Friday, January 20, 2012

Foreign Special Interests and their Deep Pocket Puppet

A remix of the now-infamous video to include a few of those "foreign special interests" not mentioned in the original broadcast, as Ethical Oil pocket puppet Kathryn Marshall strives mightily - eight times! - to limit the phrase to describe only the environmental opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway tarsands project.

Original broadcast, including a more generous sprinkling of "deep pockets" and "puppets", here .
Or there's always Rick Mercer's version.

Harsha Walia : Enbridge's pipeline of distortions

Terry Glavin : China has our forests, Now we're sending our oilfields too.

*Brilliant post from Emma Pullman @ DeSmogBlog*:
Friends With Benefits: The Harper Government, and Sun Media Connection 


Jim Parrett said...

Bummer. The video has gone 'private'.

Alison said...

Ooops, my stupid. Thanks, Jymn - it's public now.

Toe said...

Well done Alison!!

karen said...

Did you happen to watch the NEB broadcast of the Joint Panel Review in Prince George on January 18? If not you might be interested in the transcript on the website.

An engineering firm did a cost analysis of getting the bitumen out of the ground, upgrading it to send in the pipeline, piping it and shipping it to China, as well as the cost of shipping and piping back the consensate necessary to dilute the bitumen. In a nutshell, for every barrel of final product, 2.41 barrels of fossil fuel will have to be expended in this particular project. This compares with the 15-16 barrels of product for every one barrel used in regular local refining today, and 100 barrels of product for every one barrel used in the 30's in Texas when refining could be done very close to the well heads.
The math of this analysis was only just presented for the first time on that evening, and so I am sure requires scrutiny, but even so, it ought to be looked at.

deBeauxOs said...

Karen? Are you yet another sock puppet for Kathryn? How do you manage to keep track of all your different identities? Oh. Wait. I'll bet you have an App for that, right?

karen said...

DeBeauxOs: No. Not at all . I am very much in opposition to the pipeline. I thought this information was just more evidence that the pipeline is a bad idea. I'm interested to know what you thought was sock puppetish, obviously my delivery was all wrong.

Kim said...

DeBeauxOs; check Karen's link. This is an engineering firm showing mathmaticly why the project should not go forward. (she's on our side)

Alison said...

All a misunderstanding in comments above, I'm sure.

Karen, thanks for the info and link to that presentation at the pipeline review panel hearing. A local paper up there - forget which one now - reviewed it and asked how sustainable can it possibly be to use all that fuel just to extract the stuff and then on top of that use more fuel to ship it all the way to China? You have to wonder at the economic feasibility.
Only time to scan it tonight but will try to get a post up about it tomorrow if I get a chance but you know - work, sleep, work, sleep, rinse and repeat.

Anyway : Karen's link

Have added a couple more links to post above, including brilliant one from Emma @ DeSmogBlog on Harper Government, and Sun Media Connection. Really worth reading.

deBeauxOs said...

Sorry about that. A click on "Karen's" name went nowhere, so I suspected astroturfing - a common Contempt Party tactic.

Anonymous said...

No offense taken Karen. I am very good at choosing, a poor choice of words. I am forever having to go back, and clear up my intentions, choosing my words very carefully.

There is no such thing as, ethical oil, it's all bad. However, the tar oil is the dirtiest energy on this planet.

In Durban at the meeting for climate change. There was a very strong indication, country's were taking climate change very, very seriously. Harper wasn't exactly a hit in Durban, he was bullying country's to accept the dirty tar oil.

A company in Vancouver, is working with Vanadium. This is used to strengthen steel. They have found Vanadium as an excellent material for storage of renewable energy.

China has an abundance of Vanadium, they fully intend to use it, for their energy.

I don't speak geek, so it's best to go to one of the many sites, that can explain the Vanadium properties.

Norm Farrell said...

Great job.

Anonymous said...

Alison said...

Thank you, Anon.
I see Forest Ethics has now backed up the whistleblower Andrew Frank's account, although Tides is still trying to stay neutral.

Blog Archive