Krause aims to ex­pose U.S. of­fen­sive on Canada’s oil

PressReader - BRUCE_CAROL_ROWE Channel - Krause aims to ex­pose U.S. of­fen­sive on Canada’s oil
Any­one in Canada who knows any­thing about oil and gas knows the name Vi­vian Krause. Ev­ery­one else should.Krause’s name has be­come syn­ony­mous with the fight against the con­certed ef­fort by U.S. oil in­ter­ests work­ing to land-lock Cana­dian oil and gas by us­ing en­vi­ron­men­tal groups to protest against the in­dus­try with the stated aim of grind­ing de­vel­op­ment to a halt. Krause is a one-woman wreck­ing crew to the se­crecy be­hind that for­eign plan, which she has al­most sin­gle­hand­edly ex­posed by painstak­ingly fol­low­ing the money trail.On Wed­nes­day, dur­ing a speech at the In­dige­nous En­ergy Sum­mit at the Grey Ea­gle Event Cen­tre, the B.C. re­searcher ex­traor­di­naire warned the In­dian Re­source Coun­cil (IRC) just what kind of op­po­si­tion it will face if it pushes for­ward with a plan to pur­chase the Trans Moun­tain pipe­line from the fed­eral gov­ern­ment.Krause warned the crowd gath­ered on the Tsuut’ina Na­tion, on the western edge of Cal­gary, that she would be show­ing rather bor­ing slides that prove that mil­lions of dol­lars in pay­ments from multi­bil­lion-dol­lar U.S. char­i­ta­ble foun­da­tions are be­ing made to Cana­dian en­vi­ron­men­tal groups an­nu­ally, “be­cause, frankly, if I was just to tell you who paid whom and how much, it’s hard to be­lieve. It comes off like a tin­foil-hat con­spir­acy the­ory.”She also warned the IRC — which rep­re­sents 134 First Na­tions that have oil and gas re­sources on their land — that if they do move for­ward with the ex­cit­ing and po­ten­tially lu­cra­tive op­por­tu­nity of buy­ing Trans Moun­tain and the plans to twin that ex­ist­ing pipe­line, “you don’t just get the pipe­line, you get a for­eign-funded cam­paign along with the pipe­line.”Eight years ago, while re­search­ing who was be­hind an un­sci­en­tific mis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign against farmed Cana­dian salmon, Krause “came across these three lit­tle words: Tar Sands Cam­paign” in the tax forms of Rock­e­feller Broth­ers Fund (which, iron­i­cally, made its bil­lions from oil and gas).She saw that the foun­da­tion do­nated $1.4 mil­lion in 2007 to Cor­po­rate Ethics, “to re­cruit the groups, de­velop the strat­egy, cre­ate a co-or­di­nated cam­paign and act as a re-grant­ing agency for the North Amer­i­can Tar Sands Cam­paign,” states Cor­, the group’s web­site.“From the very be­gin­ning, the cam­paign strat­egy was to land­lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the in­ter­na­tional mar­ket where it could fetch a high price per bar­rel,” boasts Michael Marx, the ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of Cor­po­rate Ethics.The mas­sive price dis­count of as much as US$52 per bar­rel of Al­berta oil demon­strated in Oc­to­ber 2018 that this cam­paign has been ex­tremely ef­fec­tive — help­ing to make Amer­i­cans richer and Cana­di­ans poorer. Al­berta Premier Rachel Not­ley an­nounced late last year an 8.7 per cent pro­duc­tion cut to re­duce the dif­fer­en­tial that was cost­ing the Cana­dian econ­omy $80 mil­lion to $100 mil­lion a day, an ef­fec­tive strat­egy that some en­ergy ex­ec­u­tives say has re­sulted in deeper pro­duc­tion cuts be­cause of how the for­mula plays out on Al­berta’s larger pro­duc­ers.“This strat­egy is suc­cess­ful to this day,” adds the Cor­pEthics post. “All the pro­posed pipe­lines in Canada have ef­fec­tively been blocked.”In­deed they have. Marx brags of not just killing Cana­dian pipe­lines but help­ing to turf some Cana­dian con­ser­va­tive gov­ern­ments as well, in both Al­berta and fed­er­ally in 2015, thanks to for­eign money skew­ing our elec­tions, some­thing Prime Min­is­ter Justin Trudeau has re­fused to act on, per­haps not sur­pris­ingly since the cam­paign may have helped get him elected.Krause says at the end of 2012 the Rock­e­feller Broth­ers spec­i­fied that its money was to be used to “bring about a cap on the pro­duc­tion of oil from Al­berta.” Sound fa­mil­iar?“Your premier put a cap on the oil­sands,” Krause re­minded the at­ten­tive crowd. “That’s ex­actly what the Rock­e­feller Fund funded the ac­tivists to do, was to pres­sure the gov­ern­ment to put that cap on.”Krause said she was ac­tu­ally op­ti­mistic that the Tar Sands Cam­paign might “turn the page” and end af­ter achiev­ing all of those wins, but no, the pres­sure con­tin­ues.Not­ley’s gov­ern­ment then cre­ated the world’s largest bo­real for­est pre­serve, some­thing the U.S. foun­da­tions pushed for, since it’s harder to de­velop re­sources in pre­served land.“(Not­ley’s) done ev­ery­thing they’ve asked for, put on the cap, cre­ated a park, in­creased the car­bon tax, wasn’t that what the ac­tivism was to bring about, so why is this cam­paign still be­ing funded?”It’s a good ques­tion. Could it be that the Rock­e­feller Fund cares less about the en­vi­ron­ment and more about en­sur­ing that the U.S. can go on buy­ing dis­counted Al­berta oil? If these groups re­ally did care about CO2 emis­sions, wouldn’t it help Canada to ship liq­ue­fied nat­u­ral gas to China from B.C.’s west coast to off­set that coun­try’s enor­mous use of coal — which is 60 perFrom the very be­gin­ning, the cam­paign strat­egy was to land-lock the tarsands.cent more car­bon in­ten­sive than nat­u­ral gas?Krause points out that dur­ing the 10-year span of the Tar Sands Cam­paign, U.S. oil out­put has dou­bled.No other oil-pro­duc­ing ju­ris­dic­tion faces the same kind of scru­tiny that Al­berta’s oil faces. Cana­dian en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­tivists have played right into the busi­ness in­ter­ests of U.S. bil­lion­aires by be­com­ing their use­ful idiots.Krause fin­ished her talk with this ques­tion:“We need to ask our­selves, what would Texas do if a group of char­i­ta­ble foun­da­tions from Canada were run­ning a mul­ti­mil­lion-dol­lar cam­paign to land-lock Texan crude? Would they let it go on for 10 years? I don’t think so. Maybe that’s what we need. We need to think like Texas.”Ac­tu­ally, think­ing like Vi­vian Krause, by read­ing her im­pec­ca­ble re­search on her web­site FairQues­, would be suf­fi­cient.

© PressReader. All rights reserved.