The recent Business Forum article by Winona LaDuke contained a variety of misleading and untrue statements.
First, the correct term is "oil sands" not "tar sands." This is not merely a matter of semantics.
"Oil sands" correctly identifies the product derived from Canada's vast bitumen resources. Further, bitumen and asphalt are separate and distinct compounds.
The article is misleading in claiming, "Tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world." Over the past decade, oil sands producers have been researching, testing and deploying new processes and technologies that directly address emissions reduction and water use.
IHS Markit has produced a series of reports on this subject; the 2018 report indicates the average emissions intensity of oil sands extraction has fallen 21% since 2009.
By 2030, new technologies and efficiencies could result in a reduction of up to 20% in oil sands mining operations. On a full life-cycle basis (emissions from production to combustion), such interventions would place oil sands operations within 2% to 7% of the average emission intensity for oil refined in the U.S.
We further question the use of the word "dirty" to describe Canada's heavy oil production.
If "dirty" is extended beyond emissions to include safety, human rights and rule of law, Canada's oil stacks up pretty well against, say, Saudi Arabia — a major supplier of oil to the U.S. A recent report by BMO Capital Markets, based on data from credible sources (Yale Environmental Performance Index, Social Progress Imperative's Social Progress Index and World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators) states, "Oil sands make up just 9% of Canadian and 0.1% of global emissions output. [However] our work reveals that Canadian oil sands have a leading edge in environment, social and governance (ESG) performance within the global industry."
Ms. LaDuke also makes this claim: "No one wants a tar sands pipeline." A recent Ipsos poll indicated the majority of Canadians (including residents of British Columbia, where the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is located) believe a pipeline to the West Coast is in Canada's national interest. Further, the project has the support of 43 indigenous communities along the pipeline route, and numerous indigenous communities have expressed interest in part ownership of the pipeline once it's built and the federal government returns the asset to private sector ownership.
In addition, the oil-sands industry employed 11,900 indigenous people in 2017 and invested $48.6 million in indigenous communities in 2015-2016. Finally, on June 18 the Canadian government announced its plans to start construction on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline, aimed at increasing exports of Canadian oil to international markets.
Ms. LaDuke also makes the statement, "Canada now has more people employed in renewables than in all fossil-fuel production." This is false. According to Petroleum Labour Market Information, the Canadian oil and natural gas industry directly employs 165,000 people. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' own research indicates some 528,000 direct and indirect jobs across Canada are supported by the oil and natural gas industry. The renewable-energy industry employed about 60,000 people in 2017, according to CleanEnergyCanada.org.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and our member companies are disappointed to see this kind of emotionally based, inflammatory article.
We believe in fact-based dialogue and working toward collaborative solutions to global emissions.
Stacey Hatcher is vice president of communications of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
