by Tony Clarke, Bruce Campbell and Gordon Laxer
08-05-06
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes his turn
at steering the Canadian ship of state, Ralph Klein's latest health care
proposals may not be the only thorny problem originating from his home province.
The Athabasca tar sands project in Alberta, coupled with the lack of a
made-in-Canada energy strategy, could soon prove to be an albatross for the new
Harper government.
Unbeknown to most Canadians, Canada is now the Number 1 foreign supplier of oil
to the United States. Given the uncertainties of Middle East and Venezuelan
supplies, the US has rapidly increased oil imports from Canada, facilitated by
the proportional sharing clause on energy in the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
Since the signing of NAFTA in 1994, oil exports to the United States have
skyrocketed from 44 % to 63 % of total Canadian production while natural gas
exports have shot up from 41 % to 56 %. Canada has become the leading energy
satellite of the US at a time whenAmerica has reasserted itself globally with
imperial ambitions, as witnessed by the ongoing war in Iraq.
Furthermore, the fact that securing energy supplies has risen to the top of the
US national security agenda during George W. Bush's presidency, has put Canada
in a strategic but also delicate and vulnerable position. Meanwhile, Canada's
own energy security is at risk.
Expanding exports to the US has rapidly depleted our conventional reserves of
oil and natural gas. It is now estimated that Canada has less than a 10-year
proven supply of both conventional oil and natural gas.
Despite having the second largest proven petroleum reserves in the world, Canada
is already compelled to import nearly 50 % of the oil needed to fuel our homes,
cars and industries. Quebec and the Maritimes import 90 % of their oil needs.
The more we supply the US, the more we endanger our own energy security.
Enter the Athabasca tar sands of northern Alberta, covering almost one
quarter of the province. The largest knownhydrocarbon deposit of unconventional
oil supplies discovered, it is estimated to contain between 175 and 200 bn
barrels of recoverable oil using existing technologies.
The tar sands, however, could contain as much as 2.5 tn barrels of oil, but new
and questionable technologies would be required to access these reserves at
enormous financial and environmental costs. As a result, the Athabasca tar sands
have become the centrepiece of a continental energy plan to send massive new oil
and gas supplies to the US. Three major crude-oil producing projects are in
operation with another six planned over the next 20 years. As the largest single
emitter of greenhouse gases, the tar sands also put Canada in a bind over our
Kyoto commitments.
Three of the top five Canadian polluters are tar sands operators. If present
trends continue, Canada will be 44 % above its permitted Kyoto levels by 2010.
Either the Harper government will let the tar sands run amok (supported by
generous federal subsidies to Big Oil) and thereby cast Kyoto to the wind, or it
will get serious and rein it in. Moreover, tar sands developments will require
huge amounts of natural gas to extract the deeper reserves of oil from the
bitumen and process it as crude oil.
For this purpose, a pipeline corridor through the Mackenzie Valley is currently
being proposed to transport natural gas from the Arctic. In other words, one of
Canada's last remaining frontier sources of natural gas, a relatively clean
fuel, will be tapped to help extract dirty crude oil. It's like turning gold
into lead. And for what purpose? So Canada can feed the US's insatiable demand.
Alberta, the North, and First Nations people are already bearing the
destructive ecological and social consequences. Critics in Alberta are starting
to call for a moratorium on new tar sands projects.
Today, the Alberta energy corridor to the US poses a dilemma for Harper's
government. On the one hand, the rapid tar sands development is destined to fuel
the industrial and military interests of the US, thereby putting Canada's own
energy security in jeopardy, while reinforcing our dependence. On the other
hand, while it may be possible to constructively develop the tar sands to
contribute to Canada's long-term energy needs, Canada has developed no such
strategy.
Ever since the National Energy Program was dismantled and the National Energy
Board stripped of its mandate and powers, there has been no made-in-Canada
energy policy. In contrast to the 1980s, development of a truly national policy
would require federal-provincial partnerships. No level of government appears to
be conducting research and education to mobilize Canadians to demand policies in
response to the looming planetary energy crisis.
The Harper government will be increasingly challenged to develop a new Canadian
energy security strategy, one that meets the interests of all Canadians.
Tony Clarke is director of the Polaris Institute. Bruce Campbell is executive
director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Gordon Laxer is
director of the Parkland Institute in Alberta. They have just released Fuelling
Fortress America: A Report on the Athabasca Tar Sands and US Demands for
Canada's Energy.
Source: www.straightgoods.ca