Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau chat about dead Keystone-XL and dirty oil monkeys on their backs

First time I’ve seen frac’ing called a dirty oil monkey. It’s perfect! I know intimately the hell that it is to live frac’d and polluted (going past two decades) by Encana/Ovintiv and abused by law-violating cover-up agents, AER and Alberta gov’t (managed by pro-dirty oil monkey Steve Harper, ex PM of Canada, pulling Kenney’s pathetic multi-billion dollar gambling strings).

Cartoon by Graeme MacKay in The Hamilton Spectator, Jan 26, 2021 email hidden; JavaScript is required

Alberta leader says Biden’s move to cancel Keystone pipeline a ‘gut punch,’ Environmental groups in Canada applaud decision, but country’s western provinces left in disbelief by Leyland Cecco in Toronto, 27 Jan 2021, The Guardian

US president Joe Biden’s move to cancel a controversial pipeline project has hit Canada like “like a gut punch”, according to one political leader, and left the country to weigh the future prospects of its ailing oil and gas industry.

On 20 January, one of Biden’s first executive orders was to reverse approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, making good on a campaign promise to kill the project as a broader strategy to address the climate crisis.

Environmental groups in Canada have applauded the decision, but the cancellation has left the country’s western provinces in disbelief.

“The Biden administration refuses to give this country sufficient respect to hear us out on this pipeline. In that policy context then, yes, there absolutely must be reprisals,” Alberta premier Jason Kenney told CBC News. “We need to stand up for ourselves.”

The outspoken provincial leader, who called the decision a “gut punch”, has largely tied his province’s prosperity to the success of oil and gas projects – and demanded that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau move swiftly to reverse the decision.

“Obviously the decision on Keystone XL is a very difficult one for workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan who’ve had many difficult hits,” Trudeau told reporters last week, adding that it would be a top priority in his first call with president Biden. But Trudeau has stopped short of endorsing Kenney’s calls for “economic sanctions” against Canada’s largest trading partner. …

Along the way, the project had met stiff opposition from environmental groups in Canada and the United States, who feared Keystone would only incentivize more development and investment in Alberta’s emissions-intensive oil sands. …

“I absolutely believe the writing is on the wall for the oil industry,” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, head of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, told the Canadian Press. “[Energy industry] jobs are transient in nature … It’s a myth that pipelines represent an economic boom for a particular area.”

Members of Kenney’s UCP caucus nix NDP bid to seek details of failed Keystone XL deal by The Canadian Press, January 26, 2021, CTV News

Members of Premier Jason Kenney’s caucus have refused an Opposition NDP bid to make public details of Alberta’s $7.5-billion investment in the failed Keystone XL pipeline project.

The eight members of the governing United Conservative caucus rejected an NDP motion in public accounts committee today to ask Kenney for the details, along with any financial risk advice he was given when he made the investment last March.

At that time, the Keystone XL line was facing multiple court challenges and the emerging Democrat party candidate, now President Joe Biden, was on record against the cross-border pipeline. …

Biden promised in his election campaign to cancel Keystone and did so last week on his first day in office, saying more product from Alberta’s oilsands does not mesh with his larger goal of combating climate change.

Alberta has directly invested $1.5 billion with another $6 billion in loan guarantees, but the NDP says Albertans need to know the rationale Kenney used to make what it calls a risky decision and what the final bill will be now that the project is shelved.

NDP to ask UCP cabinet to release risk analysis and full documentation of Premier Jason Kenney’s $7.5-billion Keystone XL deal by David Climenhaga, January 24, 2021, Alberta Politics

… Presumably any Alberta Government risk analysis would also have noted that that any new president could revoke the KXL construction permit without a vote of the U.S. Congress because when Mr. Trump approved construction he did so by executive order and took no further action. 

Up to now, the UCP has refused to reveal any of the details of the deal. 

During his news conference on Wednesday afternoon, Premier Kenney defended his gamble last March as a wise and prudent “investment,” a term that echoed the government video press release last year describing the plan, and not as a high-risk gamble. 

… In the end, of course, it turned out the political risk was real, as surely any government risk analysis would have shown even in March 2020. 

The goal, Premier Kenney continued, revealing his core strategy, was to “create facts on the ground.” Facts, in the event, that did not divert President Biden from keeping his promise to American voters. 

At a meeting of the Public Accounts on Nov. 17 last year, NDP committee member Marlin Schmidt called on the government to release the details of the deal. Cabinet responded that a formal request to release documents was required before that could happen. 

“We are making that formal request,” Ms. Ganley said, “so the deal can be released and Albertans can finally get some answers.” 

It seems unlikely details will be forthcoming from this secretive government. After all, The UCP holds a majority on the committee with eight members compared to four for the NDP, so the request is not likely to be forwarded to cabinet. 

Still, you never know, perhaps Mr. Kenney, having manfully defended his “investment,” will want to back up that interpretation with the facts he had on hand.

Canada is allergic to “facts” and the truth, when it comes to dirty oil monkeys, with Alberta the dirtiest and most dishonest of them all. When I heard Kenney throw away mega billions of the public’s money for Keystone last year (while decimating education and health care funding during a pandemic) I saw it as yet another Steve Harper “gift” to the dirty oil monkeys (any blind dog could see the pipeline would never get completed).

Even our Supreme Court of Canada published shit fabricated by Justice Rosalie Abella in their ruling in Ernst vs AER to enable dirty oil monkeys. Encana and Alberta gov’t lied in their Statements of Defence (details on Lawsuit Page) without consequence, and my ex lead lawyer, Murray Klippenstein, spouts falsehoods too. This leads me to wonder what is taught in law school and to be glad I chose not to get educated there.

A comment to the Climenhaga piece by Laurie Atkin:

“Create facts on the ground.” That is what the Israeli government and military are doing in the Palestinian territories, by building illegal settlements and bulldozing Palestinian orchards and villages.

Was that the Keystone pipeline extension strategy? Is that the Coastal GasLink Pipeline strategy? Bulldoze straight through Indigenous territories, using military force to remove opposition?

Another question: Is the same firm doing “risk analysis” for the UCP cabinet and AIMCo?

From my Lawsuit Page:

2017 05 08: Drinking water protector?  Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (“Alberta Environment”) doesn’t even tell the truth in their Statement of Defence!

A few paragraphs from Ernst’s reply to Alberta Environment’s Statement of Defence:

2. Unless otherwise stated in this Reply. the Plaintiff denies every fact the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (“Alberta Environment”) has stated in its Statement of Defence, and puts Alberta Environment to the strict proof thereof.

[Encana didn’t tell the truth in their Statement of Defence either]

3. In reply to paragraph 10 of the Statement of Defence of Alberta Environment, and in particular, Alberta Environment’s denial that it made “any specific representations to the Plaintiff’, the Plaintiff pleads and relies on paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Fresh Statement of Claim, and further pleads the following particulars:

a. In 2005, Alberta Environment Manager Nga de Ia Cruz represented to Ms. Ernst that the Alberta Environmental Guidelines for Groundwater Diversion for Coalbed Methane/Natural Gas in Coal Development, April 2004 and the Water Act were strictly enforced, notably in relation to any CBM developments. Ms. de la Cruz sent Ms. Ernst a link to the Alberta Environmental Guidelines, which specifically state:

Conditions also require the authorization holder to investigate and resolve any allegations of impact on any existing water supply. Measures to resolve any impact may include lowering the pump, deepening the impacted well, providing water supply to the well owner for his current water needs, and drilling a new water well. [Emphasis added].

b. On February 28, 2006, the Honourable Ralph Klein, the then Premier of Alberta, committed to intervening on behalf of Ms. Ernst and others. He gave his personal guarantee that the concerns of Ms. Ernst and others would be addressed, stating “I am willing to extend that to the fullest extent. Whatever is necessary to be done, will be done.”

c. On or around February 28, 2006, in a debate in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, the then Alberta Environment Minister the Honourable Guy Boutilier stated:

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate to the hon. member and to the families [specifically including Ms. Ernst] that are here today: it is a very serious issue. As Alberta Environment [sic] I will use every fibre of energy in my body to assist this family relative to safe drinking water now and into the future. . . . I can assure you that we are working with them and we will continue to work with them because this is a very important issue to this family and to many other families that have been impacted, be it by the natural flow or because of what is being asserted relative to what is taking place in the water supply. . . I’m using my energy to get these people safe drinking water. We will do everything in our power to get them that, and then we can come to conclusive evidence in terms of: is it naturally flowing, or is it the result of drilling? I don’t have that answer as of yet, btit it’s a very important question that we are
committed to getting the answer to very quickly….

d. On March 3, 2006, Alberta Environment employees, Darren Bourget (inspector), Al Straus (water tester), and Leslie Miller (trainee) met with Ms. Ernst at her property to test her contaminated water. During this meeting, Alberta Environment employees promised that Alberta Environment would provide permanent deliveries of safe alternate water to Ms. Ernst and her neighbours, and promised to conduct water testing on the municipal water wells that belong to Wheatland Country and that supply the Hamlet of Rosebud with drinking water. This representation was in addition to an earlier representation made by Mr. Bourget that Alberta Environment was going to supply Ms. Ernst with water tanks and start deliveries as soon as the water tanks were installed.

e. On March 6, 2006, Environment Minister Boutilier and Deputy Minister of the
Environment, C. Peter Watson, met with Ms. Ernst and others to discuss their water contamination concerns. During this meeting, the Minister promised an investigation into what was causing the contamination, and agreed to deliver safe water to Ms. Ernst’s home.

f. On or around April 24, 2006, Lestie Miller, a staff member at Alberta Environment, wrote to Ms. Ernst stating that “Alberta Environment is committed to responding to your concerns about the potential impacts of CBM activities on local aquifers.”

g. On June 20, 2006, Minister Boutilier wrote in a letter to Ms. Ernst that “[w]e have been working with you and several other landowners across the Province to
determine the sources of methane or gas in private water wells, and to ensure all
Albertans have access to safe, secure drinking water.” The letter goes on to say, in
relation to a similar water contamination complaint. “I assure you. if we do find any contraventions under our strict guidelines, action will be taken.”

h. On March 8, 2007, the Deputy Minister of the Environment, C. Peter Watson, wrote to Ms. Ernst, “Alberta Environment is committed to working with landowners concerned about their water supply.”

i. Throughout the material time, Ms. Ernst and her neighbours continued to request that Alberta Environment conduct a responsible and comprehensive investigation of the water contamination cases in the Rosebud area. In particular, Ms. Ernst and her neighbours specifically requested that Alberta Environment sample, test and investigate CBM gas wells to determine if they had caused the contamination to groundwater supplies in the Rosebud area. On April 19, 2007, Deputy Minister Watson wrote to Ms. Ernst to offer her and two of her neighbours “the comprehensive sampling you have requested.” Mr. Watson wrote that this sampling would ensure that Alberta Environment is “better able to respond to your concerns and any groundwater impacts in Rosebud and Redland.”

j. On April 17, 2008, the Minister of Environment the Honourable Rob Renner stated in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in response to specific questions regarding water contamination in the Rosebud area, “Mr. Speaker, the issue of safe
groundwater is a priority for Alberta Environment. . . . [W]e [the Government of
Alberta] have the responsibility to ensure that the groundwater that Albertans access is safe.”

Click to read all of Ernst’s responses to Alberta Environment’s Statement of Defence filled with lies

This entry was posted in Global Frac News. Bookmark the permalink.