Politicians and industry have long boasted of the ability for an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline to get oil to lucrative Asian markets from Burnaby’s Westridge terminal.

But experts in Washington State are increasingly concerned that the twinning of the Edmonton-to-Burnaby pipeline may in fact lead to an expansion of the Puget Sound Pipeline, a 111-kilometre “spur line” from Trans Mountain that branches southward at Abbotsford to carry oil to four large refineries in the Puget Sound region.

If Kinder Morgan shareholders vote to approve the deal, Canada will purchase the Puget Sound Pipeline as part of the $4.5 billion deal for the existing Trans Mountain line — meaning the decision to expand the spur line would eventually fall to Ottawa.

Trump may use Puget Sound Pipeline to punish Canada for trade conflict

According to a recent analysis from the Cleveland-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the presence of the Puget Sound Pipeline in the $4.5 billion sale to Canada may end up being the very thing that scuttles the deal.

That’s because the U.S. government is required to approve the purchase as it crosses the border, including review by both the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and State Department.

President Donald Trump would ultimately decide the verdict of the deal — which he may oppose given his erratic approach to addressing ever-growing trade tensions between the two countries.

The reports authors conclude the Puget Sound Pipeline could theoretically be removed from the deal, but it’s no easy task.

“It would probably further delay this,” Kathy Hipple, financial analyst at the institute and co-author of the report, told The Narwhal.

“They would have to work again, re-draft the contract. Lawyers would have to be involved, new documents drawn up, a new price tag put on the deal,” she said, adding the change would raise a new tranche of questions: “what is the valuation of [the Puget Sound Pipeline] and how does that reduce the price from the $4.5 billion if it’s not included?”

“It’s not as simple as an eraser on a pencil and taking the price down,” she said.

Despite the potential challenges of the transaction, others say there is an appetite for an expanded pipeline south of the border.

“I could see it happening very easily,” Mike Priaro, a Calgary-based independent oil and gas consultant, said in an interview with The Narwhal.

“Those refineries in Puget Sound would want to get the cheapest crude they could get their hands on. Sending it by pipeline from the oilsands directly to the refinery is the cheapest way to get crude there.”

The Trans Mountain pipeline meets the Puget Sound pipeline in Abbotsford, where the oil can be carried south into Washington State. Graphic: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

A report by Morningstar Commodities Research in January 2017 concluded that “some if not all Washington State refiners are very keen to get their hands on Canadian crude” and that the Trans Mountain expansion “will end concerns about limited crude supply for Puget Sound refineries.”

Kinder Morgan Canada’s prospectus for an initial public offering a few months later, in May of 2017, referenced the possibility of a Puget Sound Pipeline expansion — five times.

Specifically, it reported that the Puget Sound pipeline system is capable of being expanded from approximately 240,000 barrels per day to approximately 500,000 barrels per day.

Two-thirds of oil shipped on Trans Mountain ends up in Washington State

Most of the oil transported on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline already ends up going to refineries in Washington — either by pipeline or tanker.

According to data from the National Energy Board, an average of 295,600 barrels of oil per day was transported on the Trans Mountain pipeline in March 2018, the most recent month of reporting.

About 62 per cent of the oil went to Washington State via the Puget Sound Pipeline.

Another 21 per cent went to the Westridge terminal, while the remaining 17 per cent was transported to Burnaby for distribution, refining or storage. The Burnaby refinery, recently sold to Parkland Fuel by Chevron, has long complained about lack of supply because most of the oil is designated for exports.

Washington State’s Department of Ecology reported that between January and June 2018, an average of 163,500 barrels per day of oil was transported from Alberta via the Puget Sound Pipeline.

All of the oil that made it to Westridge was “domestic heavy,” or diluted raw bitumen from Alberta.

That’s opposed to “domestic light,” which includes conventional oil and bitumen upgraded into high-quality synthetic crude — and is primarily shipped to Washington refineries via the Puget Sound Pipeline. Some diluted bitumen also arrives at Washington refineries by tanker or barge from Westridge, with more shipped to California. Some oil is also transported from Alberta to Washington by rail.

Between January and June 2018, 1.55 million tonnes of crude oil (the Port of Vancouver measures oil in tonnes rather than barrels) was shipped from Westridge on tankers and barges. Of that, 92 per cent went to the United States (while 4.8 per cent went to South Korea in April and three per cent went to China in May).

This is an overall increase from previous years. For comparison, only 1.77 million tonnes of crude oil was shipped out of Westridge in all of 2017.

Washington State has limited ability to process heavy oil — but that could change

Historically, Washington refineries have relied on oil from the Alaska North Slope.

But production has collapsed in recent decades, down to only 525,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2018 from over two million barrels per day in 1988. About a quarter of Alaska Slope supply was replaced by oil from the North Dakota shale boom, transported by rail.

Imports from Canada almost doubled in that time, from an average of 110,000 bpd in 2009 to 195,000 bpd in 2016 via the Puget Sound Pipeline.

Only two of the five refineries in Washington State have “coker units” that are required to process non-upgraded bitumen from Alberta. Combined, the two refineries have 83,000 bpd in coking capacity, which limits the amount of heavy oil the region can process. As a result, most of the Alberta oil imported to the region has been conventional or synthetic crude (already upgraded in Alberta).

Morningstar advised the two other refineries to upgrade their facilities to accept heavy oil.

Alberta oil processed by a coking refinery was much more profitable than other types of oil in 2016 at Puget Sound refineries: $24 per barrel, compared to $10 per barrel for Bakken oil and $6 per barrel for Alaska oil.

Washington ports deeper than Vancouver’s, allowing bigger tankers

If there’s not currently much demand for heavy oil in Washington State, what’s the concern?

For starters, an expanded Puget Sound Pipeline would allow refineries to rely far more heavily on Alberta oil, encouraging them to invest in coking units that maximize returns. The future of Alaska North Slope oil is currently uncertain compared to oilsands imports, which offer a stable long-term option.

This alone could justify an eventual and significant increase in capacity.

But there’s also speculation that Puget Sound could become an export terminal of its own.

The Westridge terminal in Burnaby — which will soon belong to the Canadian government, pending approval from Kinder Morgan shareholders — has serious depth restrictions that limit loading to Aframax-size tankers, which can only be partially filled with about 500,000 barrels.

Comparatively, BP’s Cherry Point terminal in Washington State’s Whatcom County can receive Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC), with tankers docking in late 2017 carrying 900,000 barrels — almost double the capacity of Westridge.

“The reality is those Aframax boats are not great for international shipping,” Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at Sightline Institute, told The Narwhal.

“Westridge is always going to be a crummy place for the Government of Canada to be shipping oil out of because you’re going to boost the cost by a few bucks a barrel, at least.”

A BP spokesperson recently told The Seattle Times that it “plans to process any additional Canadian crude coming to the Cherry Point refinery within the facility.” However, the refinery only has 57,500 bpd in coking capacity, so it’s unclear how it could process a significant increase in imports.

Either way, the idea of increased availability of various products from the Alberta oilsands would likely appeal to both producers and refiners.

Considerable opposition to fossil fuel expansion in Washington State

But a doubling of the Puget Sound Pipeline wouldn’t be an easy thing to pull off.

The owner — soon to be Canada — would have to twin the pipeline, add some additional pumping stations and build a tank farm at a refinery.

“It would be one of the most unpopular things you could do in Whatcom County,” Alex Ramel, extreme oil field director with the environmental advocacy group Stand.earth, said of the prospect.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee has condemned the Trans Mountain expansion but as Victoria Leistman of Sierra Club points out, he hasn’t specifically addressed the potential of a Puget Sound Pipeline also being widened or twinned.

“If there’s any risk for this to be expanded, we need him to explicitly put that to bed,” she said.

Tara Lee, deputy communications director of Governor Inslee, said the Puget Sound Pipeline is on his radar.

“We have concerns about that expansion that mirror the concerns the governor has expressed about the Trans Mountain Expansion,” Lee told The Narwhal in an e-mailed statement.

“If there is a change in operations with the Puget Sound Pipeline expansion, then they must work with our state Department of Ecology spills program.”

Williams-Derry said it would be complicated given a recently renewed six-month temporary moratorium by Whatcom County Council on exports of unrefined oil from Cherry Point, which may eventually lead to a permanent ban.

And there’s precedent for activism stopping fossil fuel export projects in the area. In 2016, the local Lummi Nation successfully fought a proposed coal export terminal.

But Williams-Derry emphasized there are still potential profits on the table: “Just because there’s political opposition here — there may actually be a bunch of people in the oil industry who really want to make that happen.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Fish farm opponents and proponents alike are waiting with bated breath as a bill to phase out open net pen aquaculture farms in Washington State sits on Governor Jay Inslee’s desk for final approval.

If Governor Inslee signs the bill, it would mean the end of farmed Atlantic salmon reared in open net pens in every jurisdiction on the West Coast of North America — except British Columbia. Alaska practices a controversial form of salmon ranching, but the state, along with California and Oregon, does not allow open net pen fish farm operations.

As pressure mounts on Washington State, where a mere 10 fish farms are in operation, attention has turned to British Columbia where more than 100 fish farms dot the southern and central coasts.

B.C. mulls moving fish farms with expired tenures — but where?

The B.C. government is currently considering whether or not to renew the tenure of 22 operations, 18 of which are clustered in the Broughton Archipelago, a narrow wild salmon migratory route between the mainland and Vancouver Island where local First Nations have historically opposed the aquaculture industry.

A spokesperson from Inslee’s office told DeSmog Canada the Governor has “publicly stated that he supports removing non-native fish from Washington state waters.”

The e-mailed statement read: “As fish don’t respect man-made borders, it would likely have an impact on British Columbia. However, the governor’s office believes that B.C. should do what is best for the province.”

Doug Donaldson, B.C. Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development told DeSmog Canada, “we’re aware of what is happening in Washington state, which does not affect the process we’re following in B.C.”

“We’re committed to wild salmon,” the minister said via an e-mailed statement. “We’re engaged with First Nations on a government to government basis to address concerns that First Nations have with fish farms in their territories.

“What’s happening in Washington State is really exciting for those of us trying to get farms out of the water in B.C. for the last two decades,” said Aaron Hill, executive director and ecologist with Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

“There’s growing evidence that fish farms spread diseases and parasites to wild salmon and the Washington State government has recognized that and they’ve taken real action that we need B.C. to follow suit with.”

Hill said some B.C. politicians have floated moving the fish farm tenures to ocean areas outside the Broughton Archipelago, an idea he said doesn’t represent a true solution.

“Sure, you’d get these fish farms out of these migratory choke points, but they’d still be out there spreading diseases and viruses in someone else’s territory.”

When asked if the B.C. government is considering relocating farmed fish operations from the Broughton Archipelago to alternate locations, the department of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development provided a statement saying, “the province is concerned about protecting wild salmon and the migratory routes that they use and is interested in moving to closed containment where feasible.”

The state of B.C.’s salmon stocks

Pressure escalated in Washington State in August of 2017 after a net at a fish farm, owned and operated by the Canadian company Cooke Aquaculture, failed, releasing over 240,000 farmed Atlantic salmon, considered an invasive species, into the Pacific.

In February the results of a multi-agency investigation into the incident found Cooke Aquaculture failed to adequately maintain its nets, which were burdened 100 tonnes of mussels and debris, causing a ‘reckless disregard’ for the state’s waters and people.

The report was swiftly followed by proposed legislation to phase-out the industry.

State senator, Democrat Kevin Ranker, said Washington’s efforts will be less effective if B.C. doesn’t follow suit.

“The salmon, the orca whale, the ecosystem doesn’t recognize the international boundary,” Ranker told the Canadian Press.

“So what we have to do is manage our transboundary region in a responsible way. And I hope Washington state will pass this legislation and move in this direction and I hope that British Columbia will do the same.”

In B.C., where wild salmon stocks have been in a precipitous decline for several years, critics say not enough has been done to monitor stocks and eliminate threats.

The 2012 Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, headed by Justice Bruce Cohen, cost taxpayers more than $37 million and made 75 recommendations designed to save wild salmon runs after the disastrous 2009 sockeye run.

But according to Watershed Watch Salmon Society, very few of those recommendations have been acted on, including the removal of fish farms from the Inside Passage if they’re found to represent even a minimal risk to wild salmon.

“There’s this huge range of threats to our salmon runs and the viruses and parasites from salmon farms are something we can actually do something about. We can actually remove that threat,” Hill said.

“It’s not the only thing. It’s not a silver bullet but it’s an important thing we can do.”

Stan Proboszcz, science and campaign advisor with Watershed Watch, said the need to help wild stocks rebound is becoming more urgent.

“Just look at the recent announcement with regard to Fraser sockeye: 8 of the 24 populations are listed as endangered. Those fish swim directly through the migratory bottleneck that is filled with samlon farms that amplify parasites and diseases.”

“Removing salmon farms from wild salmon migration routes would go a long way.”

Proboszcz pointed to a 2008 bipartisan provincial report that recommended the aquaculture industry be transitioned to closed containment.

“I think the biggest barrier to be quite honest is political leadership — and not just currently but for a long time.”

Farmed Atlantic salmon in a closed containment land-based fish farm, Kuterra, run by the ‘Namgis First Nation in Port McNeill. Photo: Kuterra

Land-based fish farms ‘the answer’: First Nations chief

Don Svanvik, chief counsellor for ‘Namgis First Nation, said it’s clear to him the future of salmon farming in B.C. is land-based.

“It’s the answer,” Svanvik told DeSmog Canada. “The godfather of all of this — Norway — is even moving to land-based farms now.”

“If you look at the history of fish farms in Norway, all the trouble they’ve had with disease and sea lice, it’s no wonder they’re going on land. And all the problems they’ve had there we’re having here now.”

Svanvik said when it comes to land-based fish farming in B.C., his nation has already proven it’s feasible.

Kuterra, an onland closed containment fish farming system, is owned and operated in Port McNeill by the ‘Namgis.

Josephine Mrozewski, spokesperson for Kuterra, said the operation is the primary example in North America of the promise of land-based Atlantic salmon farming.

Started in March 2013, Kuterra began selling land-farmed salmon on the market in April of 2014.

“When we started it was to prove out the viability of the biology, the technology and the business case for doing things this way,” Mrozewski said. “We really have fulfilled our mission.”

Kuterra, which was started with philanthropic funding, is now seeking outside investment to scale up production.

Salmon harvest at Kuterra. Photo courtesy of Kuterra.

The company produces 300 tonnes of farmed salmon each year but estimates it needs to get to 1,200 tonnes to be profitable.

B.C. has a huge advantage when it comes to developing a land-based aquaculture industry, Mrozewski said, because much of the infrastructure and expertise is already in place.

“What is adding urgency is the U.S. is catching up quickly.”

A single Florida facility in development is expected to produce as much land-based salmon as is produced in all of B.C. waters as early as 2020.

A surprising amount of salmon can be produced in on-land facilities, Mrozewski said, estimating all of B.C.’s open net operations could be reproduced in a single facility less than half the size of Stanley Park.

“Our footprint is very small. But it does take a lot of money,” she said, adding costs are declining now that ventures like Kuterra have smoothed the learning curve.

The ‘Namgis have recently appealed to the courts for an injunction to prevent Marine Harvest from restocking its operation near Swanson Island.

All three parties in B.C. have emphasized the importance of protecting wild salmon.

“But we need to see meaningful action soon,” Proboszcz said. “Otherwise we’re just going to keep hearing horror stories in the news.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Since DeSmog Canada broke the story two weeks ago that Kinder Morgan publicly released its emergency oil spill plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline in Washington State while withholding or severely redacting the exact same plans in B.C., there's been a firestorm of activity on the topic.

The story has now been covered by the Globe and Mail, the CBC and the Canadian Press, the issue was raised in the House of Commons this week and the president of Kinder Morgan and the chair of the National Energy Board (NEB) have been forced to respond.

Kinder Morgan and the NEB angered the B.C. government in January after ruling the company could keep spill response plans for the proposed oilsands pipeline secret due to "security concerns."

This week Kinder Morgan president Ian Anderson defended the company’s actions, saying the NEB did not demand disclosure of the plans.

“We in no way want to have this perceived lack of transparency around our emergency response plans as any indication of us wanting to hide anything or keep anything a secret,” Anderson said.

“There are very real security concerns that we have with respect to posting our full and complete plans where critical valves and critical access points to the system are delineated.”

Anderson elaborated that requirements for disclosure are different in Washington State.

In January the NEB ruled Kinder Morgan was not obligated to provide the plans despite multiple requests from the province of B.C., an intervenor in the federal Trans Mountain pipeline review process.

In a motion to the federal regulator, the province called Kinder Morgan’s redactions “excessive, unjustified and prohibitive.” B.C. added the withheld information “thwarts” their review of the pipeline expansion project and “precludes a thorough understanding of Trans Mountain’s [emergency management plan] by the Board and all intervenors.”

The release of the plans in Washington “renders inexplicable” Kinder Morgan’s insistence the information remain secret north of the border, B.C. argued. The fact emergency information is available in the U.S. “calls into serious question the legitimacy of Trans Mountain’s claim that what is presumably almost identical information ought…not to be disclosed,” the province told the NEB.

Victoria MP Murray Rankin raised the issue in the House of Commons on Feb. 23, saying:

"Kinder Morgan is allowed to keep its plans for oil-spill recovery secret from the people of Victoria and from all British Columbians — the very kind of plans that are routinely available across the border, in Washington state. This deplorable secrecy does no favour to the resource industry which depends upon social licence from first nations and from communities small and large trampled by a government that allows our resources to be sold at any price."

A spokesperson with the NEB said the federal regulator is considering making public emergency response plans mandatory for energy companies operating existing pipelines, the Canadian Press reports.

“Our chairman is not very happy that there’s a lack of transparency around these emergency response plans,” Darin Barter said. “Canadians deserve to have that information. There’s a public will for that information. Industry needs to find a way to make that information public.”

Barter added the NEB is not pushing for a legislative change around emergency plan disclosure requirements, but is seeking greater transparency from companies.*

* Correction February 25, 2015: This article has been corrected to show the NEB is not seeking a change in legislation but rather greater transparency from companies.

Image Credit: Trans Mountain

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Kinder Morgan, the company currently seeking permission to nearly triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline to carry Albertan crude to the west coast, has engaged in a protracted fight with the province of British Columbia in an effort to keep its oil spill response plans a secret.

The company alleges its motivation has to do with ‘security concerns’ although a look back at the to and fro with the province of B.C. paints a story of either incompetence or pure, defenseless hubris.

Either way, what Kinder Morgan is refusing to produce for B.C. and other intervenors in the pipeline review process, the company willingly disclosed south of the border for portions of the pipeline that extend to Washington State.

A read through the detailed spill response plans Kinder Morgan has in place for the U.S. shows just how far the company went to prove they can handle a pipeline spill. 

It also highlights how outlandish it is that Kinder Morgan has not released similarly-detailed plans to the province of B.C.

It is also troubling that Kinder Morgan expects the government of B.C. to consent to a massive pipeline expansion — the proposal calls for a twinning of the pipeline which would lead to a fivefold increase in tanker traffic — without adequate assurances the best available emergency plans are in place.

So, what did Kinder Morgan tell Washington State that it refuses to tell B.C.?

1. Details for every unique section of the pipeline

In its Emergency Management Plan (EMP) documents released to regulators in Washington State, Kinder Morgan provides detailed information about every individual section of the pipeline, including the thickness of the pipeline’s walls, where it crosses water, the location of shutoff valves, peak volumes and a ‘spill volume profile’ for each geographical 'zone' of the line.

A map from Kinder Morgan shows worst case scenario spill zones.

1. Worst case scenario plans for five individual zones

Based on previous spill data going all the way back to 1955, maximum flow rates and maximum shut-down response time, Kinder Morgan estimates what the worst case discharge might be for any given segment of the pipeline. The company uses these estimates to plan detailed spill response measures. It even calculates for elevation, adverse weather conditions, whether shut off valves are automated or manual and how these factors might help or hinder response efforts. The company also provides these details for storage tanks at terminals along the pipeline.

If that wasn’t enough, the documents show exactly how Kinder Morgan arrived at its estimates so the methodology can be evaluated independently.

1. Who exactly is responsible for spills in each individual location

Pipeline companies are obligated to obtain something called ‘mutual aid’ from spill response agencies and private companies expected to respond to a spill. Kinder Morgan lists every single company and agency it anticipates would respond to a spill from the Trans Mountain pipeline or terminals in Washington State. The company also lists ‘activation instructions’ outlining the steps to be taken in the event of a spill in order to draw upon the resources of their mutual aid partners.

Kinder Morgan also provided regulators with confirmation letters (example below) from numerous companies that agree to provide aid in the event of a spill. These letters include signatures from personnel at the managerial level providing the state with some assurance that response plans, equipment availability and other expectations have been previously discussed.

Kinder Morgan provided this letter of intent to regulators in Washington State to confirm NRC Environmental Services will provide spill response services. Kinder Morgan refused to supply the province of B.C. with similar letters of intent as part of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion review process.

Kinder Morgan refused to provide B.C. with the names of agencies to be notified in the event of an emergency, leaving the province to question if the company is relying on out-of-province first responders which could lead to lengthy response delays.

Without such information, B.C. argues Trans Mountain has no “ability to substantiate the assertions it has made” about spill response preparedness in its application.

A side by side comparison of primary response contractors documentation demonstrates the extent to which Kinder Morgan redacted information provided to B.C.

1. What will be cleaned up, where, with what, and who’s bringing it

Not only does Kinder Morgan list all of the individuals, departments, agencies and companies it will rely on in the event of a spill, but also documents the skills and equipment each of these responders would provide.

For instance, O’Brien’s Response Management can supply highly-qualified personnel like Incident Commanders and Safety Officers. The Centre for Toxicology and Environmental Health can provide 24/7 professional air monitoring and environmental sampling and can arrive via the company’s KingAir 200 airplane if necessary. The company BakerCorp. will deliver ten 21,000 gallon tanks to a spill site within 12 hours and has enough pumps and hose to move 6,300 gallons of oil per minute.

Kinder Morgan also lists what the pipeline carries — crude oil, synthetic crude, or diluted bitumen — so first responders know in advance what they’ll face in the event of a spill.

1. Detailed spill response timelines for each zone

Forty-eight hour timelines are presented for each of the potential spill zones outlining how much oil could be recovered in the event of a spill, what equipment and how many people it would take.

For example, for zone 1 in Bellingham, Kinder Morgan estimates it could have 22 people on site within two hours of a spill. In addition it figures that within two hours, it could have 4,000 feet of oil boom for oil spilled in water and the capacity to store 381 barrels of recovered oil. Within six hours, the company estimates 137 people would be on site, with a total of 41,150 feet of oil boom and the capacity to hold 2,953 barrels of recovered oil.

Excerpt from detailed spill response plans released to Washington State regulators by Kinder Morgan. No similar documents were released for spill response plans in B.C.

Kinder Morgan redactions “excessive, unjustified and prohibitive”

Despite providing this information to regulators in Washington State, Kinder Morgan argued that for personal, commercial or security reasons the company would not disclose similar details to B.C.

In a motion the province of B.C. told the National Energy Board that Kinder Morgan’s redactions are “excessive, unjustified and prohibitive.” The province added that the withheld information “thwarts” their review of the project and “precludes a thorough understanding of Trans Mountain’s EMP by the [National Energy] Board and all intervenors.”

The province also argues that disclosure of emergency plans south of the border “renders inexplicable” the company’s insistence that it keep the information secret in B.C.

“That fact calls into serious question the legitimacy of Trans Mountain’s claim that what is presumably almost identical information ought, for ‘personal,’ ‘security,’ or ‘commercial’ reasons, not to be disclosed.”

Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Puget Sound Field Guide by DeSmog Canada

Image Credit: Trans Mountain

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.