Sunday, April 13, 2014

So....How Much, Exactly, Did Enbridge Spend In Kitimat?


First, from the report by Cameron Orr in the Kitimat Sentinel:

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines say they spent $9,600 in advertising for Kitimat's plebiscite, between print and radio ads.

That breaks down to $6,500 in print and $3,100 on radio advertisements....

Second, from (just one) of the comments attached to the report (go read them all):

...How stupid are we supposed to be to believe that Enbridge has only spent $9600. They brought in hired employees that were flown here Full page paper ads, Internet Ads, Radio ads, Let's not forget about their many, many large bulletin boards that were bought and put together by hired people. Plus they used the Post Office to mail out two fliers, one being a glossy five paged booklet...

Let's see if somebody does the real digging.

Why does this neverending obfuscation matter?....Well, the folks running the 'No' side have been totally upfront about their numbers and they were almost $15K...Don't know about you, but I can almost hear the 'foreign environmentalist' deck of ethical oil-bought cards being thrown into the wurlitzer's blades already...



e.a.f. said...

Now, did anyone believe Enbridge would tell the truth. They want people to believe they spent very little money, so if they had won, they could have told the public, they were just another "little guy" and they didn't need big budgets. People saw the value of Enbridge's positions just on its own merits.

Ya, Kitimat may be a "remote" city, but enbridge needs to understand that doesn't mean stupid. We now have these really neat things called scientists, books, documentaries, news, and the internet!

Grant G said...

RossK said...



And then there is the matter of just how massive those tankers are that would go through that channel.

Folks that live there seem to realize, and recognize, the relativity of that risk regardless the best efforts of the flack-hackery.


Thanks Grant.


scotty on denman said...

I don't think the "neverending obfuscation" presages another "foreign environmentalist" play---Mr Limpet's moved to Finance. But I won't be surprised to hear maudlin resentment that numerous Haisla seen about town sporting "NO PIPELINE" T-shirts were "interfering" with the civic referendum from which most of them were ineligible because their contiguous neighbourhood happens to be a federal Indian Reserve technically outside the city. Or maybe it'll be characterized as "intimidation" like the parade of drum-pounding toddlers were in Bella Bella when the Enviro-Review Panel was cancelled "for security reasons". There's been a pervasive racist insinuation going on since it was recognized, with a mixture of disbelief and dismissiveness, that First Nations hold the Constitutional hammer on the fate of Northern Gateway. Now the city of Kitimat has reiterated its opposition too.

Nor do I think it's the "Big Lie" technique: Enbridge's menadacities are too creatively diverse instead of a single lie told over and over until everyone believes it. Nor is it "Whopperism" wherein Christy Clark repeats an unlikelihood but adds emphasis each time, blowing it up like an impossibly gigantic baloney balloon---a tactic she deployed to underscore Dix's pusillanimity more than convince voters of the preposterous proportions of her LNG vision.

I rather see Enbridge chanting a magical incantation; considering its well documented record of dishonesty, it surely can't be expected to convince the public; rather, it seems more a prayer to steady their own resolve as yet another serious obstruction arrays before them with the rest. After all, Enbridge rolls with a culture of faith in ritualistic rubber stamping and destroying scientific libraries. But if their magic's as weak as their science...

RossK said...

Heckuva comment Scotty, thanks.

Didn't know about the technicalities of location...Guess that means that it could have, potentially been 78% against if the vote had been inclusive?

Who made the exclusionary decision - do you know by chance?


scotty on denman said...

I'm not sure, Ross K. The promises to hold a referendum were made by civic politicians and directed to citizens of the municipality---but there's little doubt that as a real community of neighbours, jurisdiction aside, the rejection would have been something like you suggested---much bigger.