Environmentalism Reconsidered - Canadian Oil V. World Oil
Letter to the New York Times - More to Come - This serves as a primer.
Dear Editor
This letter is in response to the NYT article of May 18,
titled A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising Over Detroit. Firstly,
please allow me to thank you for the imagery – the Canadian black monster that
ate Manhattan may have been more credible.
Allow me premise my comments by offering a brief mission
statement for North American oil policy, so that readers may gain their bearings
in regard to what I believe to be is a rational position on Oilsands development
and oil policy in general.
MISSION STATEMENT: By 2043 North America’s fossil fuel’s
net impact on the environment will be reduced to nil.
This mission statement is offered as a backdrop for
thought-around policy and to offer a timeline for contemplation that permits
transition rather than the immediate annihilation of the industry that some in
the environmental movement seem to view as imperative.
Regardless of your position on climate change, the
solution to energy provision lies in a better energy source than what is
presently used. There is little merit if you are advocating against fossil
fuels, in forwarding environmental solution that seriously challenges immediate
economic wellbeing; there is only public rebuke on that path.
I am dismayed at the onslaught of “bad press” the
Canadian Oil Sands and our industry in general receives. The sheer mountain of
excrement that has been thrown against this wall astounds and to all our folly,
much has stuck.
If one assumes that the world will need oil for some time
to come, that in the present world circumstance there is a given demand for
oil, that there is a supply for provision of the oil, and that no viable alternative
exists – then it is rational to believe the oil will be delivered and used.
Given this reality and in choosing a supplier of oil, the question then is,
which oil offers the most hope for transition, the least immediate impact and
the most social benefit – you need look no further than Canada.
Where would you rather source your oil, Nigeria perhaps;
a jurisdiction that still flares millions of cubic feet of natural gas as waist
and considers oil in rivers as being a part of doing business. Think if you
will beyond just the environment, Nigeria, it is reported, has much of it’s oil
revenues syphoned off to Swiss Bank accounts while the population lives in
relative squalor. Canada is a responsible oil producer, the environmental
movement has access to our regulatory process and influences industry behavior
– to what extent does this occur in other jurisdictions; we are in effect the
victim of our own good practices in this regard, in that we provision the forum
for the environment movement to “attack” our industry, undoubtedly if the
environmental movement thought they could effect change in Nigeria they would
be as vigorous in their rebuke of that nation’s oil. Further, the men and women
in our oil industry are very well paid, Fort McMurry Alberta is home to people
from all over Canada, who would be otherwise unemployed or underemployed –
please note men AND WOMEN!
Your article is less than flattering toward the Oil Sands
oil, associating it with growing mounds of black and positing statements like
“It’s really the dirtiest residue from the dirtiest oil on earth,”. One needs
to contemplate Oil Sands oil honestly, perhaps by degree these statements are
true, but only by a relatively small margin.
At the tailpipe FOB New York, Oil Sands oil is only marginally higher in
carbon emissions than other sourced oil, rarely more than 12% and often at par.
The complexity of assessing these issues and the mass of variables makes
clear communication on the subject difficult, so someone will refute that
number, regardless, however, the oil will be consumed.
Canadians want to refine oil on-site if possible, we see
the added benefit that accrues to us by doing so. We have faced realities
that thwart this desire. Oil Refining is a very marginal business and capital
intensive, generating a circumstance where shipping oil to an existing plant
offers superior financial benefit. The environmental review processes in Canada
all but precludes new plants. Our partners in the US want to use their refining
capacity in an effort to render, what amounts to, stranded capital productive
again.
The US and Canada have a common cause on so many fronts,
the fractious nature of this debate is disturbing; it does us both well to
remember we contribute to each other’s security, while many of the other US
suppliers of oil do not.
The environmental movement is running, like the Dutch
boy with many fingers and many holes in the dike, finding new and ingenious
ways to stifle the use of, what is by all measures, a superior product. A mound
of coke here, a keystone pipeline there – while they spin their tires and
permit irresponsible producers of oil to prosper – they leave the solution
unaddressed. Rather than flail at Canadian oil, they ought to be demanding
earmarked royalties to support the transition, rather than running headlong into
the brick wall of economic concern, they should be harmonizing their interests
with what is an overwhelming reality; the world needs oil – for now.
We're a good bunch of good friends up here, quit picking
on us!
No comments:
Post a Comment