|
A headline this week from The Northern Miner grabbed my attention -
‘Proposed US mining legislation follows strict party lines - editorial’.
The mining publication states in an editorial that a piece of highly
restrictive legislation is being proposed by a Democratic congressman from
Arizona. Raul Grijalva’s Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act of 2019,
co-sponsored by Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) would replace the General Mining
Act of 1872 which is often criticized by environmentalists. The
Northern Miner states:
For miners, probably the worst part of the bill is its proposed
imposition of a 12.5% royalty on all new mining operations, and 8% on
existing ones. This, say the bill’s proponents, would result in hard-rock
miners paying the same royalties as the oil and gas and coal-mining industries.
The irony here is delicious. On one hand we have a currency war started by
the United States, through granting
the US Commerce Department carte blanche powers to slap sanctions on a
country that devalues its currency to the detriment of the US economy. On
the other hand we have a new mining law being proposed that is going to
discourage investment into mining, in fact make it extremely difficult to
make a profit - just when domestic mining is most needed - with the
electrification of the transportation system demanding millions of tonnes of
critical metals like lithium, cobalt and graphite, the US doesn’t have, and
the defense industry needing tonnes of rare earths for building weapons and
equipment.
President Trump wants to make America great again by bringing
manufacturing back to the US, by intentionally weakening the dollar, fixing
the trade deficit, and imposing crippling tariffs on everybody. But by taxing
the hell out of mining, the US will remain dependent on countries that
control those minerals - like China, South Africa and the DRC, which is
pretty much owned by China.
How do you repatriate manufacturing by killing mining? It doesn’t make any
sense. Manufacturers need mined metals like iron ore, coal, magnesium and
vanadium for steelmaking, aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, and that’s just for a
start. Consider too, all the critical minerals for which the US is up to 100%
dependent on foreign countries, such as cobalt, lithium, graphite and rare
earths.
The Miner quotes Mark Bristow, the CEO of Barrick Gold, which is venturing
most of its Nevada assets with Newmont Goldcorp, saying the proposed bill
“will screw up this deal. That will take away everything we want to
unlock.”
The Democrats screw mining while the Republicans start a currency war and
lead the country into the next recession. Sounds like politics as usual, the
left not working with the right, in Washington.
In this article we’re looking at the politics of resource extraction, in
Canada and the United States. How very different visions of a future economy,
divided into left and right camps, are making a complete hash of oil and gas
development and mining - at a crucial time in our ecological history.
We need to come up with a coherent policy that both addresses reduction of
fossil fuels and promotes the mining of metals that will help build a new
electrified economy based on electric vehicles and a greater mix of clean
power, including nuclear. Instead we have an utter melee of competing mining/
energy/ climate policies on both sides of the 49th parallel. Unless these can
be straightened out, the real loser is going to be environment and the next
generation that will have to live with the consequences of inaction.
Pipeline politics
Pipeline politics is a strange beast that Canadian are fed a steady diet
of, still being a country that hews wood, draws water and pumps oil. Good
luck trying to make sense of the political parties’ positions and some of the
decisions that have been made - Prime Minister Trudeau’s climate policy for
example gives a fresh meaning to the expression “sleight of hand”. Let’s
start there.
In British Columbia it made sense to nationalize a pipeline project by
spending four and a half billion on it last year and taking it off the hands
of Kinder Morgan, the major US-based pipeline builder trying to develop the
Trans Mountain Expansion Project.
The proposal would twin the Texas-based company’s existing pipeline,
allowing a tripling of crude oil from 300,000 barrels to 890,000 barrels a
day, from Alberta to Burnaby, while also triggering a seven-fold increase in
the number of oil tankers coming and going from Vancouver Harbour.
Kinder Morgan said the
pipeline would mean $7.4 billion to the Canadian economy through
project spending, generate 800,000 direct and indirect jobs—189,000
person-years for BC during construction and operations and 441,000 for
Alberta.
But it was opposed, vehemently, by the City of Burnaby, the City of
Vancouver and the BC government, mostly, they postured, due to the increased
tanker traffic.
The Alberta government tried to stop what it saw as BC meddling in
Alberta’s oil industry by slapping a boycott on BC wines. Although that ban
was lifted a few weeks later, the feud escalated. Alberta passed Bill 12, a
landmark piece of legislation giving it sweeping powers to intervene in oil
and gas exports—including stopping the flow of hydrocarbons to British
Columbia.
After years of protests on Burnaby Mountain, court injunctions,
environmental reviews and raucous public meetings, Kinder Morgan finally gave
up on the project last summer - agreeing to sell it to the BC government for
an eye-popping $4.4 billion of taxpayer money.
Most of us in the resource industry figured that was the end of TMX, as
the project is also known. So we were surprised when the federal
Liberals announced recently that it could have shovels in the ground as
early as this summer.
It’s good to hear the pipeline is finally moving forward, but its
nationalization exposes some uncomfortable truths. For one thing, why is it
so easy to get shovels in the ground for a project that is owned by the
government? Could it be that Ottawa greased a few palms along the way?
Secondly, where are the protesters? It seems it was much more fulfilling to
shout down a big US energy company than our Canadian government. Not sure
if 300
people marching to a beach on Vancouver Island counts as vigorous
opposition, anymore.
It’s also curious that, while BC indigenous groups linked arms with
eco-protesters during the time that Kinder Morgan was spearheading the
pipeline expansion, they are now supporting it. Bands along the line
are reportedly
quibbling over who should get an ownership of TMX.
Then there’s the BC NDP’s weird schizophrenia over the environment.
While the NDP sided with environmentalists in opposing the Northern
Gateway Pipeline that would have moved oil east to west from the Alberta
oilsands to the BC coast (the project was eventually quashed by Justin
Trudeau) it was less sure about a proposed expansion of Kinder Morgan’s
existing pipeline that would significantly increase the amount of crude oil
shipped through Vancouver’s waterways.
During the 2013 election, then-NDP Opposition leader Adrian Dix first said
he wanted to wait to see a proposal from the Texas-based company before
taking a position on it, but then, a week into the four-week campaign, Dix
suddenly announced he was against the project. The about-face seriously
backfired and has been widely pointed to as a major factor in the NDP’s
surprise loss to the Liberals.
Energy flip-flops
Next, the hypocrisy behind the NDP’s bull-headed opposition to the Kinder
Morgan Pipeline, and suddenly “finding religion” in LNG.
From the day he was re-elected in May 2017, Horgan listened to the party's
environmental wing and argued passionately against the pipeline, continually
reminding the public that it would mean a seven-fold increase in tanker
traffic leading to a possible spill of heavy oil at sea.
Environment Minister George Heyman, a former Sierra Club executive
director, led the charge against the federal government that backed the
project, even trying to ask the courts whether BC has jurisdiction to limit
substances deemed harmful to the environment from entering the province. It
doesn’t, the court ruled recently.
Questionable LNG
The
irony of the BC NDP’s position became apparent last September when
it welcomed a final investment decision by Shell and its Asian partners to go
ahead with LNG
Canada in Kitimat – after a CAD$5.3 billion tax break.
The NDP’s acceptance of LNG is all the more puzzling considering
that in
2016 the party filed a position with federal authorities against the Pacific
Northwest LNG project, citing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions;
that project has since been rejected by its proponent, Petronas.
While in Opposition, the BC NDP railed against BC Liberal government
policies it deemed unfriendly to the environment, including the proposed Site
C dam and over a dozen envisioned LNG projects the NDP said would belch too
much pollution.
Yet when the NDP won power, its majority propped up by three Green Party
MLAs, it was business as usual.
While the NDP passed an ambitious
new climate plan, it settled back into the groove of supporting fossil
fuels, in particular the rapid and massive acceleration of natural gas
fracking and LNG. And it approved Site C.
The Globe
and Mail’s Justine Hunter explains why:
The environment was never a big part of the BC NDP’s election platform
in 2017. The party promised to work on climate action, but made no mention of
Site C, or an environmental disaster at the Mount Polley mine. A
seismic shift on ecological policies was not part of the New Democrats’
promise to voters.
Indeed, the BC government has done a complete 180 on the environment since
grabbing the reins of government, welcoming LNG Canada into the province with
open arms, including a $5B tax break.
Also, LNG Canada is getting more ambitious in its plans to build BC’s
first liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at Kitimat. The head of the
consortium of Asian energy companies led by Shell Canada said earlier this
year that it’s only a matter of time before the group commits to an
expansion.
The $40 billion project currently under construction envisions two
“trains” - industry parlance for the system of compressors that turns the
natural gas into liquid for shipment - that would output an estimated 14 million
tonnes per year. Two more trains to be built later (or sooner) would double
production to 28MMtpa.
Nothing wrong with ambition. The problem is, an LNG industry will not only
derail the NDP’s climate plan envisioning a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases
by 2030, (contrary to popular belief the LNG industry and its supply of
hydraulically-fractured gas is both
polluting and geologically destabilizing), it’s also building LNG
capacity at exactly the wrong time.
According to a recent article
in The Financial Post, a slowing Chinese economy is limiting the appetite
for LNG in northeast Asia, where most of the world’s LNG importers are, and
where BC plans to ship its liquefied gas product. January to June is expected
to be first half-year since 2015 that LNG imports to NE Asia have
declined.
Truth is, BC is late to the LNG game. Shipments from new terminals in
Australia, Russia and the US, which continues to frack its huge shale gas
plays, are swamping the market, with supplies already up 14% this year. The
glut is expected to last at least until the end of 2020, the FP quotes Bank
of America Merrill Lynch.
Energy consultants Wood Mackenzie has said LNG Canada would need prices of
around $9 per million Btu to break even. Other analysts think prices may need
to be even higher. As of last Friday, Asian spot prices for delivery in
August were US$4.60 per million BTU, down about 30 cents.
LNG Canada better hope that prices pick up before the first LNG tankers
cast off to Asia in the mid-2020s. The consortium may actually be forced to
accept lower prices (like oilsands producers have to take a lower price from
Gulf Coast refineries for Western Canada Select crude, due to shipping
costs), in order to compete with Russian gas which is much, much closer to
Asian markets than northern BC. Just for fun, check out what Russia
is planning in Siberia:
While Russia’s gas giant Gazprom is working to complete the Power of
Siberia gas
pipeline expected to begin delivering gas to China in
December 2019, another Russian company — the country’s biggest liquefied
natural gas (LNG) producer Novatek — is looking to boost LNG supply
to the growing Asian market.
While it continues to keep more than a third of the European gas
market with pipeline gas supply, Russia is also increasingly looking east and
aiming to take a larger portion of the booming Asian LNG demand, led by
China.
Novatek has one producing LNG plant, Yamal, and aims to reach a
final investment decision (FID) on another one, Arctic LNG 2, this year.
The two faces of Trudeau
In trying to please both the oil industry and supporters of the environment,
Prime Minister Trudeau has actually earned the derision of both
sides.
When the golden-boy son of Pierre ran a campaign to unseat Prime Minister
Stephen Harper in the last federal election, a key message was that he would
not let a pipeline run through BC’s Great Bear Rainforest, and that he would
honor a moratorium on oil tankers off the province’s northern coast.
In killing the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would cross
northern Alberta BC on its way to Kitimat, Trudeau appeared to uphold those
two promises.
But then he reneged, by approving two other projects, Enbridge’s Line 3
carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin, and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain
Pipeline.
Pipelines are seen as the key to unlocking the crisis that has
gripped Alberta since 2014 when the oil price abruptly plunged, putting many
Albertans on the dole. They would relieve the glut of Canadian oilsands crude
that is keeping the price suppressed.
Trudeau talks a good game but has done little to help Alberta oil
producers. Nearly a year after the government’s purchase of Trans Mountain,
there are no shovels in the ground. A promised law asserting Ottawa’s
constitutional authority over pipeline construction came to nought. And
Trudeau has lost much of the green lobby he courted in 2015, in abandoning
his promises to protect the environment.
While Trudeau slapped an oil tanker ban in northern BC - the closest coast
to tidewater - his government embraced LNG in British Columbia - even giving
$275 million to the LNG Canada consortium that is building the $40-billion
liquefied natural gas compressor plant and pipeline to move gas between
northeastern BC and Kitimat.
His commitments to reducing greenhouse gases are equally two-faced. The
New York Times exposes the unprincipled, politically expedient route
the PM has taken with respect to the climate and resource files:
At the Paris climate summit meeting in December 2015, Canada’s freshly
elected prime minister, Justin Trudeau, took the podium before his new
international fan club and declared, “Canada is back, my
friends!”
The young, charismatic Mr. Trudeau promised “sunny ways.”
He was ideally positioned to shift the country to a greener future, away from
its reliance on resource industries and toward improved relations with
Indigenous peoples whose territories are imperiled by energy projects. Yet
more than halfway through his mandate, he has adopted the backward energy and
economic policies of his predecessor Stephen Harper, an ardent fossil-fuel
promoter. Mr. Trudeau has revealed himself to be not a climate crusader, but
a pipeline pitchman who tells the world one thing while doing the opposite at
home.
Within a year of committing in Paris to ambitious
targets, Mr. Trudeau and his federal Liberal Party had rendered
his pledge meaningless. The government approved a pair of
heavy-oil pipelines and a liquefied natural gas plant. Its members secretly
cheered as Donald Trump was elected, and moved toward resurrecting
the Keystone XL pipeline. (Two other pipeline projects were
terminated earlier in Mr. Trudeau’s term, but he can’t take credit; one
was quashed
in court and the other was canceled
by the company.)
Perhaps the most striking example of Trudeau’s delicate balancing act, to
put it kindly, happened when the federal Liberals
said recently they will move ahead with construction of the TMX
pipeline. On Monday, June 17, the House of Commons passed a motion declaring
a national climate emergency in Canada. The next day, it approved the
pipeline. Does this sound like a government with a plan?
Climate plan chaos
In a bit of twisted logic, Trudeau and his Environment Minister, Catherine
McKenna, reasoned that in order for Canada to meet its
international carbon emissions reduction obligations, it would impose a
national carbon tax. Knowing that a carbon tax wouldn’t go over big in
Alberta, Trudeau rejected Northern Gateway, which faced impossibly high
hurdles in First Nations and environmental opposition, and instead
green-lighted Kinder Morgan.
Since it was not a new pipeline but an extension of an existing one,
Trudeau likely reasoned it would face less opposition than Northern Gateway
He was obviously wrong about that, as the protests on Burnaby Mountain, just
outside of Vancouver, demonstrated. Thus, the bargain struck in 2016 was a
carbon tax in return for Alberta being granted a route for its bitumen from
the oilsands, and a way out of the current dilemma of chock-full pipelines
forcing producers to accept a discount on Canadian crude oil.
The federal carbon tax means that large industrial facilities, emitting
over 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, will be taxed on
the CO2 they produce, starting in January 2019. The goal is to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
The tax starts at $20 a tonne and increases by $10 a year until it reaches
$50/t.
The tax also grabs fuel companies. By 2022 11.6 cents a liter will be
added to the cost of gasoline. Diesel, aviation gas and aviation turbo fuel
will also be taxed.
The Liberal government in Ottawa said it would levy a carbon tax on
provinces and territories that don’t already have one, to be effective on
April 1. Currently BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have carbon taxes.
That went over like a lead balloon with provinces that have significant
carbon-intensive mining and oil and gas operations. Alberta and four other
provinces representing half of Canada’s population, have opposed the carbon
tax. They are currently
launching court challenges, claiming the tax is unconstitutional.
So much for the provinces and the federal government putting their heads
together in figuring out how to fight climate change. Earlier this year a
scientific report indicated that Canada is warming
twice as fast as the rest of the world, with the largest temperature
changes recorded in the north, the Prairies and northern BC.
Bill C-69, pipeline killer
The Trudeau government has faced criticism on another front regarding
increased regulation of resource extraction. Bill C-69, which recently became
law.
The legislation broadens the scope of the environmental assessment process
and adds more consultation with the public and particularly indigenous
groups.
Read
more about the controversial legislation here
Critics
say Bill C-69 will create more red tape around getting Canadian oil
to tidewater, and cause uncertainty for future pipeline projects;
newly-elected Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has called it the “No More
Pipelines Bill.”
Pipeline bromance?
Trudeau and US President Donald Trump have a testy relationship but one
area they seem to have found common ground on, is oil transportation. One of
Trump’s first acts after inauguration, in January 2017, was to green-light
the Keystone XL pipeline - an $8-billion project that would carry over
800,000 barrels of Alberta oil a day to refineries in Texas.
Trudeau reportedly told Trump that Canada backs the pipeline, which missed
the 2019 construction season due to court delays. A federal judge in Montana
last November ordered additional environmental reviews.
“I reiterated my support for the project. I've been on the record for many
years supporting [Keystone XL] because it leads to economic growth and good
jobs for Albertans," Trudeau told reporters after learning of Trump’s
approval of Keystone.
Former President Obama opposed the project on climate grounds.
Equally interesting from a Canada-US relations point of view is an article
in The Guardian claiming that the Trudeau Liberals heralded Donald
Trump’s 2016 win as “positive news” for the Canadian energy industry:
Meetings conducted by senior government officials with TransCanada and
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) reveal an one-sided
approach more reminiscent of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s secret
oil advocacy than Justin Trudeau’s green electoral
promises.
The documents, obtained through access-to-information, show the
Parliamentary Secretary to Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister met around the
same time with TransCanada’s CEO Russ Girling and CAPP to discuss the
continued promotion of the pipeline and oil exports.
While Trudeau and Trump seem simpatico on oil pipelines, the two countries
are working at cross-purposes on mining. And while the Trump administration
is pushing for more offshore oil exploration and to revive a dying US coal
industry, the Democrats across the aisle in the House of Representatives are
doing everything they can to stymie fossil-fuel energy development. Instead,
the Dems introduced their frankly ridiculous “New Green Deal” that was
subsequently kiboshed by the Senate, and are now
conspiring to kill mining by introducing new legislation that would levy up
to a 12.5% net smelter royalty on mine production.
Offshore oil fight
The United States not too long ago became a net exporter of oil after
decades of importing more crude from Canada, the Middle East and Venezuela
than it produced domestically, thanks to a massive increase in shale oil and
gas development.
The Trump administration has taken that a step further by advocating for
expanded offshore drilling - the idea being not only to make the US even more
energy-secure, but to help reinvigorate a slow manufacturing sector and
create more high-paying jobs.
The plan was to open up leases off the coasts of Alaska, in the
Pacific and Atlantic regions, and in the Gulf of Mexico. But as USA
Today reports, while Republicans could get behind Trump’s energy agenda
of bringing back coal, expanding mineral extraction on public land, and
reviving nuclear energy, when it comes to the president's proposal
to massively expand offshore oil and gas drilling, many GOP
leaders in coastal states want no part of exploration near their beaches or
maritime communities.
Meanwhile a block of House Democrats in January lined up against a draft
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, which defines
the administration’s vision for offshore oil and gas drilling. Seven
Democrats each introduced bills blocking offshore drilling in one or
more regions, on environmental protection grounds. The draft would open over 90%
of American waters to oil and gas development.
Coal vs New Green Deal
On June 19, a stripped-down Environmental Protection Agency issued
the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, which officially replaced
Obama’s Clean Energy Plan, which set the first US limits on carbon emissions
from coal-fired power plants. The new bill lets states decide whether or how
to regulate pollution from coal-power stacks.
In response to the Trump administration’s pivot to fossil fuels, Democrats
have come out with the New Green Deal, a controversial agenda for dealing
with climate change by radically reducing greenhouse gases, while at the same
time addressing social inequality. In March the
Senate rejected a motion to consider the plan, by a count of 57 lawmakers
to 0. Trumpeted by wing-nut New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the
New Green Deal would virtually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by
2030, by shifting away from oil and coal. It would also bring in national
healthcare coverage, job guarantees, affordable, energy-efficient housing and
higher education standards.
Republicans dismiss the New Green Deal, saying the plan would
devastate the economy and result in a huge tax increase.
Oil exploration and coal development are two examples of the extreme
partisanship we are seeing in American politics.
Critical metals vs uranium
A third is the approach being taken to mining. Trump is the first president
since World War II to recognize that the United States’ dependence on foreign
countries for the supply of critical metals like vanadium, manganese and
lithium, is a problem.
In 2017 Trump passed an executive order to explore for and develop these
minerals. In recently meeting with Trudeau, the
pair reportedly ordered officials to develop a plan for US-Canada
collaboration on critical minerals. The US was motivated to team up with
Canada following a threat
by China to use rare earths as a bargaining chip in the current
trade war.
That is an extremely positive development regarding the strengthening
of America’s
metallurgical achilles heel, and a much-needed point of agreement after
months of tense negotiations over a new NAFTA, but the current
administration, in its obsession to protect US industries, is at the same
time targeting uranium mining.
Also, while the White House apparently deems steel and aluminium to be
worthy of protection, it dropped critical metals off a long list of tariffs
to be borne by China, due to the fact that the United States is so
dependent on them. The country can’t afford to risk interfering with the
supply chains of rare earths, used by the military to make weapons and
equipment, which are among a list of 35 minerals deemed critical to US
security and economic prosperity.
“These materials are critical to U.S. industry and defense, and with
nowhere else to turn for supplies in the near-term, the tariffs would invoke
more suffering on U.S. end-users than China,” Ryan Castilloux, managing
director of consultancy Adamas Intelligence, told
Reuters.
And while a hunt for domestic critical metals would seem to support a
nascent US mine-to-electric vehicle supply chain, such as cobalt, lithium,
nickel and graphite used in EV batteries, Trump in March threw a spanner into
that plan.
The White House in March proposed
eliminating a tax credit worth up to $7,500 on the purchase of new
electric vehicles, as a way of saving the government $2.5 billion over the
next decade.
Another BC flip-flop
Meanwhile the provincial government of British Columbia, having last year
rolled out an ambitious climate plan, just did a version of the same
thing.
Last Saturday Victoria
said it was reducing its rebate program for battery, fuel-cell and
longer-range plug-in hybrid vehicles to $3,000 from $5,000. For shorter-range
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles the rebate falls to 1,500 from the
previous $6,000 for a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle.
Pretty tough to convince the public to buy EVs, en route to an
emissions-free vehicle fleet in BC, when incentives are being removed. Last
time we checked, EVs were priced a lot higher than regular gas or
diesel-powered cars.
That’s on top of the Canadian government’s anti-mining, anti-pipeline Bill
C-69 which, on the face of it would appeal to clean, green-energy types,
unless you consider that nearly every raw material needed for renewable
energies and electric vehicles comes from mining. The bill was just approved
by the Senate. According
to Global News, it sets up a new authority to assess industrial
projects, such as pipelines, mines and inter-provincial highways, for their
effects on public health, the environment and the economy.
From our reading of it, Bill C-69 will move us to a situation where the
cards are thoroughly stacked against a resource proponent. To learn how,
read Road
to a mining ‘yes’ littered with obstacles in Canada
Uranium u-turn
President Trump is reportedly weighing tariffs on US uranium imports,
using the same justification as steel and aluminum, ie. citing national
security concerns. The country's only two uranium miners, Energy Fuels Inc.
and Ur-Energy Ltd., have complained about state-owned uranium companies in
countries like Russia and Kazakhstan, dumping cheap uranium on the world
market.
If tariffs are levied on uranium, it would hurt Canada’s Cameco, among the
largest uranium miners in the world, which has already closed mines due to
near-decade low prices for U3O8, the nuclear fuel.
Conclusion
If there’s one thing that we can all agree on, it’s to try and clean up
our environment and limit the effects of climate change - man-made or
nature-caused, take your pick it doesn’t matter - by moving away from the use
of fossil fuels.
To do that requires a global consensus and plan of action that is so
colossal and far-reaching, it is beyond the ability of our current
decision-makers. Even on a North American level, this article has shown that
we have a mash of policies, laws, and positions, indelibly linked to
political ideologies, that prevents a move in the direction of saving the
planet, which at the end of the day, is the real loser in this.
It’s time to end political partisanship, oppose fossil fuel development,
and embrace domestic mining of critical minerals and other metals that will
help move us to a successful electrification of the transportation system,
along with a greater mix of renewables energies to support base-load power
for the foreseeable future.
Doing this would not only clean up the atmosphere, but help develop the
foundation of a new, clean-tech economy with real jobs and living wages to
allow economies and populations to keep thriving, even on a warming
planet.
subscribe
to my free newsletter
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or
the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.
Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from sources he
believes to be reliable but which has not been independently
verified. Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts
no responsibility or liability as
to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of
Richard Mills only and are subject to change without notice. Richard Mills
assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance,
correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report
and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion
or statement contained herein or any omission. Furthermore, I, Richard Mills,
assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in
particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use
and existence of the information provided within this Report.
|
