PIPELINE: ANTI- OILSANDS GROUPS THREATEN JOBS
The companies they are trying to vilify spend millions on school bursaries, donate generously to charities and invest heavily in the environment
The “radical” foreign- funded environmental groups first exposed by North Vancouver researcher Vivian Krause are finally on the defensive and don’t much like how the tables have turned. They are trying to win back the high ground claiming many of the oil companies developing the oilsands are wholly or partly owned by foreign entities, as if there was some sort of parallel between their source of financing and foreign direct investment in Canada. But there isn’t.
A student of philosophy might describe the approach taken by the enviros as moral equivalence or simply an invalid argument, in which the premise, even if true, fails to support the conclusion.
It’s structurally similar to the invalid reasoning of the Occupy movement whose followers contend that because the mythical one per cent make too much, the mythical 99 per cent have too little. If only the rich were taxed more, or their compensation was set by government decree, everyone would be better off. The only part of the premise that is true is that the rich are richer than the rest of us. The conclusion – that taking more away from them would bring societal benefits – is untrue.
Turning back to the oilsands issue – and this battle, make no mistake, is over the oilsands, not the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline – the opponents argue that Canada’s oilsands are being developed with foreign investment, therefore the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into non- governmental organizations from U. S. foundations to stop it is not only acceptable but necessary, to balance the scales.
The statement that foreign money is helping fuel development of the oilsands is obviously true. And it has been true for more than a century because Canadian banks were too risk averse to finance oil exploration and production in the early days of the industry.
Imperial Oil, which had been purchased by Standard Oil in 1898, built its first refinery in Calgary in 1923; British American Oil followed suit in 1939 ( it became a subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corp. in 1956). After the Leduc discovery in 1947, Calgary quickly became headquarters for an international industry and, by the 1960s, home to 30,000 Americans.
So, the United States has been and continues to be active in the Canadian oil and gas industry. But American companies don’t control as much of it as is often claimed. According to Statistics Canada ( Corporations Returns Act – 2009, Table 2, oil and gas extraction and support activities), the U. S. share of industry assets in 2009 was 22.4 per cent, of operating revenues 29.9 per cent, and of operating profits 12.8 per cent ( an anomaly, it’s typically around 25 per cent). Total foreign control is 35.3 per cent of assets, 51 per cent of operating revenues and 41 per cent of operating profits.
Foreign ownership sticks in the craw of Canada’s economic nationalists but what’s important is not what fraction of the energy industry is foreign controlled but what these foreign companies do with their investment in Canada.
And what they do is create high- paying jobs, generate revenue for governments, support local businesses, develop innovative technologies, pay dividends to Canadian shareholders, boost Canada’s economy, sponsor sports and cultural events and train the next generation of skilled workers and managers.
Over the next 25 years, the oilsands are expected to contribute $ 307 billion in tax revenue for Canadian governments, with the federal government receiving the lion’s share, $ 187 billion.
More than 15,000 people are employed in oilsands operations, and 10 per cent of the workforce is aboriginal. The Syncrude project alone, which includes corporate owners from the U. S., China, Japan and Canada, has 5,000 employees. These numbers do not include the thousands, as many as 30,000 at any given time, that are required to build and maintain oilsands facilities and infrastructure. For every permanent job in the oilsands, another three jobs are created locally, and another six are added across the country.
Oilsands companies spend millions on post- secondary bursaries and scholarships, university research centres and apprenticeships, and donate generously to charities. They are investing heavily in carbon capture and storage and other greenhouse gas emissions reduction technologies and most have substantial investment in renewable energy. Exxon, for example, has more than $ 600 million invested in biofuels, Shell is involved in large- scale hydrogen projects and a $ 12- billion joint venture with a Brazilian company to generate power from sugar cane, and Suncor is using oilsands revenues to invest in wind power.
The foreign- funded environmental groups are trying to stop all of this from happening. As Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel for West Coast Environmental Law made clear in a radio interview on Monday, no oilsands development is acceptable to her group.
The claims from some groups that they only seek a better way to develop the resource are false. The Vancouver Sun has obtained a copy of a presentation to U. S. foundations by Michael Marx, executive director of San Francisco based Corporate Ethics International, delivered in 2008. Entitled The Tar Sands Campaign: Strategy and Structure, it outlines the methods to be used to shut down the oilsands. The first step in its campaign is to stop pipeline and refinery expansion. That is why these groups are attempting to sabotage the National Energy Board’s joint review of the proposed Enbridge pipeline that will deliver oilsands output from Alberta to a marine terminal in Kitimat.
Depending on who is doing the measuring, Canada’s oil reserves are up to eight times greater than those of Saudi Arabia.
Canada is a global energy powerhouse. It has a responsibility to the world to develop its resources. If the environmental groups succeed in blocking the Northern Gateway project, oilsands companies will transport the fuel the world needs by truck and rail. A pipeline is a far better option.
Under the guise of environmental concerns, groups backed by U. S. foundations are trying to undermine Canada’s regulatory process, destroy Canada’s energy industry and do irreparable harm to Canada’s economy.
We must not allow it.