Oil Sands-Industry and the Environmentalist

While reading Amanda Adams’ well written article on the Alberta Tar Sands titled, ‘Oil Sands – Footprint of a Giant Industry’, I could not help but notice several deceptive notes that were made to instill fear, rather than to show a rational argument against the Oil Sands. This is my rebuttal.

First, there are two manmade objects that I have heard, never verified, can be seen from space. One has been used to heat houses, provide electricity, run hospitals, and keeps the world economy growing, and reducing the amount of starving children in this world. The other was made on the backs and bones of the workers (literally), and is more or less a mechanism of war, created to maintain one man’s power. The first is the Alberta Oil Sands and the second was the Great Wall of China . My point is, whether something is visible from space or not is in no way an accurate measurement of how it will affect humankind. Additionally, I should point out, that I can actually see my home from space, though I have yet to find my car. Proving without a doubt, how inconsequential such a comment really is.

Second, the comment “This glaring contradiction can be reasoned only by disconnecting oneself from the importance of Earth's ecosystems,” with regards to statistics which show 79% of Canadians supporting the Oil Sands while realizing that it is not good for the environment, was made to imply that continuing with the Oil Sands would result in the complete destruction of the world’s ecosystem. This crude unwarranted assumption does not take into account that many large scale mining projects have happened over the last 100 years, none of which have resulted in this inevitable collapse of our ecosystem. You only have to think of your nearest coal field, of which the world has many, to come to terms with this fact.


If I was driving down the street and saw a man littering, I would think to myself, ‘his action would most definitely be bad for the environment’. I am not however saying that the environment will not be able to recover or that the ecosystem is going to collapse, sending all of the living inhabitants of this planet spiraling out into the abyss of outer space. I am simply saying that littering is bad for the environment. But if asked if I would sacrifice thousands of jobs, billions of dollars for my country and a greater economic independence from tyrannical states, such as Saudi Arabia , I would probably be more likely to help him warm up before he throws his next piece of trash. This is probably a more accurate explanation for this so called “glaring contradiction” that Ms. Adams refers to.

It should be noted that before the Oil Sands were first being developed, the project had to undergo an environmental assessment and make plans for the eventual restoration of the entire area. In addition to making plans, the oil companies involved, had to provide a financial guarantee to the Alberta government that these restoration plans would be able to be completed. 1 year ago the deposit was valued at 721 million dollars. It also should also be noted that some of this restoration has already begun. One example is a 104 hectare parcel of land known as Gateway Hill. I am personally planning my next hiking trip to that area.


Finally, the hyperbole used to describe the process of getting “one barrel of oil” from the ground was ridiculous. Ms. Adams implies for one barrel of oil, a large chunk of the forest is destroyed, and a piping infrastructure is built. The article then goes on to state that this is multiplied 1.2 million times a day. This is completely and utterly false. The infrastructure is laid once, for which 1.2 million barrels a day can be extracted. The difference is not a subtle one.

While Mrs. Adams’ argument about ducks perishing in the tailings pond is believable, the argument about massive tailings leakage requires a bit more evidence before it can be believable. It would be a little more persuasive if there was a source to a scientific Journal or article, rather than just the book from a journalist, who fears oil wealth because he believes, with little evidence, that it destroys democracies. So while arguments that grip the emotions rather than the mind can make for interesting reading, I strongly urge readers to exercise their critical thinking skills whenever an author is trying to frighten them into a point of view.

Selengkapnya...