Clear Full Forecast

Spin, Spin Spin :One Man's Opinion

By Ben Meisner

Sunday, January 21, 2007 03:45 AM

   It is always interesting to watch the spin take place when Alcan looks to put its hand into the pockets of the people of the province.

You always get a healthy dose of PR spin, oddly enough, most always from either present or former employees of the company.

Case in point, Hans Wagner, who came to the city, when the company was trying to divert the balance of the Nechako River under the guise of aluminum production. Wagner set up shop and would hand out a little snippit here or there to whomever would ask for it. All of course complete with the Alcan Aluminum stamp on it. His latest talks,while coming out of Vancouver, center around the “public interest" that Alcan replace the old inefficient and rather polluting current smelter with a cleaner more efficient one.

If Alcan's present smelter is polluting, treat it in the same manner as any other company in this province , make them live up to standards .

Never ever will you notice in any comments from these people will you get a comment about just what Alcan wants in return for that “new smelter".

An increase in the rate that Alcan charges BC Hydro (you) under a new contract, which amounts to $1 billion dollars.  It is an amount the people of the province will be asked to pay.  $110,000,000 dollars, the money Alcan had to pay out for selling power to Enron in the US .   A reduction of 500 jobs that will come as result of that , “new pollution free smelter”.

Wagner, et-al, never seem to get around to telling the people that they are trying to spin that it is the B.C. resident and taxpayer who will pay for their profits.

If the sale of Hydro electric power has not been a major profit source for them, how come they insist on a new contract?  A contract that will see increases in power costs to the consumers of BC?

I recall in the last go round a person with very close Alcan connections, went around to the Citizen to ask them to print a story that I had received a speeding ticket in my boat in Prince Rupert. The Citizen printed it, although  I can’t remember either before or after when they have ever repeated that type of story.  More interestingly was the intent, was it to somehow discredit me?  Then there was the time when a high ranking official with the company flying over the Nechako , pointed down to a house below and said to his passenger , “I’d like to bomb that house".  That "house" just happened to be mine. I must say I was deeply flattered. So don’t be surprised when you see an X on my back.

Alcan should have should have been the originators of that catchy song "hands in your pockets, hands in your pockets."  In Quebec , the government loaned (interest free) $400 million to Alcan for 30 years, a further $112,000,000 in tax breaks, a 50 year extension of  the company's water rights , and below cost power for the term of that contract.

Here in B.C., the figure to “buy” 500 jobs will be much higher.

You can’t help but ask yourself this question:  If Alcan doesn’t have a contract to sell power to BC Hydro because they want too much,  and B.C. seeks power elsewhere, then what  will Alcan will do with that surplus power? 

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.  


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

>If Alcan's present smelter is polluting, treat it in the same manner as any other company in this province , make them live up to standards .<

If the Kitimat plant is not meeting the standards that an aluminum smelter has to conform to, one would think that it would be cited, fined and forced to be in compliance?

I think that the new much cleaner and more efficient smelting process which would be implemented with the planned new Kitimat smelter would be eliminating much of the present emissions.

Apparently the present old smelter has cleaned up the pollution from the Soderberg smelting process to a degree that additional improvements are not achievable.

I called a friend in Kitimat and he had not heard a word there about the deal Quebec has made with Alcan for a new smelter in Quebec.

Very strange, especially since he likes to keep well informed about anything that concerns Alcan and the smelter, from which he retired not too long ago.





I would like to see it illegal for corporations and unions to participate in politics financially as well as their advocating for or against politicians or political parties.

IMO corporations and unions should only be allowed to advocate policy positions through the media in their name directly and not through think tanks, front groups, or politicians and their political parties.

That would be a citizens based democracy. What we have now is a prostituted democracy for the elites with hidden agenda's. Our current democracy is citizen based in appearance only, so as to legitimize the theft from our society.

IMO we need a democracy that only allows citizens to advocate who their representatives should be. Campaigns should be run through a combination of citizen financed signage and free and equitable media advertising. That being the media's obligation for its right to operate in our democracy. Right and Left wing media would be moderated by their obligated allotments of advertising space to established political parties.
IMO Diplomat missed the point of Bens article. Still hasn't wrapped s/he head around the concept of corporate welfare and how that is achieved through PR spin.

The idea of the smiling Alcan that robs us blind of billions, while promising us they will be good to us next time. Diplomat seems stuck on the promise that they will be good to us next time part. If Alcan can pay off the right people legally in the pursuit of profits, than promises are just that, and accountability is something to be negotiated for future promises.


Sorry Diplomat, but I think we have different opinions.
I also think Ben is alluding to the fact Alcan will next try to sell their power to the Americans dircectly, with the expectation that if BC needs the electricity for our own economy we will have to buy it back from an American energy broker at the inflated American rates. Its Alcans logical next step now that they have their foot in that door.

So much for in the vacinity of the works.
Chad:"Sorry Diplomat, but I think we have different opinions."

I don't see how you have to be sorry for anything. The democracy that we are enjoying presently (contrary to the kind of democracy that you wish for, as posted by you at 10:08 am) allows everyone, including groups of people and interest groups, to express their opinion freely.

I don't get lost in pipe dreams, but instead examine issues at face value. Alcan is not "stealing" from anybody, in the legal sense, and you know it, too.

Alcan was offered a resource in the context of the conditions at the beginning of the 1950's and in return Alcan built a smelter, a power generating facility, etc.

Would Alcan get the same deal today from the province as it got then? NO, I doubt it very much. And too many successive B.C. provincial governments have eagerly bought "surplus" power from Alcan in Kitimat without encountering too much complaining from the general public which was not concerned about the legal implications for the future.

Read the commentary in the Prince George Citizen by Vaughn Palmer entitled "Quebec's Alcan deal puts squeeze on Kitimat." Jan 20th 2007

I understand very well the points that Ben is making in respect to the Alcan situation, but I do not have to comment on each and every one of them if I do not wish to.

Why did Charest make the deal he made with Alcan? And why was the public response in Quebec "generally favourable"?

Vaughn Palmer says that many other aluminum production plants in North America are shutting down, dismantled and gone.

To insinuate that somehow I am in favour of "The idea of the smiling Alcan that robs us blind of billions, while promising us they will be good to us next time" is just plain nonsense.

If you have a legal practical idea how to wrest away from Alcan the rights given to it more than 50 years ago I would be very pleased to hear about it and perhaps so would others.



With the rights came some duties, and with the building of the dam at Alcan's cost, came some benefits.

The old agreement makes for some interesting reading, especially when one looks at the original intent.

I realize that actions and additional agreements since then will, through practice by both parties, have some influence on the agreement. To me, however, it seems that Alcan is not meeting up to the intent of the original agreement.

http://www.city.kitimat.bc.ca/uploads/CityNews.PowerSales/1950_agreement.pdf
Diplomat the legal practical way is to have the original deal upheld by our BC Supreme Court. The matter is before the court. Don't count one bit on our current provincial politicians standing up for this province.

The facts are that Alcan gave absolutely zero legal assurance that they would build a new smelter in Kitimat if this sweetheart power deal was approved by the BCUC. To even suggest that Alcan's ransom of a new smelter should influence our provincial decision on our crown hydro resource is defeatist, in addition to wishful thinking to think Alcan executives in the future will be bound solely by their predecessors given word.

Why did Charest make the deal he did, and why are the people of Quebec happy with it you ask? Shouldn't that be obvious? In Quebec all power Alcan produces goes into their smelter, and any excess power Alcan needs is guaranteed at a low rate by Hydro Quebec. Alcan is not in the electricity export business in Quebec. Add to that Quebec had Alcan legally guarantee not only a smelter, but employment levels at those smelters, unlike in BC. Furthermore Alcan has agreed to relocate its world headquarters to Montreal creating thousands of more jobs.

BC on the other hand gave away our hydro resource to Alcan for free, then agreed to pay twice what our previous illegal agreement was for power sales to BC Hydro (3500% Alcan profit over cost), and got no employment guarantees, and not even a legal guarantee of the smelter in question.

In BC Alcan was able to buy Lower Mainland politicians their political power in exchange for almost anything Alcan wanted. That is not how democracy works especially if you live in Kitimat. BC politicians should not have to do what is in BC's interest, “only when the public complains” as Diplomat suggests. They should do what is right even when the public is silent. For Lower Mainland politicians the public may as well always be silent when it comes to Northern BC issues.

With Gordon Campbell’s secret energy policy in BC negotiating bad deals like this Alcan deal behind closed doors, while he plans on more ‘anyone but BC Hydro’ power generations deals I expect to pay a lot to heat my home in the future. I would not hire Gordon Campbell as a lawyer to represent me in any negotiations that’s for sure.

Alcan is stealing economic potential out of BC through their illegal power sales outside of the vicinity of the works as laid out in the original 1950 power agreement governing their generation of electricity with our crown water resource. Period as far as I am concerned.
Diplomat turns out I did not use the term 'stealing' in my original posts as you had quoted me as saying. I see you were on the right track, but for the record you should not use quotations when attributing words to someone elses opinion. Its just not diplomatic.
Chad:"The idea of the smiling Alcan that robs us blind of billions, while promising us they will be good to us next time."

Robbing somebody blind of billions is theft. i.e. "stealing."

I repeat:

"Alcan is not "stealing" from anybody, in the legal sense, and you know it, too."

I stand by my interpretation of the expression "robbing blind."

And I did not quote YOU as having said: "stealing" and you are quite aware of that.

That is why I put the word "stealing" in quotation marks.

Obviously that escaped your attention.



Diplomat, free advice.

The "---" quotation means a direct quote.

The '---' quotation means take-it-as you-may kind of hint of your interpretation of what I actually said, but not what I really said. Your kind of quote.

Not sure why a diplomat couldn't just admit they were wrong and move on. Instead you redefine what a quote is? lol
Geee, sorry to keep you awake until at least 1:22 am with making up yet another spin on "quotation marks."

Since you claim that you never wrote "stealing" and I never stated that it was YOU who I quoted it has become painfully obvious that your belabouring of this thing is a real waste of time.

I simply put stealing in quotation marks to make it stand out from the rest of the text, something that is done quite commonly. In other words, I wasn't quoting anybody.

"Robbing blind" means stealing, whether I put "stealing" in quotation marks or not! Why don't YOU admit that robbing blind and stealing are the same thing???

I admit that I was wrong to comment on your corporate welfare rant, that is for sure.

You find nothing wrong with the corporate welfare extended to Alcan by Charest and yet it amounts to several hundred millions of dollars (or perhaps as much as a billion over the next 30/50 years).

Alcan's relocation of its headquarters will not create thousands of jobs as Alcan has always had its corporate Canadian office in Montreal in its own building called Place Ville Marie. The added jobs will be a small fraction of thousands of jobs.

Obviously, Alcan's PR effort "Furthermore Alcan has agreed to relocate its world headquarters to Montreal creating thousands of more jobs (Chadermando)" is being believed by some gullible people in Quebec and elsewhere.

Amazing. Ciao!


"Why don't YOU admit that robbing blind and stealing are the same thing???"

Stealing means taking the property of others without right or permission. Robbing adds to that the taking through violent or intimidating means.

So, robbery is a form of stealing while stealing is not a form of robbery. It is a result of robbery.

Technically speaking the two are not the same, although they end up with the same result.

;-)
Stealing isn't a politically correct term these days. You "liberate" your victim from his/her money. How is that fer a spin?