Skip to main content

Message received oil is good for you

It amazes me that oil at $140 a barrel and gas at $1.40 a litre, could end up being the worst thing that could of happen to the oil industry in Canada. It is mobilizing a North American environmental movement.

Two years ago we were being warned that Middle East oil production had peaked, and the tar sands were considered the answer to North American demand. Now the attention has shifted to the amount of greenhouse gasses being created to produce a barrel of oil and the tar sands production is being labelled dirty oil.

With the latest shocker for Alberta being the declaration from the US Mayors to boycott oil produced by the tar sands.

Alberta’s immediate response was somewhat conciliatory and slightly defensive.
"I wish I could talk to all of them one-on-one,"

"This resolution suggests a lack of understanding and we hope by extending that invitation we can help set the record straight."

"Reducing greenhouse gas is an important issue, but it requires a comprehensive, thoughtful and realistic approach,"

"We can pass all the 'feel-good' resolutions that we want, but the reality of the situation is that production from the oil sands is necessary,"

"Alberta is a safe and secure supply for American energy needs."
Now by week's end, it has become more aggressive and somewhat threatening.
“American lawmakers will likely feel a backlash from consumers if they stop buying fuel derived from oil sands and turn to more expensive offshore oil or alternative fuels.”

"You start jacking up the cost of food and fuel to ordinary Americans, would that be in everybody's best interest? I think not,"

“Our big, big job is not so much lobbying. It's educating... its to make people understand that a lot of the criticism about the oilsands is unfair and unwise, and potentially damaging to U.S. interests."

"The environmental movement is interested in stigmatizing oil, and it suits their purpose to focus on oilsands oil, because that seems to be where the growth is,"

"In the end, Senator Obama has to get real,"

"Canadian oil is in the bull's eye right now because environmental groups have decided to make it their cause. But without it, the Midwest would be screwed."

"If you stop oilsands from coming into the United States, you will increase the reliance of the U.S. on other sources of oil -– perhaps Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia,"

"Alberta oil will go somewhere else, perhaps China, perhaps India. The ability of environmentalists to influence how that oil is used in those jurisdictions is very limited."
However as Alberta's Liberal Leader Kevin Taft (the guy Albertans didn't vote for) pointed out:
"Alberta has been foot dragging for years on reducing emissions and this lack of action is now under the spotlight across North America. Sabre rattling against Barack Obama or the White House isn't going to get us anywhere. We're not going to fool those people with multimillion-dollar propaganda campaigns."

Taft says what's at stake is Alberta's standard of living and the future prosperity of the province, which relies heavily on the energy industry and especially the oilsands for both jobs and revenues. "The best response is to solve the problem".
Unfortunately the government they did elect has built their emissions reduction strategy upon capturing carbon dioxide and permanently storing it underground. "However this strategy will require more research and significant investment by government and industry and a timeline stretching out to 2015".

The real problem for Alberta, is that we have already got their message "Oil production is important to your province". 

The problem for the rest of us is how long will it take for Alberta to get the environmentalists message. "Don't further expand the tar sands production, until you have the 'Capture and Store' technology in place."



Most quotes from various Canadian Press articles like this one.

Comments

Mark Francis said…
Implied n their message ("stop using our oil and you will suffer") is that there is no way for tar sands producers to reduce their carbon footprint. Nor do they recognize that the issue raised by the mayors and the Obama team is that the tar sands are major CO2 pollution source and that sanctions would apply only if the CO2 emissions are not reduced.

Popular posts from this blog

662

That is the number of Syrian refuges that the Harper government has brought into Canada.

From the Globe and Mail:
However, the government is facing criticism because 2,374 Syrian refugees have so far been settled. Of that number, only 622 - or 26 percent - were assisted by the government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government organizations. The NDP argues that in addition to private sponsors, the government should immediately accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said the target should be 25,000 government-sponsored refugees, which he estimates would cost Ottawa $100-million.In other words the Harper government that banters around the 10,000 plus refugee number has brought in 622 refugees or about 170 families.

The other 2,352 so called refugees that Harper has allowed to emigrate to Canada consist of wealthy Syrian Christians who paid their own way in, hightailing …

Election close call, Omar, Bob and move over Warren

Wow that was a close one:
With the NDP leading in the polls at the beginning of September, I started to prepare myself, for the very first time in my life, to vote for the NDP. Mulcair looked good enough for me, with some of the best lines about Harper's Government during most of his interviews, except that he would always add the phrase, "just like the liberals" to the end of it and I thought, if I'm one of those Harper hating, Liberal voters that you probably need to vote for you, why the hell are you insulting me with this partisan bullshit.