#visionCanada2119

Open letter to Canadians opposing Canadian pipelines and oilsands

Published

4 weeks ago

Demian Newman is President of Newman Sales and Marketing Inc. based in Calgary.

Dear fellow Canadians,

I’m writing this as an open letter to every Canadian who has protested the Canadian oil and gas industry. I’m writing this to ask – what if you win? What if you succeed and completely shut down Canada’s oil and gas industry? What happens next?

Obviously, if you’ve ever marched, protested or argued against Canadian pipelines or Oilsands, you must believe that you are financially insulated from the hundreds of billions this industry puts into the Canadian economy. Or you are OK with the crushing blow to the Canadian economy, because your heartfelt belief is that the Canadian oil and gas industry is so environmentally bad for the planet.

These are the people I desperately want to have a conversation with.

I write this letter, not as a Calgarian, Albertan, or even as a Canadian. But I write this as a human being. A human being with two young children, and one who doesn’t go a day without being concerned about how we’re leaving this planet.

So, let’s say that all the anti-Canadian pipeline and oilsands campaigns finally crippled this industry, to a point it can’t rebound. Which feels like a real possibility these days. But what is not just a possibility, but a reality, is that Canadians without their own oil and gas industry would still consume the same amount of energy.

And as Canadians continue to consume 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, the amount we need to import from foreign countries would rise from the current 56%, to 100%. And as completely confused as I already am that we currently import 850,000+ barrels of oil per day, while having the 4th largest reserves in the world. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can think importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day is better for Canada or the environment?

Let’s start with where it’s coming from, with Canada importing 61% from the US, 12% from Saudi Arabia, 6% from Azerbaijan, 5% from Norway, and 4% from Nigeria. I’m going to skip past each of these countries environmental, safety, employee and human rights track records, as there’s no point defacing them when Canada’s oil and gas industry is the world leader in all of these. And I’ll expand on this later, but I thought for arguments sake, we can pretend all these countries have the same standards as Canada.

How could it possibly be more environmentally positive to drill oil in the Middle East, pipeline it to their ports, tanker it 10,000+kms across the ocean, and then deliver it to Canada? Remembering that we have it right here.

So, you’ve won, and there’s no more of what you believe is “dirty oil”. And now we’re importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day into Canada. Let’s not forget, that the 5% of the world’s oil production which Canada currently produces daily, would need to be replaced, or prices would inflate and everyone across the globe would have to pay more at the pumps. And more for the 1,000’s of items manufactured from oil.

But don’t worry about the extra cost, as no other country has an anti oil industry campaign against them, that has stopped or slowed them down like Canada has. And with technology getting better every day, Canada’s 5% worldwide production amounts will be easily replaced.

And let’s go full circle to the Canadian’s protesting new Canadian pipeline projects. If we eliminate our own industry, and we’re importing 650,000 extra barrels of oil daily, we’ll have no other choice but to build new pipelines and facilities to bring this additional oil from the US pipelines and foreign tankers.

So, wouldn’t that be an ironic punch in the face. Where Canadians protesting Canadian owned and operated pipelines, end up shutting down all the investment it takes to move Canadian resources through Canadian pipelines. Just so we are forced to build pipelines and facilities to move more foreign oil into Canada.

And I mentioned that we’d pretend all countries have the same environmental requirements and standards when exploring and developing their natural resources. But it isn’t even close.

You can Google articles with examples of Canada’s environmental standards in this industry, versus any other country. But instead, do yourself a favour and ask someone who’s worked in Canada’s oilpatch, and around the world. Every one of them has countless stories of horrendous environmental issues abroad, which haven’t been allowed in Canada in 30+years (or ever).

So, let’s look at what Canada’s environmental standards are for this industry. And by that, I mean you should go look it up. Don’t take my word for it, but find some reputable publications and factual documents, and not someone’s rambling blog.

Look it up, and please let me know if I’m wrong. Because as much as I needed to write this letter, to get a few things off my chest. I also wrote it, as I believe everyone needs to do better at having a conversation about climate change, the environment, and our responsibility to all do better.

So, I welcome the opposing opinion, as I don’t know why this topic has become a name calling divisive shouting match, where no one will listen to the other side.

But while I have you here, I did want to throw out a couple specific projects, and how protesting them doesn’t make any environmental sense to me. One is Energy East, and the other is BC LNG. The first one is dead, but my fingers are crossed that it can be revived. The second is still approved, for now.

If you look at a map of Canadian pipelines, there is no major pipeline going from Alberta to the east coast of Canada. This means that almost every drop of gas in every vehicle east of Winnipeg is from refined foreign oil. The amount of oil that would’ve travelled on the Energy East pipeline is almost the same amount of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia every day (roughly 100,000 barrels a day).

But what if we didn’t protest Energy East, and instead told the Premier of Quebec that he cannot block a national pipeline. Eastern Canadians would’ve paid (at a minimum) $10-$15 less per barrel than they are currently paying for Canadian oil versus foreign oil. But there was also the billions (not millions, but billions) in revenue that each province would receive from this pipeline running oil through their province.

And I know we’re focusing on the environment, and not the financial benefits of Canada’s oil and gas industry. But, the trick with clean energy and technology, is that it takes money to develop and get to market. So I could be wrong, but I’m almost certain that not one oil company would’ve been upset if Quebec hadn’t killed this pipeline, but instead, took their multi billions a year in revenue from it, and invested all of it into new clean energy technology.

Another thing I encourage you to Google, is the amount of new clean energy technology that has been developed by, and for, Canada’s oil and gas industry.

So, Energy East would’ve taken the amount of Canadian oil, which they are already buying from foreign countries, while generating a ton of money for Canada/Canadians. And then that money could’ve been invested into renewable green energy development. But, Climate Change is a world wide problem, not just a Canadian one. So, as crazy as this might sound, I do believe that BC building facilities to ship Canadian liquid natural gas (LNG) to the world, could have an incredibly positive carbon emissions net benefit.

Currently, China alone has over 700 super coal plants. Just one of them emitting almost as much CO2 as the entire Canadian Oilsands (this is easy to look up). So, what if we could help China get their energy from Natural Gas instead of Coal, as it’s WAY better for the environment. (Side note – also look up Natural Gas and its carbon footprint, as I find very few people realize that it has been unfairly lumped in as a dirty fossil fuel).

And very quickly, I would like to address how we got here in the first place. Why is the perception of Canada’s oil and gas industry so bad across the rest of Canada?

The industry really must start by looking inward, as it has done a very poor job of promoting itself and the strides it’s made over the years. And it can still improve. As can all of us individually.

Because who outside of the industry knows that the Oilsands greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 29% since 2000. Or that a barrel of oil sent from the Oilsands to a refinery on the US Golf Coast has a smaller carbon foot print than a barrel of oil traveling from an oil well in California (it’s small difference, but it’s still better).

And to understand why it’s tough for this industry to promote itself – it is Canadian after all, which explains a lot about its uncomfortable feelings towards self-promotion. And I’ve met a ton of extremely intelligent and thoughtful engineers, geologists, accountants, and tradespeople in this industry, but I’ve never met a Public Relations person – and if there is one, they are very underfunded.

Who is not underfunded, are the groups who make an extraordinary amount of money from Canada not being able to get its natural resources to other customers (the US is our biggest customer at 99%, which is a percentage no business can survive with). And you can’t blame these people for making money off Canada’s inability to build pipelines. But, how they’ve done it, by spending hundreds of millions on PR campaigns to smear Canada’s industry, and pitting us against each other, is beyond is infuriating.

If you only look up one item, please do some research on how openly organizations have been about making donations in the name of the environment, which only target one country’s oil industry. This has made a lot of headlines lately, but I’ve read national Canadian media articles investigating this as far back as 2010.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I tried my best to use as few statistics as possible, as I’ve seen arguments get derailed with debates on stats. As if the $80 million that Canada losses every day due to no pipeline capacity, is any different if its $40 million or $100 million. It’s a lot of millions, that have turned into billions. And it’s costing hundreds of thousands of good hardworking Canadians financial hardship.

And if it saves the environment, and the planet, then there certainly is an argument for it. But if it’s not helping at all, and potentially harming the planet. Then everyone needs to get educated on all the facts and start to talk to each other about a real solution. And get our industries, politicians, and every Canadian on board with a solution that works.

And please, please, please, don’t take your information from this subject off some rogue website, that’s for or against my stance. Take the time to get your facts from vetted and fact checked publications.

No one should get their facts from a nameless person shouting on the internet. So, my name is Demian Newman, and the two kids I’m leaving this planet to are Olivia and Liam. And both of them need to grow up in a country which is thriving as a world leader, both economically and environmentally – as anything less would be un-Canadian.

Sincerely,

Demian Newman

p.s. If you don’t have time to look up information on everything I’ve mentioned above. Here are a few links:

This first one is on personal energy use and personal accountability. Fun fact: If each of us does a better job to minimize our individual carbon footprint, the industries selling it won’t need to produce as much. Scary fact: literally every economist has said we will use more energy each and every year. This article does a good job expanding on that.

https://www.c2cjournal.ca/2018/12/03/we-have-met-the-carbon-enemy-and-he-is-us/

https://energyminute.ca/

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/oil-sands/18091

http://www.ethicaloil.org/news/myth-busting-are-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-the-oilsands-ruining-the-atmosphere/

https://www.aboutpipelines.com/en/blog/what-you-know-about-pipelines-and-the-environment-might-be-wrong/?utm_campaign=CEPA_Social&utm_content=1542042327&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook,linkedin

https://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/

http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests

Newman Sales and Marketing Inc is a full service sales and marketing firm representing independently owned and operated oilfield service companies.

Originally published January 2019

If you enjoyed this story, you might also like this story from Sheldon Gron. Click the image below:

Up Next

Inaction and procrastination at city hall may cost our children $100 million.

Don't Miss

Police looking for suspects after Central Alberta armed robbery

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

#visionCanada2119

Garfield Marks; “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal still draws interest.

Published

2 days ago

November 12, 2019

Garfield Marks

The proposal to by-pass Quebec in shipping oil to refineries in New Brunswick via Thunder Bay then shipping through the St. Lawrence Seaway still has legs.

Nov 9 2019, Comments by D.B. Chalcroft on the

PROPOSAL TO SHIP OIL TO EASTERN CANADA VIA ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY by Garfield Marks

Garfield Marks published his “Oil-by-Seaway” and it has subsequently been covered in the CBC media and more recently on CHQR 770 radio.

The Garfield Marks “Oil-by-Seaway” Proposal

Concept – To replace the eastern half (about 2600 km) of the proposed Energy East Pipeline with tanker shipping from Thunder Bay via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway to St. John, New Brunswick.

The Energy East pipeline proposed by TC Energy in 2014, would have converted about 3000 km of the existing natural gas pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to the Ontario-Quebec border, to diluted bitumen transportation; and would have built 1600 kms of new pipeline from the Ontario-Quebec border to St. John, New Brunswick. The capacity of the pipeline was to have been 1.1 million barrels (200,000 tonnes) of crude oil per day, was estimated to cost $12 billion, and at 4600 km would have been the longest pipeline in North America. TC Energy subsequently cancelled the project in October 2017, citing regulatory rule changes. In addition the Government of Quebec has stated that there is no social license for the Energy East pipeline through Quebec.

“Oil-by-Seaway” Tanker Shipping Option

The “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal would include converting 2000 km of the existing TC Energy Natural Gas pipeline from Hardisty, Ab, to Thunder Bay to carry diluted bitumen, and creating a new oil tanker shipping system from Thunder Bay through the existing St Lawrence Seaway and by ocean to the major Irving oil refinery at St. John , NB.

The existing St. Lawrence Seaway has more available shipping capacity than is presently being utilized. During the 1970s and 1980s, cargo shipments from Thunder Bay, for example, averaged about 20,000,000 metric tonnes per year with between 850 and 1470 vessels per year leaving the port. Since 2009 cargo shipments from Thunder Bay have averaged only about 8,000,000 tonnes/year on some 400 vessels per year.

The existing locks in the St. Lawrence Seaway at the Welland Canal and near Montreal, impose length, width, and draft, size restrictions (maximums of 225.5 m long by 23.8 m wide and draft of 8 m) on the vessels that can use the Great Lakes shipping system. The maximum size of bulk cargo that can be shipped through the system is about 29,000 tonnes per Seaway-capable ship – these ships are known as “lakers”.

The St Lawrence Seaway averages about 275 days of navigation per year – the other 90 days being closed to shipping due to winter conditions.

In order for “Oil-by-Seaway” shipping to deliver the 1,100,000 BPD (200,000 tonnes per day) of oil to the St John, NB terminal as envisaged by Energy East, in a shipping season of 275 days, would require the daily shipping deliveries to be 265,000 tonnes/day during the navigation season. This would require close to 10 “laker-tankers” per day to unload at St. John, NB. Assuming the turn-around time for a “laker-tanker” from Thunder Bay to St. John to Thunder Bay is about 16 days including 2 days for loading and unloading – means that a fleet of about 160 “laker-tankers” would be required to achieve this delivery commitment, plus storage facilities at St John of about 100,000,000 barrels.

The Welland Canal currently has about 1500-1800 vessel transits each way per year, or on average 5-7 transits per day each way. However in 1960 the total number of vessel transits was as high as 4500 each way (an average of 16 /day) although vessels were smaller carrying an average of only 3,400 tonnes of cargo. The Oil-by-Seaway proposal would add 2700 passages per year bringing the total to around 4500 per year or 16 per day each way, very similar to the 1960 record rate albeit with larger average vessel sizes.

Ballpark Cost Estimate for 160 Laker-Tankers

What would it cost to create a fleet of say 160 “Laker-tankers”? As a very rough comparison, the three Newfoundland Off-shore Shuttle Tankers that pickup roughly 230,000 BPD (47,000 tonne/day) of oil production from the five producing platforms on the Grand Banks, cost a reported $375,000,000 (ie $125M/ship)in 2016, and have a deadweight of 148,000 tonnes and gross tonnage of 85,000 tonnes each, meaning each ship can carry up to about 60,000 tonnes of cargo (oil) . These three Shuttle Tankers deliver the 47,000 tonne/day of Grand Bank oil production to the trans-shipment terminal at Whiffen Head, NL with an average turn-around time of 3-5 days . A rough cost estimate for the Laker-Tankers can be obtained by taking $125M X 29,000 t/ 60,000 t = $60 million. Therefore the cost of one “Laker-tanker” with 29,000 tonne capacity is estimated to be in the order of $60 million, and a fleet of 160 Laker-tankers would be in the ballpark of $10 billion.

Discussion

The St. Lawrence Seaway is currently handling 20-25 million tonnes of cargo per year through the Welland Canal in the Downbound direction, ie towards the east, with total transits of 1400 – 1900 per year. Oil-by-Seaway to equal the Energy East proposal of 200,000 tonnes per day would add 73,000,000 tonnes/yr. to the Downbound traffic. This is a significant increase to nearly 100,000,000 tonnes/year and 16 vessel transits per day each way, through the Seaway System. It would appear that the present Seaway infrastructure may be able to accommodate this magnitude of increase without major upgrades, because it doesn’t exceed the historical highs in vessel transits which occurred in the 1960s. This would need to be confirmed with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

The Oil-by-Seaway proposal would require a fleet of 160 or so “Laker-Tankers” which most likely don’t currently exist, and which would cost in the order of $10 billion . This concept would also require the creation of about 100,000,000 bbl. of incremental oil storage capacity at St. John, NB, that probably wasn’t part of the Energy East proposal, to cover the 90 days each year when the Seaway is closed.

Utilizing the existing Seaway Infrastructure to transport oil by tanker would reverse a long trend of declining commodity traffic through the Seaway system. This scheme could create the impetus to update and modernize Seaway facilities, and could also reinvigorate the communities along the Seaway, with substantially more economic activity in their midst.

Fabricating 160 Laker-Tankers could provide a significant workload for Canada’s ship-building industry, perhaps including the Davie Shipyard in Quebec, and the Irving shipyard in Halifax.

There are undoubtedly many other technical, social, environmental, and regulatory issues to be identified and considered, as well as whether this concept is commercially viable.

Preliminary Conclusion

On the surface, the Garfield Marks “Oil-by-Seaway” proposal seems to have sufficient merit to warrant a more thorough analysis than presented herein.

Comments by: David B. Chalcroft, P. Eng.

Previously published;

We have not been able to run our bitumen through a pipeline to a refinery in New Brunswick. There has been resistance in parts of Ontario and in Quebec. What if we came up with another plan. Would we consider it? There will be road blocks, but not insurmountable, would we consider it?

Yes how about Thunder Bay?

Thunder Bay, Ontario, the largest Canadian port of the St. Lawrence Seaway located on the west end of Lake Superior, 1850 kms. from Hardisty, Alberta. A forgotten jewel.

So what, you may ask.

They used to ship grain from Thunder Bay in huge tankers to ports all over the world. Why not oil?

The Saint Lawrence Seaway ships fuel, gasoline and diesel tankers, to this day.

We could run oil tankers to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, bypassing the controversial pipeline running through eastern Ontario and Quebec.

The pipeline, if that was the transport model chosen, would only need to run through parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Like, previously stated the pipeline would only be 1850 kms. long.

The other great thing about Thunder Bay is the abundance of rail lines. Transportation for such things as grain and forestry products from western Canada. If you can’t run pipeline from Hardisty, through to Thunder Bay, use the railroad.

Why Hardisty, you may ask.

Hardisty, according to Wikipedia, is mainly known as a pivotal petroleum industry hub where petroleum products such as Western Canada Select blended crude oil and Hardisty heavy oil are produced, stored and traded.

The Town of Hardisty owes its very existence to the Canadian Pacific Railway. About 1904 the surveyors began to survey the railroad from the east and decided to locate a divisional point at Hardisty because of the good water supply from the river.

Hardisty, Alberta has the railroad and has the product, the storage capacity, and the former Alberta government planned on investing $3.7 billion in rail cars for hauling oil while Thunder Bay has the railroad and an under utilised port at the head of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Economics are there along with opportunity, employment would be created and the east coast could end its’ dependency on imported oil.

Do we have the vision or willingness to consider another option. I am just asking for all avenues to be considered.

In my interviews in Ontario there is a willingness to discuss this idea.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is still reviewing the idea of shipping crude oil from western Canada through its system, and it’s a long way from happening, according to Bruce Hodgson, the Seaway’s director of market development.

“Obviously, there needs to be an ongoing commitment on the part of a producer, and so that’s going to be required for any project of this nature,” he said.

We could consider it, could we not?

CBC NEWS did a story about this idea on March 7 2019;

A retired oil field worker in Alberta has “floated” a novel solution to Alberta’s oil transportation woes: pipe the bitumen to Thunder Bay, Ont., then ship it up the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Irving oil refinery in New Brunswick.

Marks’ proposal might be more than a pipe dream, according to the director of the Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy.

‘I don’t think that it’s a totally nuts idea’

“I don’t think that it’s a totally nuts idea,” Warren Mabee said. “I think that there’s some flaws to it … but this is an idea that could work in certain circumstances and at certain times of year. … It’s not the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The chief executive officer of the Port of Thunder Bay said shipping oil from the port “could easily be done.”

“We ship refined gasoline and diesel up from Sarnia. We’ve done that for many many years,” Tim Heney told CBC. “So it’s not something that’s that far-fetched.”

There are, however, plenty of potential drawbacks to shipping crude through the Seaway, Mabee explained, not least of which is the fact that it isn’t open year-round.

The need to store oil or redirect it during the winter months could be costly, he said.

Potential roadblocks

Another potential pitfall is capacity, he added; there may not be enough of the right-sized tankers available to carry the oil through the Seaway.

Finally, he said, the journey by sea from Lake Superior to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick is a long one, so it might make more sense to transport the product to a closer facility such as the one in Sarnia, Ont.

“Obviously, there needs to be an ongoing commitment on the part of a producer, and so that’s going to be required for any project of this nature,” he said.

So far, no producer has come forward seeking to ship crude through Thunder Bay, he said.

Asked about the possible environmental risks of shipping oil on Lake Superior, both Hodgson and Heney said shipping by tanker is relatively safe; Hodgson noted that any tankers carrying the product would have to be double-hulled, and crews are heavily vetted.

Time to rethink pipelines?

There hasn’t been a spill in the Seaway system for more than 20 years he said.

Nonetheless, Mabee said, the potential for an oil spill on the Great Lakes could be a huge issue.

“The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes have a lot of people living in close proximity, a lot of people who rely on it for drinking water,” he said. “There’s a delicate ecosystem there. I think a lot of people would push back against this proposal simply from that perspective.”

In fact, one of the reasons Mabee appreciates Marks’ proposal, he said, is because it invites people to weigh the pros and cons of different methods of transporting oil.

“If we’re not going to build pipelines, but we’re going to continue to use oil, it means that people are going to be looking at some of these alternative transport options,” he said.

“And if we don’t want oil on those alternative transport options, we need to give the pipelines another thought.

Time to consider all options, I dare say.

#visionCanada2119

All Canadians should know what this Calgarian is up to!

Published

6 days ago

November 8, 2019

Todayville

Submitted by Scott Cameron of Bassa Social Innovations

Get to know your neighbour.

You might be surprised how they’re changing the world.

#visioncanada2119

I’ve known Steve for the past year. He’s one of the first guys I met when I moved to Calgary and, as part of a small group of friends, someone that I get together with quite regularly for group dinners, birthdays and vacations – spent an amazing few days on the west coast sailing with he and his wife earlier this summer. Until today, I only had a hint of what he does.

Steve is an entrepreneur and a passionate energy sector guy. Like many Canadians, I’ve tended to glaze over when these guys start talking about their work. I’m a social sciences and former government sector guy – I had energy sector guys in my family and never really conditioned myself to understand what they did. I decided to change that and chose to take an hour out of my day to visit Steve in his shop here in SE Calgary.

He had another visitor in the shop with him that morning. A fourteen-year-old, middle school student that learned about Crossfire (the name of the technology) from her parents and decided to investigate it as part of her science curriculum. I’m glad she did. She took me over to a whiteboard at the front of the shop and used the schematics already drawn to explain how Steve’s invention (Crossfire) makes it possible to use solar energy to power a small air compressor (93% efficient) that controls the pneumatic valves at natural gas and oil wells making it possible for the site to eliminate emissions. Cool.

I’m not even going to attempt any further explanation because, well, I’m a social sciences guy. I learned a few things as a result of my visit today – that Steve is one of many Canadians investing their life savings into entrepreneurial ventures to make the energy sector greener, that the political and policy environment appears to be working against these innovations, that innovations of this nature won’t just improve the sector here but is gaining traction globally, and that a fourteen-year-old student has the intellect to understand and explain the technology to an old guy like me (because I chose to listen).

I also heard, firsthand, how this work can be frustrating and “profoundly discouraging” when it feels like the systems are stacked against innovation and political responses are filled with rhetoric. Innovation feels like a nice idea but appears to be tough sell politically. For now, it’s the courageous entrepreneurs that are taking up the cause and making stuff happen.

I’m encouraged by Steve’s work and glad that he has such a keen mind and passion to improve efficiency in the sector. He notes that “when given the challenge, we rise to the occasion”. Imagine the country we’d be if we adopted that attitude across industries – and I don’t necessarily think we’re far from it. Remember, I’m a social sciences guy writing about innovation in the energy sector – imagine the impact if people from across sectors chose to align for the purpose of building a nation to support our people, our progress and our planet. We need to support one another. We need a new narrative Canada. Let’s build that narrative together at #visioncanada2119.

Scott Cameron is the former Social Planning Manager at The City of Red Deer, and before that he was Executive Director of The United Way of Central Alberta. He now lives in Calgary.

bassa Social Innovations is a values-based and principled consulting firm committed to positive social well-being for people, their families and their communities. We can help navigate the shared, and sometimes divergent perspectives of government, corporate, non-profit and community organizations to unravel social complexity, and explore collaborative and sustainable social change.

The term ‘bassa’ comes from the world of music, and basically means to play or sing an octave below what’s written. That’s how we describe our work – we work collaboratively to understand what isn’t obvious on the surface. The metaphor goes one step further…the bass note is the foundation of the chord and we seek to create foundational work that serves our clients in the present and future.