Chris Crowley
Principal
Crowley/Ballentine
Seattle
Crowley/Ballentine is an energy industry public affairs consulting firm based in Seattle.
A key lesson the petroleum industry has learned the past 10 years is that it is easier to get people to oppose something than to support it.
Plans for new pipelines or refineries or any major facility invariably incite Nimbys (those with a not-in-my-backyard stance) and self-styled activists or environmentalists to attack. The knee-jerk response of many environmental groups and politicians is now simply to be expected.
At the same time, project proponents know there are plenty of people who support their efforts for any number of reasons, such as jobs and other economic benefits, because they believe in free enterprise or because they don't want the "greenies" running their lives.
But those supporters are rarely as outspoken or effective as their professional, fulltime counterparts. They are not paid. They work and have families and don't have the time to devote to the issue. Frequently, they are intimidated by opponents who are often better educated or seemingly well-informed and who will stop at nothing to advance their cause.
Learning how to turn the game back on the "no-growthers" that oppose virtually any resource development is something the petroleum industry (and many others) must do if it is to survive.
A recent case history with a pipeline project in a hotbed of environmentalism-Washington state-offers a fresh perspective on countering the effectiveness of citizen activists and holds out hope for future projects.
It involved a proposal by Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co. Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., for a $600 million oil tanker terminal at Low Point on the Olympic Peninsula off Port Angeles, Wash. The project included a 155 mile underground pipeline from the Port to western Washington's four refineries near Anacortes and Ferndale/Cherry Point, Wash. It was later scrapped for economic reasons (OGJ, Apr. 27, p. 25).
TRANS MOUNTAIN CASE HISTORY
Trans Mountain expected strong support from Washington state residents when the company first announced plans to replace more than 300 crude oil tanker trips each year through Northern Puget Sound with a state of the art pipeline.
Trans Mountain contended the pipeline offered "a sound business solution to a serious environmental threat" - the risk of a tanker spill in Washington's precious Puget Sound.
But the company quickly learned that the motives and policies of most environmental leaders and organizations - and many elected officials - were not what they thought. Instead of supporting the project, opponents quickly labeled it a "big oil company grab for profits at the expense of the environment," and joined ranks against it.
And so another battle in the continuing war between self-styled "environmentalists" and the industry was joined. What Trans Mountain did to try to steer that battle and redefine the debate over the merits of their project offers hope for other companies contemplating large scale projects in the current environmentally sensitive public climate.
Trans Mountain's project would inject $600 million into the state's economy, create hundreds of construction and operating jobs, and provide millions of dollars of new tax revenues each year.
In the wake of the Exxon Valdez incident, the States-B. C. Oil Spill Task Force-consisting of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and British Columbia-had recommended a pipeline to avoid the risks inherent in tanker operations through Northern Puget Sound waters. Trans Mountain, ,which had proposed a similar project 10 years earlier-as had the Northern Tier group-decided the time was right to try again.
POLITICAL BATTLE
Opening salvos from environmental and Nimby groups quickly persuaded the company that the battle to obtain permits for even the best conceivable project would be 50% technical and 50% political.
Simply paying lip service to the environment and ignoring opponents' outrageous charges would doom their project before formal reviews even began.
Trans Mountain decided to make the public relations effort a key part of the project.
Professional public affairs consultants were brought on and participated in all team meetings.
Trans Mountain also commissioned a public opinion poll, which divulged important information about issues and peoples' attitudes. Fear of an oil spill in Puget Sound was the second highest ranking concern among respondents. Sixty-five percent were convinced such a spill was imminent.
COUNTER GREEN WITH GRASSROOTS
The poll also showed that lots of people supported Trans Mountain's project, for a number of reasons. But the company didn't know who those people were or how to get hold of them.
Finding and organizing that support would go a long way towards creating a level playing field in the fight for public opinion about the project.
Citizens For Full Evaluation (CFE) was built primarily through the mail. More than 200,000 issue-oriented brochures and letters were mailed to registered voters along the proposed route, sounding themes developed from the poll. Supporters were quickly and cost-effectively identified where no organized support had existed before.
Direct mail has a bad reputation in some circles (everyone gets too much of it). But done right on an issue people care about and sent to a carefully targeted audience, it can be very effective. On average, response rates on mailings for the Trans Mountain project were five to ten times higher than the 2 percent rate generally considered to be successful.
CFE's mailing list grew to more than 5,000 in six largely rural counties. Entered into a computer database, the list could be broken down geographically, by level of support or by what members were willing to do.
TARGETED EFFORTS REAP RESULTS
With that list, CFE staff could do many things.
When a county commissioner circulated misinformation about the project on county letterhead, a marked up version of his "fact sheet" was mailed to 11,000 registered voters in his district. Included in the letter were response cards to mail to the commissioner, who received more than 800 cards from constituents. While many of his supporters took the opportunity to tell him he was doing a great job, using Trans Mountain's stamp, more than half of the mail he received was from people who supported the project or were undecided on it. He quickly toned down his opposition.
Another mailing-followed up with phone calls-to CFE members targeting a congressman generated more than 1,000 post cards to his office. He got the message and remained neutral on the project, despite strong pressure from a handful of very vocal opponents.
If opponents were going to turn out in numbers for a meeting or hearing, CFE activists could be quickly mustered to attend.
CFE staff could meet with them in advance and help focus their comments and advise members what to expect.
When Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior vessel, came to town to oppose the project, a handful of people in small boats with signs supporting the project stole the headlines and press coverage.
If opponents wrote a letter to the editor, the company did not have to respond. Instead, a CFE member could be found to give the other side.
With a full time director of its own, CFE could counter presentations by professionally staffed opposition groups at public meetings or provide the other side in local media coverage of the project.
HOPE FOR OTHERS
CFE's work at the grassroots level helped redefine the debate on the project. The group was critically important in helping to shift the focus of the debate from "David vs. Goliath" or, "people vs. big oil" to opponents vs. supporters of the project.
Hearing directly from constituents who supported the project moved elected officials, newspaper reporters, editors, and community leaders to rethink impressions formed by the same old "squeaky wheels".
Trans Mountain withdrew their project on Apr. 15, but not because of opposition from environmentalists or Nimby groups. Economics shelved the project. The four refineries that were the pipeline's intended customers said they felt construction and operating costs would drive tariffs to unacceptable levels.
Still, the message for Trans Mountain and others in the industry is clear. No company can afford to operate in today's environment without acknowledging the power of a handful of activists, an often partisan media, and elected officials that pander to what they perceive to be a majority.
Fighting fire with fire at the grassroots level may just prove to be industry's best weapon for countering ideologues opposed to any form of resource development in the Age of the Environment.
It is a tactic opponents of development have used with impunity for decades. The petroleum industry can legitimately employ those same tactics to organize support that is already there and return balance to environmental regulation and siting for the good of the communities it serves.
Copyright 1992 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
