Dirty oil tricks
Peter Foster, Financial Post Published: Saturday, February 09, 2008
So much for any suggestion that press baron Rupert Murdoch is a right-wing dinosaur, or that his media empire is out of step with the eco-zeitgeist. First he announces that News Corp. will become "carbon neutral" by 2010. Now his flagship British organ, The Times of London, has started crusading against Alberta 's oilsands.
Last week, The Times featured an editorial titled "Big Oil v. Bad Oil; There is nothing wrong with making a profit but Shell must stop drilling tar sands." It castigated both Shell and BP for engaging in what it described as a "filthy habit," the consequences of which are allegedly "breathtaking." The piece claimed that oilsands "make a far greater contribution to climate change than conventional oil refining," thus confusing two completely different activities. It also appeared to be under the misapprehension that oilsands are contained in "black lakes." The piece noted the oilsands' "staggering" requirements for fresh water and natural gas, and suggested that further development, which is allegedly due to "American demand," threatened "devastation." "[I]f the oilsands were all to be mined," it warned darkly, "the climactic consequences are unthinkable." Probably the climatic ones too! The editorial concluded that the next U.S. president should, as a priority, clamp down on oilsands imports.
Score another point for climate-change activism and its success in exploiting the media's urge to pontificate on the side of the angels, whether it has a clue what it's talking about or not.
The oilsands have been a growing campaign focus of the environmental movement for several years, buoyed by such seemingly unlikely supporters as former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, but the pressure seems to have increased recently, and will be torqued further in the run-up to next month's Alberta election. Alberta Liberal leader Kevin Taft has suggested that oilsands output must be constrained on the strange basis that "the United States and Europe are making serious noises about not buying the output." So apparently the province should forestall this problem by bashing the sector itself!
The oilsands are being lined up to be the next old-growth forests, where environmental groups had considerable success in agitating consumers and frightening corporations into "responsible" behaviour.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach recently pointed to the success of well-funded environmental groups in attacking the oilsands. To prove his point, the "Stop the Tar Sands" placard wielders were out in force at the recent Premiers' meeting in Victoria (although inevitably disappointed that Mr. Stelmach disappeared before they could torch him in effigy.)
U.S. politicians have--as Mr. Taft implied--come under pressure to reject oilsands output. In Britain, BP's new CEO, Tony Hayward, has been assaulted by both activists and the media for "recarbonizing" BP. BP recently announced a joint oilsands production and refining project with Husky Oil after Mr. Hayward's predecessor, John Browne, had sold the company's Athabasca assets. In fact, BP was never "decarbonized."
Its "Beyond Petroleum" shtick was always primarily hype. This week, Mr. Hayward, announcing bulging profits, was even accused by a British reporter of being responsible for preventing Canada for reaching its Kyoto targets. Yet another example of Fleet Street accuracy.
Shell too is being hoist on its own petard, and stands accused of besmirching its much-ballyhooed environmental "sensitivity" by investing in oilsands. It is thus reaping the perhaps well-deserved consequences of attempting to appear holier-than-Exxon Mobil.
There is no doubt that the oilsands represent a massive undertaking that has an major impact on the local Alberta environment. However, toxic tailings do not represent a threat unless they escape into the local ecosystem. This is a matter of prudent management, not hysteria. The oilsands have inevitably been made a climate-change villain, but seeking to hold up their development on that ground is nonsensical.
Oilsands production may well result in the emission of three times as much greenhouse gas as conventional oil production, but -- without wishing to cause David Suzuki's head to explode-- so what? Within the great, global scheme of things, present and projected emissions from oilsands are minuscule. Halting oilsands production completely would have no discernible impact on the climate. Despite that, oil companies are spending hundreds of millions -- and demanding billions more from governments -- to meet the challenges of well-stoked public misperception.
Activist organizations such as ForestEthics, Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute have all got their tails up over the oilsands file. ForestEthics -- which has cowed a number of large organizations with its chainsaw techniques -- has declared that it is "discussing" involvement in Alberta with " Fortune 500 companies."
Tzeporah Berman, an organizer for ForestEthics who has done a remarkable job of getting her name in the newspapers (Look, she's done it again!), and who even scored a small part in Leonardo di Caprio's enviro-snoozer, The 11th Hour, has suggested that: "There is no question the marketplace is starting to wake up to how dirty oil from the tar sands is." What she means is that she and those like her have had success in spreading alarm and moral condemnation, partly by constantly intoning the word "dirty." Ms. Berman confirmed recently that "in the coming months, the tar sands will be our major focus."
She is apparently lining up some Hollywood celebs for a tour of the Athabasca region, although there is no word whether Al Gore will be appearing, perhaps dressed as Moses, to smite a dragline with his staff. Nevertheless, with Mr. Murdoch's Times onside, the activists have already scored a significant victory. Fox Schmox.
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=80410a4c-...
