Saudi Alberta

A few comments that I posted on the CBC message boards attempting to outline a rational position on the oilsands...it seems that most of the other contributors favour shutting down the "tar sands" and importing more oil from the Middle East instead...

Fact Check for everyone on this message board (and around the world) calling Alberta oilsands oil "dirty": The average barrel of Saudi Arabian oil consumed in the United States is NOT MUCH BETTER for the environment than the average barrel of Canadian oilsands oil. Yes, oilsands barrels are more carbon-intensive to extract, but once you factor in emissions produced from transportation, life cycle emissions are essentially the same (especially for newer oilsands projects).

With regard to the comments being made about selling our oil to the United States and buying it back for more, there are two things that people should keep in mind:

1. The first reason we do this is because there are not enough refineries and upgraders in Canada to process all of our oil. This investment takes time, money and public support, and is certainly not made faster by all the oilsands bashing going on these days.

2. The second reason we buy oil from the US is that it is more economical to do so in Eastern Canada. Companies in Eastern Canada would never buy oil from US refiners if it wasn't cheaper than buying it from Western Canada. It just so happens to be more economically efficient to ship Alberta oil to California and use Gulf of Mexico or North Sea oil in Eastern Canada. That's the beauty of free trade.

A response to two criticisms of my argument:

1. Jennifera asks about the surface damage as a result of oilsands development. I agree that the large, strip mining projects like Syncrude (what you see on TV) are quite destructive operations. However, projects like this are not the most common oilsands projects (Most are SAGD, basically technically advanced versions of conventional wells) , and the ones that do exist take up an amount of land I consider to be a regrettable, but neccessary sacrifice in order to avoid propping up dictatorships with our money and to provide people ALL over the country with better living standards and government programs. (You're welcome for the $3000/per capita/per year Alberta pays out in equalization).

2. JeffCasselman points out that oilsands should not be considered a substitute for the development of alternative energy. I agree 100%! I think development of alternatives is a great idea. The fact remains, however, that we are going to need oil for the forseeable future. Why don't we use alternatives to replace the oil from Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East, and make North America run on 40% Canadian oil and 60% alternatives? As Canadians, it is our responsibility to think for ourselves, not just regurgitate what we hear on TV.

ValerieLaurie: I apologize for the tone of my comment with regard to equalization. I recognize that Ontario is the biggest contributor to equalization and second biggest per capita. My comment was not meant to construe that Alberta should have veto power over matters of national resource use. I am just saying that many people who advocate the destruction of the oilsands don't realize the extent of how they are affected by the economic benefits of the oilsands. The oilsands, as well as creating thousands of jobs and contributing to our social programs, also help decouple us from the US economy and insulate us from the effect of high oil prices, which has significantly helped Canada during this difficult economic time. If people want increased taxes or cuts to education and health care, along with high unemployment, in exchange for a 3% reduction of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and a few hundred square kilometres of muskeg, thats fine. I just think they should realize that's what they are asking for.

The Power of the Press

I posted this comment on the CBC message boards the day of Obama's inauguration.

I feel that it is neccessary to point out that when you get past all the rhetoric and media spin and Liberal "Harper is Canada's Bush" advertising, and actually take a look at the policies, Conservative policies are actually much closer to Obama's positions than to Bush's (and closer to Obama's than those of the Liberals or the NDP).

Let me give a few examples:

Harper and Obama both support Cap & Trade carbon systems, Bush and the Liberals/NDP do not.

Harper and Obama both support universal health care, delivered in a way that is efficient as well as equitable. Bush did not.

Harper and Obama both believe in fiscal responsibility, the elimination of systemic deficits and the idea of spending only what you can afford. Neither Bush or the Liberals/NDP seem to believe this.

Harper and Obama both believe that creating a strong and stable democracy in Afghanistan is vital to western interests, and worth our troops being there. The Liberals/NDP seem not to agree with this.

Harper and Obama both believe that Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorist action, and that the reason there is still conflict in the region is the unwillingness of the Palestineans to make reasonable concessions (they were offered 94% of the land they wanted and East Jerusalem in 2000 and walked away without even putting a counter-offer on the table) The Liberals/NDP/the Media certainly do not take this point of view.

Harper and Obama both believe that North American energy security is a key concern and should be addressed. The NDP and some Liberals seem to want to shut down the oilsands, necessitating even greater imports from Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East.

This is only a few items on what is a very long list. Think about this before you label Harper as synonomous with Bush/Cheney neo-cons and as the anti-Obama.