Simon Dyer — Dec. 11, 2009
While Pembina’s climate team is on the ground in Copenhagen, my participation, like that of most Canadians, has been mostly through watching and listening to the TV and radio reports that highlight the rough ride Canada is receiving. And the oilsands feature prominently in those criticisms.
Today the oilsands were the subject of an open letter from members of the European Parliament to the CEOs and board chairs of Shell, BP, Statoil and Total — European companies operating in the Alberta oilsands.
Citing the large and growing greenhouse gas impacts of oilsands operations, the European leaders are speaking out because, they say, “Canada is one of the last industrialized countries not committed to mitigate climate change.” Their letter calls on the business leaders “to consider the future of our planet and to cease [their] tar sands activities in Alberta.”
It seems that part of the relentless criticism of the oilsands and the calls to cease expansions or shut it down completely stem from the fact that Alberta and Canada haven’t got a credible plan in place. Our governments need to show how the oilsands industry will do its fair share to reduce emissions.
The media chatter about whether the attention received by the oilsands is “fair” or “disproportionate” is actually a bit of a diversion: the attention on the oilsands is a symptom of Canada’s failure to meet its international obligations. Defending an industry projected to triple its greenhouse gas emissions at a conference designed to map out deep pollution cuts is a tough sales job for Canadian and Albertan politicians. And that’s as it should be.
Read more blogs relating to Oilsands.
More...
Stu — Dec 18, 2009 - 07:01 PM MT
Hi again Simon.
What are yours, or Pembina's thoughts concerning David Suzuki's comments on the CBC which equate the oilsands to slavery?
Question. Is Pembina officially in favour of the oilsands' development: yes or no?
Simon Dyer — Dec 21, 2009 - 09:53 AM MT
Thanks for your comment. I did not see the CBC program with Suzuki, but I can certainly comment on Pembina’s perspective on oilsands development (see http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/overview). The Pembina Institute believes that responsible development of the oilsands is possible, but that we are a long way from achieving this goal. We believe that no further oilsands approvals should be granted until missing environmental rules and management systems are put in place. Missing elements include things like federal greenhouse gas regulations that result in absolute emissions reductions across Canada; a completed land-use plan that identifies which areas of northern Alberta are to be conserved and are off limits to industrial development; ensuring rules are in place to halt water withdrawals from the Athabasca River during low-flow periods; and the prohibition of liquid tailings. Responsible development also requires a serious discussion about what level of oilsands development can proceed at any time while ensuring the environment is protected. You can find much more information in our Blueprint for Responsible Oilsands Development (http://www.pembina.org/pub/1404).--Simon
Stu — Dec 15, 2009 - 09:28 PM MT
Hi Simon,
I know that Pembina is focused on the truth about the oilsands. But what happens when ENGOs totally falsify the "tar sands"? Since your NGO is concerned with "truth" versus "myths" would you respond to a group like those that attacked the Canadian HC in London?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/15/...
Or, does it really matter if statements like open pit mines the size of England are used if it's a means to an end?
Thanks in advance,
Simon Dyer — Dec 17, 2009 - 09:37 AM MT
Stu--
Thank you for bringing their error to our attention. It is certainly not accurate to say that current oilsands mines are the size of England. The current mine footprint is about 600 km2 and the total surface mineable area, the majority of which has been leased for oilsands development, is about 4800 km2 (see http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/alberta#footnoteref9_lbu27ca). This is a sizeable area by any accounts, but it is incorrect to compare it to the size of England.
The land area of England is about 130,000km2, which is about the same as the area of Alberta's oilsands deposit at 140,000 km2. There are significant concerns about the projected development of this area (over 80,000km2 has already been leased) through in-situ development in the absence of a land use plan (see http://www.pembina.org/pub/1262), but it is not accurate to suggest this area will be mined.
At the Pembina Institute we believe the facts around oilsands development, and the need to mitigate impacts and develop more responsibly speak for themselves, and I'm glad you have had a chance to review these materials. It is not helpful to this discussion to be dealing with inaccurate information that either downplays or exaggerates the environmental impacts of oilsands development.
There is so much information out there from all kinds of unofficial sources that we don't have the resources to rebut it all individually, but we will continue to bring a focus on factual information to the debate through our reports and materials.
Thanks for visiting our blog.
--Simon
Mark Vranckaert — Dec 11, 2009 - 11:32 PM MT
Well said Simon, Thank-You !
For ... we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children.
MarkV
Post new comment