Oil Sands vs Tar Sands - the postives

I posted a series of 3 blogs on the Oil Sands at www.titulia.com back in February of March this year. I origanily wrote this for an international audience, so it might seem basic to some.

In my last article I set up the negatives about Oil Sands development. In this article I want to discuss the benefits of exploiting the oil sands and why should be investing the billions while its creating so many problems.

Our society runs on fossil fuels. And we're at a point where everyone wants more. Often times people think of fossil fuels as the means to run our cars, but they are also the components in our cars, computers and cameras. Plastics and other items made from petro-chemicals are everywhere. As a fuel source there have been strides made to find alternatives, but it will take a while for these other fuel sources to be brought up to wide spread use and none of the these alternatives have the versatility of petroleum. And since plastic is everywhere (besides those everyone has cut out of their wallets since the financial crisis) I don't see how we can repudiate fossil fuels anytime soon.

The reserves in the oil sands are huge. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers - http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/oilSands/Pages/default.aspx - Canada has 179 billion barrels of oil in reserve, 173 of which is in the oil sands . Canada is second only to Saudi Arabia in provable reserves. Canada is already the largest supplier of petroleum to the United States. While most Canadians might snivle and whine about our government, it is measured by the World Bank as one of the most stable and least corrupt in world. The pipelines linking Canada and the USA are safe and well maintained. The shipping lanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific are well patrolled and no one is hijacking oil tankers in these areas. The development is being undertaken while listening to the concerns of stakeholders. No one is being taken out 'round the shed and shot for their opposition to oil sands development. It is exactly this opposition to the oil sands that demonstrates that Canada has a fair and open democracy. This issue can be and is being discussed openly.

When you're talking billions in investment, this means billions put into jobs. And the jobs run the spectrum. From heavy equipment operators to engineers, from pipefitters to PhD's in chemistry, from administrative assistants to CEO's - its jobs jobs jobs. Until recently Alberta had an unemployment rate of 3.5% and the best labour market participation in Canada. Even now, our unemployment is at 5.8% - the third lowest in Canada (source: http://employment.alberta.ca/cps/rde/xchg/hre/hs.xsl/2599.html ). People flocked to Alberta to take advantage of this boom. The City of Fort McMurray had more Newfoundlanders at one point than any city in Newfoundland! (Newfoundland is the eastermost province in Canada) A journeyman welder in Nova Scotia could make $18 an hour 'back home' while making $40 (plus overtime) in Alberta. From permanent production jobs to temporary construction ones this created a lot of wealth for all Canadians.

An interesting counterpoint to some of the Aboriginal communities talking about the loss of their way of life. A positive program that did come out of the oil sands development was how the companies went into the schools of the Aborginal communities and recruited young people as apprentices in the trades after they finished high school. In the Alberta training system it means that in 4 years you'll be a journeyman(person) and have a ticket to practice your trade to practice your trade anywhere in Canada. Since the crash we haven't seen a giant jump in aborginal males under 30 being unemployed, at least not at rates different than the majority population. So this system of training these young men seems to have worked and has kept a lot employed in a culture that sees chronic unemployment.

With all the public scrutiny the oil sands have received, this means the companies and government are being watched closely. When the companies have violated the rules they have been punished because of it. The duck story I related to you in the last article has a happy ending - the company was charged for the death of the ducks. New policies are being put in place to ensure that the ducks don't take a swim in tailing ponds. The companies are being made to innovate. Instead of using fresh water for the processes they have found salt water aquifiers and used those instead. The water being released back into the water shed is tested to have no impurities. The government is pressuring the companies to invest in carbon reduction strartegies. There are plans to start charging for the carbon admitted under a revised carbon trading scheme. New technologies that don't use water to extract the bituman are being developed. There is a very innovative in-situ project that uses electricity to heat the bitumen rather than water.

Does this get government and the companies off the hook for the problems the development is causing? No. But it does demonstrate that with public pressure change can be made. Should development of a resource we all need be stopped because its 'dirty'? Not when there are other solutions.