The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.
But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.
It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.
But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.
It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:
- That global warming has been taking place during last tens of decades (even when there was no oilsands, or coal based industries); that global warming is cyclical
- That Scientists have not been able to provide any convincing explanation as to why global temperatures went up cyclically in the past decades when industrialization was no where near current levels
- That scientists in the world don't know even today, or can not explain conclusively as to what is/are the real cause(s) of global warming (all that the environmentalists do is to keep shouting from the roof tops is that CO2 is the villain)
- That seabed methane release has a significant impact on global warming but scientists have not been able to offer any proper explanation on this phenomenon
- That scientists have not been able to understand and/or predict accurately the interrelationship between cooling of earth, that's taking place since the big bang event happened, and GHG effect
- That scientists are not clear how and why La Nina effect negates the so called GHG effect and allegely causes colder spell globally (average temperature of globe in 2008 was 0.3 degree celcius less than previous years, and this is attributed to La Nina effect)
- That CO2 emissions contribute at best around 5% to overall GHG scenario
- That oilsands' CO2 emission is a small component of overall global CO2 emission quantities
All I want to highlight to people is that as of present, scientists DONOT know, I repeat, the scientists DONOT know for certain what are real causes of global warming phenomenon. So, when the scientific community does not know the real causes of global warming, then why the hell they convey just a portion of the whole story (namely the GHG effect) to people and keep trumpeting about it? May be there is some agenda behind it!
Yes, CO2 may be contributing to GHG effect but it is not THE villain which it is made out to be for global warming, and by logical understanding of the aforementioned bullet points it is amply clear that oilsands is not THE villain which can potentially cause some kind of 'disaster' to this planet.
I am not a lobbyist belonging to any oil company nor am I trying to gloss over the concerns relating to GHG emissions. I am a rational thinker who does not jump on any bandwagon just because it is fashionable to do so which seems to be the case with a number of eminent people when it comes to environment. I don't see any virtue in sticking any environment related poster on my back and crying my voice hoarse about some doom and gloom scenario for this planet without having a clue as to what I am talking about.
The bullet points mentioned above do not, by any stretch of imagination, suggest that oilsands industry should abandon its technological endeavours to minimise CO2/SO2 emissions, or should not adopt better tailings management processes.
In fact, Canadian province of Alberta, which has the largest oilsands deposit in the world, has taken a giant step towards mitigation of CO2 issue by allocating $2Billion for carbon capture and sequestration. As well, the provincial government is incentivising the oilsand companies towards adopting innovative strategies for effectively managing the environment un-friendly aspects of oilsands processing.
Now, it is well known that Mr. Obama in his election rhetoric mentioned frequently that he would like US to be less and less dependent on Middle-East oil. One of the faster ways to achieve this is to get oil supplies from Canada - whether from conventional or unconventional sources. And, Canada is poised to play its part with so many of the oil companies willing to invest in oilsands industry.
One of the most vital advantages for US in expanding US-Canada oil ties is the geo-political angle. Canada is a close ally of US - militarily and otherwise - NORAD is one example of US-Canada alliance. Canada is a politically stable country, follows democratic system of governance, has a strong and unbiased judicial system, and shares a historic relationship with US. Canada is a country which US can trust and rely on in good or bad times.
Guided by these premises only some Canadian oil & gas companies like, Encana, Husky have formed strategic partnership with US oil companies to process the bitumen supplied from Alberta to across the border to south. Some US companies like, ConoccoPhillips, Imperial Oil (owned by Exxon-Mobil) are implementing projects to produce bitumen from oilsands and transport the same via pipelines to their refineries in US. All this bodes well for US from the standpoint of having stable assured supply of oil without the fear of any disruption.
But the apprehension is that under the new dispensation if some folks in the US Dept of Energy in their over enthusiasm start to throttle the bitumen supply from Canada because some chest thumping ignoramuses are portraying it to be THE evil causing all environment aberrations, then it will be more damaging to US's long-term energy strategy of becoming independent of Middle East oil.
Canada will hurt obviously because its biggest customer (US) will not have been buying its bitumen. In such a situation Canada will then have to look for other customers - China seems to be prime candidate to fill in the slot vacated by US. This certainly won't be good from US's geo-politico-military game plans. But then Canada will not be liable to be held responsible for entry of a new buyer for the abundant bitumen because after all Canada also needs to earn revenue for its own economy.
One hopes the new US Secretary of Energy will be guided by pragmatic and a rationalist's approach while at the same time remaining fully cognizant of the rock solid time tested US-Canada relationship and its contribution to US's interests and strategies.
No one disputes that alternative sources of energy should be explored and developed but that approach need not be predicated on strangling a stable source of energy (oilsands) based on unsubstantiated cause-and-effect scenarios attributed to it. Hopefully, the new US administration will not allow its vision and judgement to be clouded by irrational populism, and therefore will not stray in to alleys which don't lead to actualization of interests of USA and one of its closest allies - Canada.
No comments:
Post a Comment