Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
NAFTA and Oil: Obama plays ‘dirty’ oil card
Posted: June 25, 2008, 5:39 PM by Chris Boutet
Peter Foster, Oil, NAFTA
U.S. politicians are playing a dangerous, hypocritical game
By Peter Foster
On Tuesday, orotund Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to break the U.S. addiction to “dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive” oil. An advisor said it was an open question whether Canada’s oil sands were Mr. Obama’s prime target, but the word “dirty” is a dead giveaway.
Mr. Obama, speaking in Las Vegas, implied that the U.S. might somehow do without the oil sands. “[T]he possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” he declared. “We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th-century fossil fuel.”
In fact, this statement exposes the hollowness of political promises. Renewable energy may be limitless in possibility, but 30 years of subsidies have still left it far too expensive in practice. Meanwhile does Mr. Obama intend to stop using the telephone because it’s a 19th-century technology?
The Democratic nominee now has the luxury of campaigning to economic misconception and environmental hysteria. This explains his previous nudge nudge wink wink populist attack on NAFTA. He has also rejected the lifting of the moratorium on offshore U.S. drilling, and suggests that all environmental and energy problems might be solved by “rewarding” selected forms of production.
When it comes to picking on oil sands, Mr. Obama is fad surfing a popular wave. In December the U.S. government adopted a law to ban federal procurement of fuels that generate more greenhouse gases than “conventional sources.” California has also adopted low-carbon fuel standards. On Monday, a meeting of mayors in Miami slapped a Scarlet Letter on oil sands production, demanding “full life-cycle” accounting for such fuels.
This political posturing is based in the remarkable success of the environmental movement in demonization the oil sands. One surprising convert was The Times of London, which earlier this year called Athabasca production a “filthy habit,” and suggested that the next president consider an import ban.
The response of Canadian oil sands producers has been mild to say the least, but then they realize they are politically vulnerable. This week they put up a Web site that they are promoting Thursday and for the coming three Thursdays with a print campaign inviting people to “join the conversation.” Yesterday’s question was “Can we balance the environment and the economy?” As if radical environmentalists are the least bit interested in having any kind of objective discussion, and ordinary citizens can be bothered to educate themselves. This site will wind up either being flooded by the perpetually disgruntled and brainwashed Grade 5 students, or it will be ignored. Better perhaps simply to point out that if the public wants to pay $3 a litre for gasoline, supporting the political pogrom against oil sands is the way to go.
Radical environmentalists have created the impression that Athabasca development is a free-for-all, when in fact it operates under an environmentally rigorous review process that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on permits, assessments and recovery plans.
Some radicals want an outright halt to further development. Others merely want to impose impossible technical demands, such as the provision that all carbon be “sequestered.” The problem is that nobody has a clue how to do this economically. As Don Lowry, CEO of electricity producer EPCOR, told the Economic Club of Toronto last week, the federal government’s demands for sequestration technology to be fully operational in oilsands and coal-fired generating plants by 2018 is utterly unrealistic.
Rick George, the well-respected head of oil sands pioneer Suncor, is a model of mild-mannered patience with the industry’s critics. He points out that Suncor has halved its greenhouse gas emissions per barrel since 1990, and reduced its water use by half in the past five years. He also notes that even after all current planned sites are developed, the oil sands will still only use 2% of the flow of the Athabasca river. Mr. George is the voice of objectivity and reason. The question is whether anybody is listening. “We must,” he declared in an article in The Globe and Mail this week, “end the adversarial cycle that too often pits developers against environmental activists. We need a conversation, not an argument. That’s not a pie-in-the-sky notion.”
That it is was clear from a letter that appeared in the Globe the next day from Greenpeace executive director Bruce Cox, who conventionally castigated Suncor for the growth in its greenhouse gas emissions, that is, for creating jobs and wealth. Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute claimed “We don’t have time for a lengthy dialogue while we are continuing the expansions under business-as-usual technologies.”
However, as Claudia Cattaneo pointed out in yesterday’s Post, U.S. politicians are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game by criticizing oil sands as they are fretting about security of supply. Canada could certainly find other markets for such oil, although it would involve reversing pipelines, or building new ones. This would, ironically, reduce U.S. security and increase greenhouse gas emissions further. Republican candidate John McCain sounds a good deal more sensible on such issues, but even Mr. Obama will have to bow to reality if he reaches the White House.
Financial Post
Posted: June 25, 2008, 5:39 PM by Chris Boutet
Peter Foster, Oil, NAFTA
U.S. politicians are playing a dangerous, hypocritical game
By Peter Foster
On Tuesday, orotund Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed to break the U.S. addiction to “dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive” oil. An advisor said it was an open question whether Canada’s oil sands were Mr. Obama’s prime target, but the word “dirty” is a dead giveaway.
Mr. Obama, speaking in Las Vegas, implied that the U.S. might somehow do without the oil sands. “[T]he possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” he declared. “We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th-century fossil fuel.”
In fact, this statement exposes the hollowness of political promises. Renewable energy may be limitless in possibility, but 30 years of subsidies have still left it far too expensive in practice. Meanwhile does Mr. Obama intend to stop using the telephone because it’s a 19th-century technology?
The Democratic nominee now has the luxury of campaigning to economic misconception and environmental hysteria. This explains his previous nudge nudge wink wink populist attack on NAFTA. He has also rejected the lifting of the moratorium on offshore U.S. drilling, and suggests that all environmental and energy problems might be solved by “rewarding” selected forms of production.
When it comes to picking on oil sands, Mr. Obama is fad surfing a popular wave. In December the U.S. government adopted a law to ban federal procurement of fuels that generate more greenhouse gases than “conventional sources.” California has also adopted low-carbon fuel standards. On Monday, a meeting of mayors in Miami slapped a Scarlet Letter on oil sands production, demanding “full life-cycle” accounting for such fuels.
This political posturing is based in the remarkable success of the environmental movement in demonization the oil sands. One surprising convert was The Times of London, which earlier this year called Athabasca production a “filthy habit,” and suggested that the next president consider an import ban.
The response of Canadian oil sands producers has been mild to say the least, but then they realize they are politically vulnerable. This week they put up a Web site that they are promoting Thursday and for the coming three Thursdays with a print campaign inviting people to “join the conversation.” Yesterday’s question was “Can we balance the environment and the economy?” As if radical environmentalists are the least bit interested in having any kind of objective discussion, and ordinary citizens can be bothered to educate themselves. This site will wind up either being flooded by the perpetually disgruntled and brainwashed Grade 5 students, or it will be ignored. Better perhaps simply to point out that if the public wants to pay $3 a litre for gasoline, supporting the political pogrom against oil sands is the way to go.
Radical environmentalists have created the impression that Athabasca development is a free-for-all, when in fact it operates under an environmentally rigorous review process that requires hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on permits, assessments and recovery plans.
Some radicals want an outright halt to further development. Others merely want to impose impossible technical demands, such as the provision that all carbon be “sequestered.” The problem is that nobody has a clue how to do this economically. As Don Lowry, CEO of electricity producer EPCOR, told the Economic Club of Toronto last week, the federal government’s demands for sequestration technology to be fully operational in oilsands and coal-fired generating plants by 2018 is utterly unrealistic.
Rick George, the well-respected head of oil sands pioneer Suncor, is a model of mild-mannered patience with the industry’s critics. He points out that Suncor has halved its greenhouse gas emissions per barrel since 1990, and reduced its water use by half in the past five years. He also notes that even after all current planned sites are developed, the oil sands will still only use 2% of the flow of the Athabasca river. Mr. George is the voice of objectivity and reason. The question is whether anybody is listening. “We must,” he declared in an article in The Globe and Mail this week, “end the adversarial cycle that too often pits developers against environmental activists. We need a conversation, not an argument. That’s not a pie-in-the-sky notion.”
That it is was clear from a letter that appeared in the Globe the next day from Greenpeace executive director Bruce Cox, who conventionally castigated Suncor for the growth in its greenhouse gas emissions, that is, for creating jobs and wealth. Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute claimed “We don’t have time for a lengthy dialogue while we are continuing the expansions under business-as-usual technologies.”
However, as Claudia Cattaneo pointed out in yesterday’s Post, U.S. politicians are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game by criticizing oil sands as they are fretting about security of supply. Canada could certainly find other markets for such oil, although it would involve reversing pipelines, or building new ones. This would, ironically, reduce U.S. security and increase greenhouse gas emissions further. Republican candidate John McCain sounds a good deal more sensible on such issues, but even Mr. Obama will have to bow to reality if he reaches the White House.
Financial Post