A LOCK OUT IS UNION BUSTING

Lockout Continues at Town of Grand Falls-Windsor

Aug 17, 2021 | 8:25 AM

(CUPE protest outside Grand Falls-Windsor town hall on July 13.)

Grand Falls-Windsor and its union remain in a dead heat with the lockout now going into its second month. No new talks are scheduled.

One of the issues concerns the medical plan for employees, which is paid for entirely by the town. While the union has been invited to sit on a committee that will review the plan, CUPE says it would not have any say on decisions, opposite the situation which currently exists. They have offered to go to the market to find a new plan.

Union official Tammy Greening says there are many other issues.

They’re concerned about the treatment of casual workers who are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week for seven months of the year. Greening says they get dinged if they miss a call even if they call back two minutes later.

The town says it has offered a wage increase of 3 per cent over 3 1/2 years but the union wants 6 per cent over that period plus a one per cent increase in pension over the next four years.

Nfld. & Labrador

What will other towns learn from the Grand Falls-Windsor lockout?

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Town locked out its employees a month ago

Garrett Barry · CBC News · Posted: Aug 17, 2021 

Locked-out workers from the town of Grand Falls-Windsor picket alongside a contractor picking up garbage in the town in August. (Garrett Barry/CBC)

The plastic Christmas tree almost doesn't seem out of place at the union headquarters in Grand Falls-Windsor.

You probably wouldn't look twice — if it wasn't displayed five months before the holidays.

With time ticking by, and negotiations again at an impasse, the contract dispute between workers and the town of Grand Falls-Windsor is threatening to go long.

One labour relations researcher in Newfoundland and Labrador says however it ends, other towns in the province are keenly interested.

"I think there's lots of towns in Newfoundland and Labrador that are facing some serious, serious budget issues and the likelihood of getting funds from the province pretty darn low," said Gord Cooke, an associate professor at Memorial University with a specialty in labour relations.

A union's Christmas wish list is hung in on a tree, even though it's only August. (Garrett Barry/CBC)

"I think that this will be the first of many, many, many disputes like this in the coming months and years."

Dispute details

The contract dispute isn't — strictly speaking — only about pay. The Town of Grand Falls-Windsor locked out its unionized employees on July 15, following months of negotiations with CUPE 1349.

Mayor Barry Manuel says the town's demands, which he has taken the unusual step of publishing online and sharing with his residents, are requests for sustainability.

Barry Manuel is the mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor. (Garrett Barry/CBC)

The town wants the unionized employees to pay for any future increases to the health insurance costs, and wants more power to determine job classifications, descriptions and vacancies on its own.

"We understand that the union has a good contract, a fair contract, and we want that to remain," he said last week. "But we also have to recognize that this is 2021, things have changed. Things will continue to change, particularly financially for municipalities."

• Ontario municipalities facing multi-billion dollar shortfall in 2021, with no emergency funding in sight

CUPE 1349 president Ed White says the town's requests are extraordinary.

"What the town was looking for doesn't exist in other municipal agreements, at least none that I'm aware of," he said. 

White says he knows that COVID-19 has changed the fiscal situation for many employers, but he says he hasn't seen anything that could support the town's "ridiculous" proposals.

"We're not opposed to working with employers on those challenges, but it can't be one-sided," he said. 

He said taking all responsibility for future health insurance plan increases leaves members vulnerable. What happens, he asks, if expensive, new drugs become more and more mainstream, as Canada's population ages and research and development focus shifts?

"We're not prepared to do that," he says. "It's too risky"

Demands and tactics

Cooke says other municipalities in the province will be paying attention to both Grand Falls-Windsor's requests and their tactics in this labour dispute.

Ed White is a national representative with CUPE in Newfoundland and Labrador. He says he isn't concerned about other collective agreements and what precedents might be set, he's concerned solely with solving the dispute in Grand Falls-Windsor. (Garrett Barry/CBC)

He said that in his experience, people in Newfoundland and Labrador have tended to side with unions in public sector disputes — but COVID-19 and its financial hit may have changed the state of play.

"At times, the benefit package or the pension package... in the public sector exceeds what the private sector folks are getting, and that's been a change in the last 20 to 30 years," he said.

"I think that there is potentially going to be less taxpayer support, less support from the general public toward public sector disputes. And that, in turn, might push towns to be more aggressive."

Public sector negotiations are a multi-part battle, he says, where both the employer and the workers are appealing to the general public for their support.

"I do think that a bunch of towns will be looking to see whether they should maybe be firmer in negotiations," he added. "But the question is, do you have to be this confrontational with your workers — if you think that [Grand Falls-Windsor] is being confrontational?"

CUPE 1349 members picket along a garbage collection route that a contractor is fulfilling while the town's unionized employees are locked out. (Garrett Barry/CBC)

As the contract dispute continues, both sides have bemoaned tactics taken on social media.

The town has brought in contractors to continue the garbage pick-up in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the union has responded with pickets following the truck. It's one of the most public aspects of the dispute, given most other town services are continuing with little interruption.

On the picket line, members tell each other to prepare for a long, drawn-out battle.

As the weeks pass, the Christmas tree in the union headquarters — a statement of protest, decked out with tags containing the scribbled wishes of town workers — becomes more and more relevant. White says it's a sign that the union and members aren't close to breaking.

"The message for that is that the members are prepared to to do whatever it takes to to maintain their collective agreement," he said.

Read more from CBC Newfoundland and Labrador

Exxon’s oil drilling gamble off Guyana coast ‘poses major environmental risk’

Experts warn of potential for disaster as Exxon pursues 9bn barrels in sensitive marine ecosystem

The Bob Douglas drill ship operated by Noble Energy for ExxonMobil floats 120 miles offshore of Guyana in 2018. It was drilling the first production oil well in Guyana’s history. Photograph: Christopher Gregory/The Guardian

Supported by

Antonia Juhasz for Floodlight
Tue 17 Aug 2021 


ExxonMobil’s huge new Guyana project faces charges of a disregard for safety from experts who claim the company has failed to adequately prepare for possible disaster, the Guardian and Floodlight have found.

Exxon has been extracting oil from Liza 1, an ultra-deepwater drilling operation, since 2019 – part of an expansive project spanning more than 6m acres off the coast of Guyana that includes 17 additional prospects in the exploration and preparatory phases.

By 2025, the company expects to produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day, surpassing estimates for its entire oil and natural gas production in the south-western US Permian basin by 100,000 barrels that year. Guyana would then represent Exxon’s largest single source of fossil fuel production anywhere in the world.

But experts claim that Exxon in Guyana appears to be taking advantage of an unprepared government in one of the lowest-income nations in South America, allowing the company to skirt necessary oversight. Worse, they also believe the company’s safety plans are inadequate and dangerous.

A top engineer who studies oil industry disasters, as well as a former government regulator, have leveled criticisms at Exxon. They say workers’ lives, public health and Guyana’s oceans and fisheries – which locals rely on heavily– are all at stake.

The Indigenous communities that rely heavily on fishing could be devastated in the event of a major spill. Photograph: Christopher Gregory/The Guardian

“Exxon is only going to be here for 20 to 25 years,” said Vincent Adams, Guyana’s former environment chief. “When they make all their billions, and they’re ready to pack up and they’re gone, we’ve got to deal with the mess.”

Environmental campaigners and activist shareholders suggest Exxon also cannot reconcile the project with its public commitments to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions.

Exxon claims its climate goals are “some of the most aggressive” in the industry, but its operations in Guyana will send more than 2bn metric tons of climate-destroying CO2 into the atmosphere.

Exxon contends that the company complies with all applicable laws in Guyana and adhered to a rigorous process to obtain environment authorization for its projects there. “Our work and the support of the government of Guyana are the basis of a long-term mutually-beneficial relationship that has already created significant value for the people of Guyana,” Exxon said in a written statement in response to questions from the Guardian.

Exxon’s ‘cash cow’

Robert Bea, among the world’s foremost forensic engineers and a leading expert on the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, worries that Exxon’s operations appear to lack the appropriate preparation or planning to head off a deepwater blowout and major oil spill. “I am far from comfortable,” Bea, co-director of the Marine Technology and Management Group Center for Risk Mitigation, said. “They should be too.”

Vincent Adams suggests Exxon is cutting corners to increase profits. Exxon “has no respect for the people’s health, safety and environment”, he said. Adams, a petroleum and environmental engineer, worked for 30 years at the US Department of Energy before returning to his native Guyana in 2018 to become executive director of the Environmental Protection Agency. He was let go in August 2020 when a new government came to power, and as his agency was trying to negotiate a stringent permit with Exxon.

Before Exxon’s operations, Guyana had no meaningful fossil fuels production, a point of pride for Melinda Janki, a Guyanese international environmental lawyer who is suing Guyana’s government to strip Exxon of its leases on climate and human rights grounds. She noted that rich rainforests cover 80% of Guyana, making it a carbon sink that absorbs far more of the planet-heating greenhouse gas than it emits. In 2015, Guyana made a commitment under the Paris climate accord to eliminate any reliance on fossil fuels.

But those achievements are now being undermined by Exxon, she said. The result of Exxon’s Guyana operations – from drilling the oil to burning it in cars – would be the release of 125m metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from 2025 to 2040. That’s roughly the equivalent of 15 large coal-fired power plants, according to Mark Chernaik, staff scientist at the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide.

Moreover, Exxon flares, or burns, its excess gas. In the first 15 months of production alone, that flaring contributed nearly 770,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions – the equivalent of driving 167,000 cars for one year.

In 2015, Exxon became the first company to strike a significant oil find in Guyana. It then swiftly pushed through a contract roundly criticised as one-sided in its favor. Exxon’s oil finds kept coming. It now estimates there are 9bn barrels of oil off the coast of Guyana. The Liza 1 prospect is the first to start pumping, with Exxon operating in deeper waters and nearly three times farther from shore than BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

Exxon’s interest in Guyana is straightforward, according to Palzor Shenga, vice-president of analysis at Rystad Energy. The costs per barrel of oil produced in Guyana are a full $5 to $10 cheaper than the global average, making it, in Shenga’s words, a “cash cow”. This helps explain why Exxon began producing oil approximately twice as fast as “the industry average for projects of this size”, as Exxon boasted in its 2020 annual report.

Exxon told the Guardian that the “record pace” at which it is bringing projects online yields cost savings, which benefit Guyana. Critics say Exxon’s contract terms are lopsided. The government is receiving a below average return on Exxon’s projects, according to industry analysts at IHS Markit. Exxon receives more than 85% of the proceeds, the result of the government and public largely “absorbing Exxon’s costs”, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

Exxon said that it will continue to “generate billions of dollars of revenue” for Guyana. Yet Guyana’s government has reported it has made just $309m from the projects since they began, while ExxonMobil and its partners had brought in roughly $1.8bn, said Tom Sanzillo, IEEFA director of financial analysis.

The Guyanese coast could be inundated with oil in the event of a disaster in Exxon’s offshore drilling operations. Photograph: Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images

Former EPA chief Adams says Exxon exercises undue influence over government officials, who are far too often intimidated by the company. He cites, as one example, Exxon’s consistent flaring of gas, despite assurances to the government that it would not.

According to Exxon, the flaring is the result of a faulty gas compressor it has been unable to repair for more than a year and a half.

Janki recounted watching with horror a massive fire in the Gulf of Mexico last month, when a gas pipeline at a Pemex offshore oil platform set the ocean ablaze with what looked like waves of molten lava.

“What is really terrifying,” said Janki, is if Exxon’s failures are symptoms of a rushed job and potentially systemic problems that could have catastrophic ends.
The spectre of Macondo

The greatest anxiety is over the risk of an event like the Macondo – the BP well that blew out in 2010, resulting in the deaths of 11 men aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig and the world’s largest offshore drilling oil spill.

In 2017, Exxon submitted a 500-page environmental impact statement on Liza 1 to Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency, stating: “Unplanned events, such as a large oil spill, are considered unlikely to occur because of the extensive preventative measures employed.”

Petroleum engineer Robert Bea said it was reminiscent of BP’s original plans for the Macondo well, which stated, it is “unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities”. Asked if such contentions are “typical” in offshore drilling, he said: “absolutely not”. Rather, he says, they reveal “ignorance of risk management fundamentals”.

Bea worked for Shell Oil before becoming one of the world’s premier safety and disaster investigators. He served as a principal investigator on the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Piper Alpha offshore oil disaster that killed 167 men in the North Sea, the Exxon Valdez grounding and the crash of the Nasa Columbia space shuttle.

Bea reviewed more than 1,000 pages of Exxon submissions and government permits for Liza 1, to conduct an exclusive analysis for this reporting, and concluded that: “We could have a problem similar to what we had with BP before and after the Macondo disaster.”

He said he found no evidence of the necessary planning and operations needed to “assess and manage the risks associated with high risk offshore exploration, production, and transportation operations”. Exxon is instead offering superficial safety plans based on unsubstantiated claims of its capabilities in Guyana that fail to take account of the highly hazardous risks associated with its operations, he said.

There are “loose ends, assumptions, and premises that are not substantiated” in Exxon’s plans, Bea said. “And the more of these threads that you tug at, the more concerned you become that what’s being done here is superficial.”

In particular, Bea is worried about a loss of well control, or blowout – which could cause a catastrophic oil spill. He finds that Exxon has not kept the risks of such events as low as “reasonably practicable”, based on the documents he reviewed. Bea cites numerous problems with Exxon’s plans.

If a blowout occurs in Guyana, Exxon says it would be contained within 21 to 30 days –an estimate Bea said is far too optimistic, unsubstantiated and improbable.

He points in particular to the inadequate provision of the tools needed to stop a blowout and oil spill, namely a capping stack and relief well.

Similar concerns raised by Bea to officials in Australia resulted in the government there strengthening its requirements, which ultimately led BP to withdraw its plans to drill in the Australian Bight.

In addition Exxon’s plans for a potential oil spill response rely on methods that were heavily criticized when deployed in previous disasters. Exxon intends to use Corexit 9500, a chemical dispersant banned in the UK and faulted for severe human and environmental harms when used in the Exxon Valdez and BP oil spills. Exxon also intends to burn oil on the ocean surface even though it is drilling in the Amazon-Orinoco Influence Zone, an area rich in marine biodiversity, with rare and threatened species on which local Indigenous and other fishers depend.

Even with these measures, Exxon estimates a spill could send oil throughout the Caribbean Sea, across Trinidad and Venezuela, and as far as Jamaica. Exxon is relying on Guyana’s recently drafted national oil spill response plan; yet there remains a wide chasm between what’s written on paper and the government’s ability to implement it, argued former EPA chief Adams.

Adams said Guyana has insufficient equipment, personnel, expertise, funding and clear lines of responsibility to respond in a disaster. Adams also worries that the government will be forced to foot the bill if there is a disaster, because Exxon is placing liability for the project with a subsidiary.

‘Guyana is wholly unprepared for a Macondo,’ said Melinda Janki.

 Photograph: Andres Leighton/AP

“Guyana is wholly unprepared for a Macondo,” said Janki, who formerly served as in-house legal counsel for oil giant BP and drafted many of Guyana’s national environmental laws. The results of a blowout were catastrophic in the United States despite ample money, experience and infrastructure, she said, and “Guyana doesn’t have any of that.”

Exxon did not respond to the specific claims made by Bea, Adams and Janki, but said it has adhered to Guyanese laws and instituted “robust compliance assurance systems that enable identification and timely reporting of operational issues with the Environmental Protection Agency and Ministry of Natural Resources” of Guyana. Guyana’s government did not respond to requests for comment.

Adams said while Exxon would not deliberately cause an accident, “they’re going to bring it to the line [and take] the chance that nothing is going to happen until something happens. That’s what keeps me up at night.”
Investor woes

Exxon has come under public attack by its shareholders over its continued commitment to fossil fuels and inaction on climate. In May, shareholders voted in three new board members committed to diversifying Exxon’s operations and hitting meaningful targets to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The investor advocacy group, As You Sow, criticized Exxon’s plans to open a massive new oil frontier in Guyana in the face of the International Energy Agency’s recent recommendations that there should be no investment in new fossil fuel supply. “Exxon’s activities in Guyana pose grave material risks to the company from an economic, legal, and human rights standpoint,” argued As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar. “We believe it’s fundamentally a flawed mission” that should be shut down.

Massive new oil production in Guyana raises other potential legal red flags for investors, warned Kathy Mulvey, the accountability campaign director of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She cited the court ruling in the Hague last month finding Shell liable for its contributions to climate change and said that other oil companies will also have to “reduce the worldwide oil and gas extraction.”

“We’re concerned that the people of Guyana are being asked to bet their economy and their future on oil when oil has no future in a carbon-constrained world,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the US Center for International Environmental Law.

In recent press statements, Exxon has reasserted its support of the Paris Agreement, yet failed to respond to these specific investor concerns, citing instead the significant economic development and job creation for Guyana that its operations provide there. Janki said she hopes more people will come to see what is at risk from Exxon’s operations in Guyana.

“We are facing a decision: our survival, or the survival of the fossil fuel sector,” Janki warned.

Is This South America’s Last Great Oil Boom?

By Matthew Smith - Aug 17, 2021, 

The Guyana-Suriname basin is gaining considerable attention from big oil despite the threat of peak oil demand and global push to significantly reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. Geological Survey calculated that the basin had mean undiscovered resources of 15.2 billion barrels of crude oil, 2.3 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 42 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Those numbers along with ExxonMobil’s exceptional exploration success in the Stabroek block offshore Guyana, with 21 high-quality oil discoveries, highlight the considerable hydrocarbon potential of what could be the last major offshore oil boom. The considerable potential of the Guyana-Suriname basin saw the USGS commit to reassessing its hydrocarbon potential in late-2019 but that was delayed by the pandemic. While Guyana is at the heart of what is emerging as South America’s hottest offshore oil boom, things continue to heat up on the Suriname side of the oil basin. Apache and partner TotalEnergies are experiencing substantial success in offshore Suriname Block 58. Since January 2020 the partners, which each hold a 50% share in Block 58 where TotalEnergies is the operator, have made four significant oil discoveries in the block. Then in late July 2021, while conducting appraisal drilling in Block 58 near the Sapakara West discovery, TotalEnergies made another discovery with the Sapakara South-1 well. 

Source: TotalEnergies.

That latest discovery brings the total number of discoveries in offshore Suriname Block 58 to five. Block 58 is adjacent to the prolific Stabroek block and is situated on the same crude oil fairway, meaning there will more than likely be further oil discoveries in the immediate future. When the Sapakara South -1 well is complete the Maersk Valiant drillship will move to drill the Bonboni prospect approximately 45 kilometers to the north.  

The crude oil found is described as high quality with API gravities of 27 to 45 degrees. Those characteristics and the assay for Exxon’s Liza crude oil grade, which has an API gravity of 32 degrees and 0.58% sulfur content, indicate that the basin’s petroleum resources are light and relatively sweet. That is important to note because demand for sweet medium and light crude oil is expanding at a solid clip because of stricter fuel emission regulations and the push to decarbonize the global economy in a post-Paris climate accord world. Those events see big oil shying away from investing in carbon-intensive petroleum projects. It is those operations that involve the exploitation of sour heavy and extra-heavy crude oil grades that are carbon-intensive to extract and refine. For those reasons, in accordance with plans to focus on low carbon intensity projects, TotalEnergies chose to hand its 30.32% in Venezuela’s extra-heavy crude oil Petrocedeño operation to national oil company PDVSA at a $1.38 billion capital loss.

TotalEnergies, however, is committed to continuing its exploration and development drilling in Block 58 offshore Suriname, which some analysts believe could hold up to 6.5 billion barrels of oil. Aside from targeting the Bonboni prospect for drilling the energy supermajor and partner Apache plan to conduct flow testing of the Sapakara South-1 well before the end of 2021. Exxon with 50% partner Petronas, which is the operator, discovered hydrocarbons with the Sloanea-1 exploration well in offshore Suriname Block 52 during December 2020. That block is to the north of Block 58 and also believed to be on the same oil fairway which contains the discoveries made in the neighboring offshore Guyana Stabroek block.

Aside from the attractiveness of the crude oil grades found in Block 58, it is estimated that offshore Suriname will have an average breakeven price of $40 per barrel once the discoveries are developed and enter production. While that is higher than the $35 currently pegged for Liza Phase one in the Stabroek block in Offshore Guyana they are among some of the lowest in South America and should fall as additional infrastructure is established. Suriname’s national government in Paramaribo is determined to make the former Dutch colony into a major regional oil producer. As part of that strategy, national oil company and industry regulator Staatsolie launched the 2020/21 shallow-water offshore bid round in November last year. In late June 2021 Staatsolie awarded three shallow-water offshore blocks; Block 5 went to U.S. energy supermajor Chevron while Blocks 6 and 8 were awarded to a consortium composed of TotalEnergies (40%), Staatsolie (40%), and Qatar Petroleum (20%).

Source: Staatsolie.

Suriname’s shallow-water blocks are to the south of Block 58 and contain similar geology to the deep-water blocks where discoveries have been made. This along with the blocks being underexplored and hydrocarbons being found during drilling in the 1980s points to their being the potential for crude oil discoveries. 

Paramaribo is determined to become a major regional oil producer with it predicted that offshore Suriname holding at least 1.9 billion barrels of recoverable oil resources for the discoveries made to date. Blocks 58 and 52 are expected to commence production sometime this decade with industry consultancy Rystad Energy anticipating that Suriname will be pumping around 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day by 2030. Staatsolie has a 20% participation right under the production sharing agreements signed with Apache, TotalEnergies, Exxon, and Petronas. A favorable regulatory environment including low royalties, competitive breakeven prices, and increased political stability all make Suriname an attractive destination for foreign energy companies. Regardless of the threat of peak oil demand, Suriname is shaping up as the next big oil boom in Latin America.

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com

Guyana seeks higher royalties, revamped terms for new oil contracts
August 18, 2021



Guyana aims to increase its oil royalties and revamp other contract terms as part of a new profit-sharing agreement (PSA) for future crude and gas projects now in its draft stage, the South American nation’s vice president said on Tuesday.

The tiny country has become one of the most desired oil exploration hot spots after an Exxon Mobil-led group (XOM.N), including U.S.-based Hess Corp (HES.N) and China’s CNOOC Ltd (0883.HK), discovered about 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil and gas off its coast.

Guyana expects this year to install an energy regulatory body and it will this month disclose the winner of a one-year contract to market of oil production from the prolific Stabroek block.

The new PSA will be tougher than that negotiated with the Exxon consortium and could be ready “within six months or so,” said Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo on the sidelines of the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston.

The government has been at odds with Exxon over flaring at its Liza project, the first one producing crude in Guyana after discoveries.

“We have made it clear that in any new PSA we negotiate for those blocks, the conditions will be very, very different than the ones from the Stabroek block,” Jagdeo said, including higher royalties and mechanisms for deducting costs from investment.

Previous Guyanese governments have been criticized for the lucrative terms provided to companies involved in the Stabroek block.

“All the deficiencies of this contract will be addressed,” he said.

The International Energy Agency, a group of oil-consuming nations, this spring said if governments wanted to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, there would be no need for new fossil fuel developments. A United Nation panel last month also said burning fossil fuels causes climate warming.

MUST READ Loophole allows US $Bs to be withheld from Guyana to pay oil costs — Sanzillo

“We have been called to leave our oil in the ground,” he said. “We’ll develop our oil industry putting in place regulations for safe, low carbon operations.”

ONE RIG TO RULE THEM ALL

Big Oil Will Rule The Energy Transition

By Irina Slav - Aug 16, 2021

Big Oil and renewables look like polar opposites to many who follow the energy transition from a distance. After all, this transition is a response prompted by the decades-long polluting activity of Big Oil. And yet, there is a big chance that Big Oil will own this transition, as well as the renewable future that follows.

On one level, the reason for this is purely technical. One might think that the oil industry and the wind power industry have nothing in common, but in fact, they do, as Giovanni Corbetta from James Fisher Renewables wrote in a recent article for World Oil.

The installation of wind turbines in the sea, especially in deep waters, is pretty similar to installing oil platforms, especially floating platforms. Hinting that floating wind turbine technology would be impossible without floating oil platform technology, Corbetta points out that some technologies now utilized in the renewable energy sector originated in oil and gas.

This connection is evident in Big Oil's quick foray into wind power when pressure began to be felt about their carbon footprints. The supermajors simply felt most comfortable with wind, particularly offshore wind. The latest evidence of this deep connection between the two was BP's announcement last month that it planned to invest close to $14 billion (10 billion pounds) to turn Aberdeen, in Scotland, into its global offshore wind hub. And, according to the company, the wind hub is only the beginning.

"Through our bid we aim to do far more than only develop offshore wind – we believe it can help fuel Scotland's wider energy transition," said BP's Dev Senyal, executive VP for gas and low carbon, as quoted by Scottish Construction Now. "We want to harness the clean power from Scotland's offshore wind and use our capabilities as an integrated energy company to accelerate the country's EV charging network, build its hydrogen offering and strengthen its supporting infrastructure, including ports and harbours," Devyal also said.

Yet, technology is not the only connection between oil and gas, and renewables. There is also the business expertise that has made the oil industry a lucrative choice for investors for decades. This is now changing, thanks to the push for a green shift, and Big Oil is changing with it.

French TotalEnergies, for instance, recently closed a deal with Amazon to supply it with electricity produced from renewable sources. The French supermajor will provide the commodity through power purchase agreements in Europe and the United States. Plans are to later expand this agreement to the Middle East and the Asia Pacific.

One would think that the supply of renewable power should be—and would be—the prerogative of those who generate it. But, apparently, this is not the case. Big Oil has the experience and expertise to spot any opportunity for growth and profit and grab it while it's there. This is not to say that renewable energy companies are ignorant about business opportunities and how to take advantage of them. Big Oil has simply had more time to learn how to do it well. It also has more motivation with shareholders, banks, and governments breathing down its neck about emissions.

One other avenue of expansion for Big Oil into renewables is simple—M&A. Shell recently closed the acquisition of Inspire Energy Capital—a U.S. renewable energy retailer that supplies customers with renewable power under a variety of subscription plans and also offers incentives for better electricity use management.

"Our goal is to become a major provider of renewable and low-carbon energy, and this acquisition moves us a step closer to achieving that," said Shell executive VP for Renewable & Energy Solutions, Elizabeth Brinton.

"This deal instantly expands our business-to-consumer power offerings in key regions in the U.S., and we are well-positioned to build on Inspire's advanced digital capabilities to allow more households to benefit from renewable and low-carbon energy," she added.

Big Oil is not shy about its plans to own the energy transition. It does not have to be, not now, when it has the money to buy all the assets it wants to grow in renewables. In fact, oil and gas buyers of renewable assets are so generous, Bloomberg recently accused them of interfering with the profits of these assets' previous owners. Ironically, while Big Oil enjoyed the windfall of rising oil prices, the two largest wind farm developers in the world reported lower profits. But not because of Big Oil squeezing their profits. It was because of lower electricity output due to lower wind speeds.

The idea that Big Oil could come to dominate the energy transition would hardly be palatable to many who singularly place responsibility for the need for an energy transition on the fossil fuel industry. Yet this is one likely scenario: Big Oil has the means, the motive, and the opportunity to make the energy transition its own.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

LET'S CALL IT WHITE AMERICAN HISTORY

Colorado governor voids 1864 order to kill Native Americans

One of Evans’ orders deemed Native Americans “enemies of the state,” and the second called for Colorado citizens to kill and steal from them, Williams said.

DENVER (AP) — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Tuesday rescinded a 19th century proclamation that called for citizens to kill Native Americans and take their property, in what he hopes can begin to make amends for “sins of the past.”

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The 1864 order by Colorado’s second territorial governor, John Evans, would eventually lead to the Sand Creek massacre, one of Colorado's darkest and most fraught historic moments. The brutal assault left more than 200 Arapaho and Cheyenne people — mostly women, children and elderly — dead.

Evans' proclamation was never lawful because it established treaty rights and federal Indian law, Polis said at the signing of his executive order on the Capitol steps.

“It also directly contradicted the Colorado Constitution, the United States Constitution and Colorado criminal codes at the time," the Democratic governor said to whoops from the crowd.

Polis stood alongside citizens of the Southern Ute, Ute Mountain, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, many dressed in traditional regalia. Some held signs reading “Recognize Indigenous knowledge, people, land” and “Decolonize to survive.”

Ernest House Jr., who served as executive director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs under former Gov. John Hickenlooper, said Polis' order is important to the state's government-to-government relations with tribes, the acknowledgment of history, and a movement toward reconciliation.

“I think there's oftentimes the general community think of American Indians as the vanishing race, the vanishing people. And I think it starts with things like this," said House, a citizen of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. "It gives us a place that we were important and that our lives were important.”

A broader push for reconciliation and racial reckoning has occurred across the U.S. in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of police, including efforts to remove Confederate monuments and statues of slave traders, colonizers, conquerors and others. Some states, including Colorado, have banned Native American mascots in schools.

That movement coupled with renewed attention to Evans’ history also prompted Polis to create an advisory board to recommend name changes for the highest peak in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, known as “Mount Evans.” Discussions are taking place within the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs to choose “more culturally sensitive names,” said Alston Turtle, a councilman with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

Evans governed the territory of Colorado during three years of the Civil War, from 1862 to 1865. He resigned after the Sand Creek massacre happened under his order.

Col. John Chivington led the Nov. 29, 1864, slaughter. He and his soldiers then headed to Denver, where they displayed some of the victims’ remains.

The massacre is one of several long-ago terrible events that many Americans don’t know about, such as the Snake River attack in Oregon in 1887, where as many as 34 Chinese gold miners were killed. Others occurred within the lifetimes of many Americans living today, like the 1985 bombing by Philadelphia police of the house that headquartered the Black organization MOVE, killing 11 people.

Rick Williams, a Lakota and Cheyenne descendant who studies Native American history, found the original Evans’ order while researching the aftermath of the Fort Wise Treaty of 1861, in which U.S. government representatives met with Cheyenne and Arapaho leaders to establish a reservation along the Arkansas River in eastern Colorado. Williams said only 10 people signed the agreement.

“The next two years, it was hell for Indians because they didn’t sign the treaty, and they tried to kill as many of them as they could. And when that didn’t work, (Evans) issued an order to declare war,” Williams said.

One of Evans’ orders deemed Native Americans “enemies of the state,” and the second called for Colorado citizens to kill and steal from them, Williams said.

___

Nieberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Patty Nieberg, The Associated Press

Cross-border Salish Sea study finds key puzzle pieces of wild salmon die-off

For millennia, the Salish Sea — the shared body of water linking northwestern Washington state and southern B.C. and encompassing the Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Strait of Georgia — was abundant with salmon.

The keystone species is the bedrock of the entire ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest. All seven species of Pacific salmon populated the Salish Sea — sustaining a host of other iconic animals, such as bald eagles, southern resident killer whales, and grizzlies, along with their surrounding aquatic and terrestrial environments and scores of Indigenous nations and cultures.

But beginning in the late 1970s, salmon survival, particularly for chinook, coho, and steelhead — which migrate to the ocean like salmon, but can spawn multiple times — began a mysterious downward slide, especially in the marine environment, said Isobel Pearsall, director of marine science at the Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF).

Some populations in Salish waters have plummeted as much as 90 per cent, and limiting fisheries, restoring habitat, and improving hatchery practices weren’t making significant differences, Pearsall said.

It’s clear juvenile fish are particularly vulnerable, and that there is something particular to the Salish Sea impacting survival of the three species, which aren’t facing the same pattern of decline in other regions, she said.

So, in partnership with Long Live the Kings, another non-profit foundation south of the border, PSF launched a five-year research initiative involving 60 different entities to understand what was driving some salmon stocks to extinction and what could be done to reverse it, she said.

Despite the dire situation salmon face, the key findings of the recently completed Salish Sea Marine Survival Project can act as a roadmap for priority action, research, and policy, said Pearsall, co-ordinator of the initiative.

“It’s very easy to get pulled down into the doom and gloom of what we’re seeing around salmon declines,” Pearsall said.

“But the (survival project) has highlighted the areas that we really want to focus on and that we know are crucial.”

The Salish Sea is weathering some significant changes due to the climate crisis, such as warming waters, increasing risk from harmful algae and pathogens, shifts in the marine food web, and the decimation of estuary and foreshore habitats, the study found.

Many of the changes impacting salmon are interlocked, Pearsall said.

“One might hope for a smoking gun and that there would be one major thing you could change to solve the whole issue, but that doesn't seem to be the case,” she said.

However, the initiative concluded that salmon food supply and predation of young salmon are two key contributors to the declines of chinook, coho, and steelhead when they first enter the marine environment.

Changes to the Salish Sea affect when, where and how much food is available for young chinook and coho, which influences their growth and mortality.

Drops in zooplankton and forage fish, especially herring, put young salmon at increasing risk, a situation compounded by the destruction of estuaries and nearshore habitat, which provide hiding spots and food for both the fish and their prey.

The finding suggests that protecting and restoring estuary and forage fish habitats on the foreshores of the coast should be a priority, Pearsall said.

As well, increased efforts to boost declining herring populations and study their distribution and movements are important.

Young salmon are also under pressure from a growing number of harbour seals in the Salish Sea, the project found.

While chinook and coho are a limited portion of the seals’ diet, the number of seals negatively impacts salmon survival rates, already under strain from human-caused climate change, Pearsall said.

The study doesn’t advocate for widespread culls, which would require the elimination of up to 50 per cent of the seal population, and the constant removal of a significant proportion every year after, to have any real effect on salmon, she said.

“It’s just untenable to make such a drastic move in an ecosystem that nobody fully understands,” Pearsall said, adding other pressures and changes are also at play since abundant salmon stocks existed alongside large seal populations in the past.

“I think we need to look at the anthropogenic changes that we've made that make the salmon more vulnerable to predation,” she said.

That could include removing infrastructure like log booms in estuaries where seals can hang out waiting for salmon without fear of being eaten themselves.

Or by changing hatchery practices, such as the release of large groups of juvenile fish upriver, often in low water, which make young salmon easy pickings for all sorts of creatures, including raccoons or herons.

Implementing solutions that could ensure higher river or stream flows to provide more cover and cooler water to young salmon would give them a fighting chance against predators and increase their survival, she added.

The holistic, collaborative nature of the Salish Sea project has resulted in a framework for stakeholders on both sides of the border to respond more effectively in a co-ordinated manner to make gains in restoring endangered salmon stocks, she said.

While the study tallies the range of pressures on salmon, it has also pointed out some practical action, Pearsall said.

“We’re letting people know that what they’re doing can have impacts, both negative and positive,” she said.

“There may be some things that are out of our control, but there are many immediate actions we can take.”

Rochelle Baker / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer

Rochelle Baker, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer

WHO WANTS TO GLOW IN THE DARK?
Indigenous voices important in developing new low, intermediate nuclear waste strategy


Indigenous engagement for the development of a strategy for the storage of low and intermediate radioactive waste has been hampered by more pressing concerns, including the coronavirus pandemic and forest fires blazing in many regions of the country.

“I think it's been a difficult time for the Indigenous communities,” said Karine Glenn, strategic project director for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). “It’s just taking a little bit longer simply because of the other priorities they have in their communities.”

However, Glenn stresses those voices are important as the NWMO holds virtual engagement sessions that will inform their recommendations to the Natural Resources minister on a long-term strategy for the handling and storage of low and intermediate radioactive waste.

These consultations do not focus on used nuclear fuel, but instead on low-level waste, like mops, gloves, paper towels and other day-to-day tools of operations, and intermediate waste, such as the resins that filter the pool water.

“The Nuclear Waste Management Organization believes that Indigenous people have a really integral and important role to play. These kinds of projects cannot proceed without having Indigenous support,” said Glenn.

The NWMO has a reconciliation policy in which it recognizes the historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against Indigenous peoples in Canada and are “really committed to building a better future together with Indigenous communities,” said Glenn.

NWMO respects Indigenous treaty rights and incorporates Indigenous traditional knowledge into their projects, she adds.

Glenn points to a three-day NWMO-hosted Canadian radioactive waste summit in March, in which one-quarter of the 65 speakers, facilitators and panel members were Indigenous. Of the 500 registrants, 15 per cent self-identified as Indigenous.

On Aug. 26, NWMO will host a virtual engagement session in Alberta on the development of a federal integrated strategy for radioactive waste. However, it won’t be the only opportunity for Indigenous communities or organizations to take part, says Glenn.

NWMO is offering to work with any Indigenous community across the country who is interested in “having a dialogue” to set up forums or formats.

The discussions in Alberta are particularly timely as this past April the province joined New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan in signing a Memorandum of Understanding that commits them to collaborate in advancing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as a source of clean energy. SMRs are nuclear reactors that produce 300 MW of electricity or less and are seen as an alternative to diesel-generated power in isolated and northern communities.

At this point, says Glenn, Alberta has no nuclear waste or nuclear generation.

“Moving forward with nuclear energy, if that was the path that Alberta would wish to move forward with, doesn't necessarily mean that they would host a disposal facility, so that's not necessary. But I think it's important that if you agree to in the future to having nuclear energy as part of your energy policy in the province, you also get an opportunity to participate in a dialogue about the long-term management of its waste,” she said.

There are numerous options for storing this level of radioactive waste:

This kind of radioactive waste, says Glenn, does not require a deep geological repository as does used nuclear fuel. Instead, it can be stored “just below (the surface) tens of metres deep,” according to the international best practice.

Regardless of the type of radioactive waste that is being stored, Glenn stresses that all facilities are designed to ensure public safety.

There are economic benefits to a community that hosts the waste site, she adds, including jobs during the construction phase and for operating and monitoring the facilities.

However, Glenn is quick to point out, this phase of the consultation does not involve the site of the repositories, and NWMO has not been tasked with recommending sites.

“We’re at the step before that. We are looking to say what kind of facility we should build and how many of them should be build,” she said.

Glenn does not anticipate the recently called federal election to delay the consultation process as NWMO’s work is funded by the waste owners and not the government. However, it will delay the final recommendations she had hoped to deliver to the minister by the end of 2021.

The government needs to revise its radioactive waste policy framework and that was supposed to be completed in early fall. However, Canadians will be going to the polls Sept. 20.

While the delivery of the recommendations will be delayed, Glenn is confident that the consultations will be valuable.

“There could be some policy direction that might limit the number of options that are available to us, if the government legislated specific technical options for instance. But it wouldn’t necessarily change a lot of what we're asking people… Those concerns and those considerations will be the same regardless of the policy direction,” she said.

To date, 10 community engagement sessions have taken place in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Saskatchewan will follow the Alberta consultation.

The NWMO has met with the First Nations Power Authority, the Assembly of First Nations, the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, and the Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick. A meeting is planned with the Pabineau First Nation, N.B., and workshops are being arranged with the Grand Treaty Council #3, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, and Sagkeeng First Nation.

Workshops in all nine regions of the Métis Nation of Ontario are underway, and meetings are planned with the Historical Saugeen Métis and the Métis Nation—Saskatchewan.

Glenn says other Indigenous organizations have been contacted, as well as Treaty 6 chiefs, the Treaty 8 First Nations and the Métis Nation of Alberta.

Glenn expects engagements to conclude by October or November.

“When we’re talking about long-term management of waste we're talking into the hundreds and thousands of years. We want to make sure we get it right and we need to hear from as many people as possible,” said Glenn.

The Indian Resource Council (IRC) has not been approached about the virtual consultations, says Larry Kaida, assistant to the president.

IRC, headquartered in Tsuut’ina Nation, represents about 140 First Nations who have produced oil and gas in the past, are producing now or have the potential to produce.

“The IRC is now looking at all forms of energy so long as there are benefits/opportunities for First Nations. We would, of course, be very cognizant of environmental issues and impacts. We are well placed to coordinate meetings, provide the right information, but leave it to First Nations to decide if interested,” said Kaida in an email to Windspeaker.com.

Any Indigenous communities that wish to organize a workshop or forum, can reach out to info@radwasteplanning.ca.

Windspeaker.com

By Shari Narine, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Windspeaker.com, Windspeaker.com

OUTSTANDING SINCE 1877

Blood Tribe finalizing cattle, natural gas settlements in excess of $165M from feds

By Eloise Therien Global News
Posted August 17, 2021 

The Blood Tribe is in the process of finalizing two major settlements with the government of Canada pertaining to cattle and natural gas disputes dating back as far as 1877. Eloise Therien has the details on what still needs to be done before the tribe sees the money. SEE BELOW

The Blood Tribe says it has successfully negotiated two major settlements with the government of Canada, one of which still requires a referendum to be passed.

Cattle Claim

A $150-million cattle claim stems from the government’s failure to adhere to cattle agreements outlined in Treaty 7 in 1877, according to the Blood Tribe.

“The Blood Tribe was in a position to receive the Treaty Entitlement Cattle in 1882,” the Blood Tribe said in an overview of the settlement. “However, the promised cattle were never provided. Because Canada did not provide the cattle as promised, the Blood Tribe suffered economic damages.”

In 1997, the tribe filed a cattle claim, which was initially rejected in 2011.

After years of back-and-forth, the tribe proposed the $150-million amount in 2019, which was approved by the government of Canada in March 2021.

Now, 24 years later, they are poised to received the allotted amount, should a community vote go forward.

Blood Tribe members aged 21 and older are asked to vote electronically on Sept. 14 and 15 or at in-person voting stations on Sept. 16 between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Those will be located at the Kainai Multipurpose Building in Standoff, the Nakiska Ballroom in Calgary, and the Italian Canadian Cultural Center in Lethbridge.

In order for the settlement to be granted, at least 25 per cent of Blood Tribe members 21 years and older must vote, with a simply majority in favour.

An online information session is being held Wednesday for community members to attend prior to the referendum. The results are expected at the end of voting day.

If passed, each registered Blood Tribe member will receive $3,000.

The money will also be used for several capital projects, infrastructure, paying off the mortgage for the Kainai Market Place, placed into long-term investments, among other things.

Natural Gas Settlement

Another settlement has been reached, which doesn’t requite a community vote.

According to a release, the Blood Tribe submitted a claim to the federal government in September 2018 regarding the “wrongful deduction of royalties arising from the sale of natural gas extraction that was from reserve lands.”

“From 1977 to 1994, as a part of TOPGAS, (certain) industry costs were wrongfully calculated as part of deductions to royalty payments owing to First Nations that had natural gas production.”

Lance Tailfeathers, the communications consultant for Kainai Resources Inc., said it’s the due diligence and research of the tribe’s negotiation team that led them to the large settlement amount.

“The feds (were) wanting to settle at a $2.4-million offer,” he explained. “Then the tribe said: ‘Hey, wait a minute, we want to do some calculating that we actually missed out on.’

“The offer has been $17.6-million, which we’re just finalizing.”

Tailfeathers explained while plans have yet to be completed, the negotiating team has recommended the money go toward per capita distribution, additional housing, and long-term investments.

It is unclear exactly when that money will be received.

RELATED NEWS

Tiny homes bring big opportunities for Blood Tribe

City of Lethbridge, Blood Tribe to work together towards reconciliation

© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.