiting for, still nothing built, nothing started, back-room discussions are going on right now, talks about reclassifying the LNG industry to Manufacturer status which will in turn bring a 30% plus capital cost subsidy, the companies also want their own HST, the ability to write off all provincial taxes. The hold-up is about making Canadian taxpayers pay for big oil’s profits through subsidies, tax-breaks and guile. For a promise of some employment our Governments are on the verge of allowing corporate raiders to dig deep into your pockets ..

Big Corporate Oil n Gas Companies are asking British Columbians and Canadians to trust them. Look to Australia and Qatar and see this ponzi scheme being played out, or look one province over to Alberta and see them going backwards, their largest ever deficit this year, their 5th in succession, see big oil companies playing the Wildrose Province for a sucker, as their yearly provincial deficits grow and grow despite massive tar sand development..

Source: The Straight Goods