National Geographic magazine’s current article on Alberta’s oil sands is little more than a glossy, seven-colour smear job on behalf of the environmental movement. No effort is made to offer any balance. From the article’s title -- "Scraping Bottom" -- to its exclusion of any positive images or comments about the sands, it is clear from the outset that the editors are interested only in hardening their 50 million readers against Canada’s largest energy project.

There’s no arguing that extracting oil from Alberta’s vast bitumen deposits is often an ugly process. While about 80% of the oil can be extracted through "in-situ" techniques that use steam to separate the oil and the sand far below the surface, 20% must be extracted by strip mining the surface; and strip mining isn’t pretty. Unfortunately, at present prices, only mining generates significant profits.

The important questions about this situation are: Is there a reasonable alternative to mining? And if not, can the land, once mined, be returned to a natural state? National Geographic makes no effort to answer either.

What makes this so disconcerting is that these are the same one-sided techniques applied by diehard environmentalists against the same oil sands. For instance, even though Alberta’s heavy oil deposits contain no tar, eco-crusaders love to refer to them as "tar sands," since tar sounds so much dirtier than oil. And it is almost impossible these days to read a news release or story about the sands without seeing their production referred to as "dirty oil," as though that were a statement of fact rather than opinion.

Where are the mentions of the parkland and grazing pastures that now occupy the land where early oil extraction mines once churned up the soil? The buffalo paddocks at Syncrude -- the largest of the major oil sands projects -- have a better than 99% success rate in live births of buffalo calves. That’s far better than the 70% rate among wild buffalo and perhaps the biggest reason why Northern Alberta’s once-dwindling herds have been able to slowly rebuild. By the early 1990s, they had been all but wiped out by disease.

Could the four major companies that run most of the oil sands operations do more to lessen their environmental impact and return the land to agriculture or woodland faster? Almost certainly. But it should be noted that they have seldom been found in violation of provincial or federal environmental standards. If their operations are messy, it is partly because both Edmonton and Ottawa have permitted them to be.

Still, the plain truth is that Canada needs the oil sands. They have replaced Ontario manufacturing (or at least pulled even with it) as the economic engine of Confederation. Both the elimination of the yearly national budget deficit and the halving of unemployment under the former Liberal government between 1993 and 2005 were accomplished, in part, through the boom in oil sands development and oil sales to the United States.

That may well be why current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been a steadfast defender of the sands. Speaking in Vancouver a couple of months ago, he said the project was not only economically vital, but strategically imperative, too. The oil sands "change everything," Mr. Ignatieff explained. Not only do they put Canadians to work at well-paying jobs, but the personal and corporate taxes they generate give Ottawa much-needed revenues to pay for social programs.

What’s more, Mr. Ignatieff added, the oil in the sands -- the largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia -- give Canada tremendous leverage with the Americans. If they want our oil, they will have to make concessions to us on other trade and security issues.

Without the oil sands, foreign oil would make up a much greater percentage of Canada’s supply -- nearly one-quarter more. Prices for everything from electricity to home heating fuel to gasoline would be much higher. And there could be concerns about where the energy would come from to heat schools, homes, offices, hospitals and assembly plants.

It’s nice that the environmentalists at National Geographic and elsewhere believe a magic wand can be waved and alternative energy sources will spring up from nowhere. But since that is impractical, we are resigned to the blight the oil sands create temporarily while they keep our economy and government going.

Source - National Post