Oil, Gas, and the Unthinkable
Most Canadians don't realize that we already supply the US with 16% of their oil. Fewer probably know that the North American Energy Working Group, made up of senior Canadian and U.S. officials, have already drafted plans to boost our oil exports from 1 million barrels per day to 5 million barrels per day--from increased tar sands production. The reason of course is security of supply. As Utah's Republican Senator Orrin Hatch stated in 2005. "Anyone watching what is happening up north will recognize that, before long, Canada will inevitably overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's oil giant. It means that the United States can enjoy a new gigantic source of oil from a friendly neighbor." Of course with that "gigantic source" securely pocketed from their friends up north there will be no real need to substantially reduce dependency and the U.S. can continue its blind drive to consume the world's non-renewables at an even faster pace.
To many Albertans, that means a robust economy for a good long while, but the good times in the oil patch come with a hefty long term price that is almost always ignored. It is a price our society, our environment, our elderly, our disadvantaged, and our future generations will be forced to pay. And the cost won't always be monetary either.
When a resource glutton the size of the U.S. becomes increasingly and singularly dependent on Canadian oil--some estimate moving as high as 70% within the next decade--there is little doubt the sovereignty of our Dominion, the independence of our domestic and foreign policy, and even the security of Canadian resources for Canadians will all be suffering from unduly strong efforts by American politicians and multinational corporations to influence Canada to give them what they want regardless of the ill effects it might have here on us.
In the short term, while Alberta businesses and provincial coffers are prospering from the boom, the cost of our success is already being revealed. Natural gas is moving away from a regionally impacted and priced commodity to a globally impacted and priced commodity, a movement tied directly to the Alberta tar sands. In an article from On Earth published last September, author Andrew Nikiforuk made the following comparison, "Every 24 hours the [oil sands] industry burns enough natural gas to heat four million American homes in order to produce one million barrels of oil."
NAEWG planning to increase tar sands production to 5 million barrels per day also means a proportional increase in demand for natural gas (and fresh water), and an equally strong upward pressure on its price. That means you, me and every other homeowner in Alberta will be competing on the world market for natural gas to heat our homes and businesses.
The impact of increased tar sands demand for Alberta's dwindling natural gas resource may yet surface as the single greatest reason why Canada is seeing the construction of seven Liquefied Natural Gas terminals to import large quantities of natural gas into our country. You may have thought it was for you, right? I did too, but I'm beginning to doubt the public statements of those involved when I look at the bigger picture.
Take, for example, statements made by Mark Butler, president of WestPac. They are a Calgary based company building one of the newest LNG terminals at Prince Rupert BC. "When built, our terminal will provide the Northwest Coast, Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland of B.C. with access to a reliable supply of natural gas that should contribute to future economic development and power possibilities,"
At first glance his remarks sound sensible, but if WestPac is really building an LNG terminal for the population base of B.C. why isn't it being built on Vancouver Island or the lower mainland where the people and industries are? Could it be because they already have one serving Greater Vancouver from the Tilbury Island LNG terminal, operating continuously since 1971? And could it be because it's already been announced that Vancouver Island is set to get their own dedicated terminal?
Then comes the announcement that Kitimat, not all that far from Prince Rupert, is also going to build an LNG terminal.
So let's see. With three of the seven new LNG terminals planned for Canada located on our west coast, nowhere near our predominantly eastern population and industrial base; and two of the three being built on our west coast nowhere near our west coast population and industrial base, is it unreasonable to ask the question why two large scale terminals are so close to each other and so far north?
Is it possible Alberta's natural gas reserves will be unable to supply the tar sands expansion and these two northern LNG terminals are not at all for the Vancouver area? Given Alberta's inability to substantially increase natural gas production despite the tens of thousands of gas wells drilled since our peak in 2001 it shouldn't come as a surprise that Greater Vancouver and Vancouver Island want a more dependable source. And no surprise either if Syncrude et al feel the same way. But then I ask, what about us? What about Mr. and Mrs. Average Albertan, and our aging parents. With what are we going to keep warm?
While it seems no one in a position of leadership in the Government of Alberta has ever had the courage to say those four unthinkable words--words few Albertans even want to think about, much less actually say out loud--I'm sure our leaders could be forgiven living in such public denial if they would at least be planning and deploying alternatives in private for our future without natural gas. But then, that might be taken as thinking those four unthinkable words. Words no Alberta minister has ever admitted thinking. But the LNG terminals are being built, and not I think for what they claim.
"We are running out". Oops... There I go thinking the unthinkable again.
Articles mentioned:
On Earth: Canada's Highway To Hell
Seawaves: LNG Terminals
