Oil Patch Insider

Oil sands rebuked from on high

It’s tough enough for proponents of developing the Alberta oil sands to make their case against doubting community leaders, aboriginals, politicians and environmentalists.

Now they’re on a collision course with religion.

Luc Bouchard, the Catholic bishop for northern Alberta, has questioned the “moral legitimacy” of exploiting the 171-billion barrel resource.

In a pastoral letter, he wrote: “The moral problem does not lie in government and industry’s lack of a sincere desire to find a solution. The moral problem lies in their racing ahead and aggressively expanding the oil sands industry despite the fact that serious environmental problems remain unsolved after more than 40 years of ongoing research.

“The moral question has been left to market forces and self-regulation to resolve, when what is urgently required is moral vision and leadership.”

Bouchard said the present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands region “cannot be morally justified. … Active steps to alleviate this environmental damage must be undertaken” to prevent the destruction of the boreal forest ecosystems, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and the toxic tailings ponds he argued will require 100 years of supervision and maintenance.

He said the letter was directed at oil company executives in Calgary and Houston and leaders in the Canadian and Alberta governments, not the 55,000 Catholics in his diocese that sprawls over 40,000 square miles, thousands of whom directly or indirectly depend on the oil sands for their livelihood.

Bouchard called for a moratorium on further development until real solutions can be found — a prayer that may already have been answered as the industry has postponed more than C$100 billion of new projects, virtually bringing expansion plans to a halt.

Without directly answering Bouchard’s case, Rick George, chief executive officer of oil sands pioneer Suncor Energy, offered a general assessment of the debate between the industry and its critics.

“We let the shrill voices of the world get out in front with a lot of misinformation,” he said.

In singling out the oil sands, Bouchard conveniently ignores the environmental harm caused by sectors such as forestry, mining and agriculture and the impact of urban development.

And he gives no indication that he is prepared to give up his own travel by car or plane that is so dependent on the gasoline and jet fuel processed from the oil sands, or the natural resources that heat his home and churches.

The bishop urges his followers to raise their concerns at government level, adding weight to the rapidly shifting public opinion on environmental issues.

“Government and industry will be forced to recognize that oil sands development should not proceed until the environment can be adequately protected,” Bouchard said.

George makes the point that if Canada were to shut down the oil sands, public demand would require crude imports from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, possibly creating a larger carbon footprint than the oil sands because of the inferior extraction and processing facilities used in those countries and the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the transportation systems used to bring the oil to consumers.

He argued it is both irresponsible and foolish for Canada to turn its back on the second largest oil basin in the world outside of Saudi Arabia.

Better, George suggests, to concentrate on reducing the environmental consequences, pointing out that his own company has reduced its own water consumption by 40 percent over the past decade, while more than doubling its output; consumes less energy; and has lowered its greenhouse gas emissions.

He freely acknowledges that more needs to be done through industry commitments to pursue continuous improvements.

—Gary Park