Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Dictatorship oil

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:07pm - 64 Comments

First, a correction. The list of oil sources posted here should have read: Algeria, the United Kingdom, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia and the United States. You’ll note that, in the original post, Iran was listed where Angola should have been. My apologies to to the good people of Angola.

Meanwhile, Ezra Levant, seemingly the inspiration for the government’s new rhetoric, continues to draw a line between good oil and bad oil: the former including our crude, the latter including crude from suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Algeria. In total, those four nations account for about 40% of our oil imports.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Crit_Reasoning

    I haven't been following this debate so far, but is it news to anyone that Eastern Canada imports a lot of its oil from OPEC? I would have thought this was common knowledge.

    • Emily

      Yeah, it's news to most….including huge numbers of Albertans who think they are supplying our oil in Ontario

    • gottabesaid

      I was also under the impression (which could be incorrect, and I stand to be corrected on this) that the petrochemical industry often has to use imported oil from some of the above-named countries — the stuff from the oil sands just isn't suitable feedstock for what they want to use if for. If that is true, is that petrochemical industry unethical?

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Oilsands crude can be used as a petrochemical feedstock just like hydrocarbons from any other source. It just requires more refining than some other blends of crude.

        • gottabesaid

          I'm ignorant when it comes to the science of petroleum, I admit. My impression came from an acquaintance in the petrochem industry who said (when I asked if they used oil-sands oil) said they used Algerian oil because it was more suitable as feedstock for their needs. That concludes my expertise on this subject.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            That's because Algerian oil has a very low sulfur content. Of course, it also makes a difference where the petrochemical plant is located.

          • EeeOar

            Refineries and petrochemical plants are designed (and then built) with a fairly specific feedstock composition in mind. That, to some extent,, kind of ties that plant to that feedstock.

            Modest feedstock variations can usually be handled without too much difficulty, perhaps imposing a smallish efficiency and/or throughput loss on the facility. At some point switching to an alternate feedstock that is markedly different is going to require a significant investment to add new equipment and/or modify existing equipment to match.

          • gottabesaid

            Very helpful responses, guys. Thanks for learnin' me.

    • Dot

      Is it news to you that a lot of Calgarians work in OPEC countries like UAE (EnCana for example?)

      • Crit_Reasoning

        No, of course not. I know people working in Qatar, for example.

        • Holly Stick

          So Ezra must think they are Unethical Albertans.

          Stop picking on Albertans, Ezra!

          • MostlyCivil

            "Let the eastern b*stards freeze in the dark" has less impact when you actually think about where the eastern fatherless children actually get their oil.

            Ezrafail.

      • Reverend_Blair

        And wasn't it Ralph Klein who suggested that Alberta join OPEC? Unethical Ralph.

  • Holly Stick

    The Hill Times has a good report on this, including someone's suggestion that we should then also refuse to sell oil to "unethical" countries – so no pipeline through BC to sell oil to China for you!
    http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/55

  • Dan

    This ethical oil tag line should totally be expanded into other areas.

    For instance cigarettes made by big tobacco companies are clearly more ethical than the contraband cigarettes that help fund organized crime.

    I decree that henceforth Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans and Benson & Hedges shall be known as "Ethical Tobacco."

  • Holly Stick

    Now the loss of Prentice as Environment Minister is truly being felt. The remaining Conservative cabinet members are demonstrating that they are completely out of touch on environmental issues.

    They are probably all sitting around saying: "Rapture us now, Lord! Pleeeeease!" As opposed to actually doing anything useful about climate change, pollution, working for the public good, etc.

  • alfanerd

    Im quite ok with that ZM, but if 'heated rhetoric' is the evil that its claimed to be, I will be having a fun time reminding people of that over the next little while.

    • ZestyMordant

      Just because you don't believe heated rhetoric contributed to those deaths doesn't make it ok to be a douche. But hey, it's a free country. Do what you want.

      • alfanerd

        Sowwy I huwt you feewings.

        As for douches, I think it's ultra-super-douche-y to use the Tucson tragedy to push a political agenda.

        If those little ninnies who for 8 years called for the assassination of President Bush now get their panties in a knot over a map with a target on it, I will make double-sure that their double-standard and hypocrisy is in their face.

        If that makes me a douche, well Im a proud douche.

        • ZestyMordant

          "it's ultra-super-douche-y to use the Tucson tragedy to push a political agenda."

          Yes and no. It's definitely douche-y to blame Tea Party, Palin etc. for having anything to do with it. Not douche-y at all to use this tragedy to inform debate around gun control.

          "I will make double-sure that their double-standard and hypocrisy is in their face."

          Fine. If someone called for Bush's assassination and are now upset about right wing violent imagery, they are definitely hypocritical and deserve to be called out. Is there anyone in particular that believe is being hypocritical in this way? Surely you wouldn't assume that all left wingers called for Bush's assassination.

          • alfanerd

            Surely you wouldn't assume that all left wingers called for Bush's assassination.

            Definitely not. But I dont remember the outrage from the people who are allegedly outraged today at Palin, towards those who did call for Bush's assassination.

            And that's the key: those who are faux-outraged today at Palin, would never have criticized the moveon.org crowd when Bush was in office.

            A couple of factors are responsible. I think the primary one is that you can get instant street-cred amongst "progressives" and pose as an "intellectual" just by taking the biggest possible dump on Palin. Not that I like Palin – I hope she's not GOP nominee in 2012. But the hate that she stirs in lefties is something to behold.

            So when the tragedy happened it was a spectacular pile-on – who can blame this on Palin the most. Hypocritical cries of "heated rhetoric", I dont think are even believed by those who utter them, its just a way for them to gain some kind of false intellectual cred. You dont get that kind of false intellectual cred for criticizing moveon.org.

            And that's my biggest pet-peeve, people who hold opinions not because of their veracity but because of their social implications.

            Political rhetoric has always been heated. There has always been crazy people.

          • Holly Stick

            Provide evidence that anyone called for Bush to be assassinated. Plenty of people want him to be charged and tried as a war criminal, but I don't believe anyone called for him to be targeted with a gun the way violent rightwingers keep targeting their political opponents.

          • alfanerd

            Provide evidence that you're not a piece of malicious software designed by Stephen Harper to make liberals look ridiculous.

          • Holly Stick

            Provide evidence of anyone calling for Bush to be assassinated.

            Many people have called for him to be tried for war crimes, but I assume that you are able to distinguish the difference.

          • Holly Stick

            That's interesting: the first of my two posts above was gone, so I reposted.

          • Mike T.

            Why bother?

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Even if the oilsands tripled their output, Eastern Canada would continue to import a substantial percentage of their oil from OPEC countries due to logistical and economic considerations.

    One can make a valid case that oil produced in Canada is more "ethical" than oil from most of the OPEC countries, but it doesn't change the fact that oil is a global commodity and Canada will continue to import oil from OPEC even as we export oil from the oilsands.

    • Dot

      One can make a valid case that oil produced in Canada is more "ethical" than oil from most of the OPEC countries

      It's a real stretch. Petro-states that derive a vast majority of their wealth by selling crude to high consuming western countries lead to dictatorships. Which came first?

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Huh? You're suggesting that it's the fault of western countries that so many petro-states are dictatorships? I don't think you've thought this through. It's not like Saudi Arabia was a democracy before it started selling so much oil.

        • Dot

          I forget who did a study/looked at this (maybe even Coyne). When you have a single source of revenue – and don't require taxation – you are not required to be accountable. And therefore, you don't necessarily need to care about the general population.

          Modern history of the House of Saud:

          By 1932, Ibn Saud had disposed of all his main rivals and consolidated his rule over much of the Arabian Peninsula. He declared himself king of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that year. Previously, he had gone through several titles, starting with "Sultan of Nejd" and ending with "King of Hejaz and Nejd and their dependencies." Ibn Saud's father, Abdul Rahman retained the honorary title of "imam." A few years later, in 1937, American surveyors discovered near Dammam what later proved to be Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Third_…

          • Holly Stick

            Thomas Friedman has argued that oil-rich states become more authoritarian. Andrew Nikiforuk applies that to Alberta and to Canada.
            http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2009-07-30/…

          • Dot

            Thanks. You're right- I was thinking of Friedman.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            From your own link, Saudi Arabia was ruled by the House of Saud before oil was discovered. You could speculate that Saudi Arabia would be a democracy today if not for all that oil, but not only would it be a meaningless hypothetical, it also has nothing to do with your original attempt to refute the "ethical" label.

            To the extent that it makes sense to characterize oil as "ethical" or not depending on where it comes from, it make sense to point out that a lot of oil comes from dictatorships with poor human rights records and lax environmental standards.

            I haven't read Ezra's arguments, and I suspect I would be rolling my eyes quite a bit if I did, but if opponents of the oilsands are characterizing its output as "dirty" oil it makes sense to point out that other sources of oil are even more problematic from an ethical point of view.

          • Dot

            it also has nothing to do with your original attempt to refute the "ethical" label.

            I said a few days ago it is a false equivalence "ethical oil" and environmentally sustainable development.

            The former is far far more subjective than the latter. Hence why I said your attempt to make a valid case is a stretch.

            Btw, I think you'll find in history it was the American oil companies/gov't that had a interest in the ongoing success and the dominance of the House of Saud, especially in its early years when the Kingdom was first formed. Saudi Aramco early history:

            Saudi Aramco dates back to May 29, 1933, when the Saudi government signed a concessionary agreement with Standard Oil of California (Socal), allowing the company to explore Saudi Arabia for oil. Standard Oil of California assigned this concession to a wholly owned subsidiary called California-Arabian Standard Oil Co. (Casoc). In 1936 with the company having no success at locating oil, the Texas Oil Company purchased a 50% stake of the concession…..[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

          • MostlyCivil

            Friend gave me the book. It's so full of "gotcha" moments that the actual theory goes nowhere.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I don't quite get this argument. Because we still rely on "unethical" oil doesn't mean we shouldn't be promoting our own "ethical" oil. In fact, it's the left that wants to shut down our oil sands, which means that the other oil will be in greater demand. Right?

          • Holly Stick

            Oil is not "ethical". Anyone who talks about "ethical oil" is lying to you.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          I think it could well be that some petro-states are dictatorships because of western countries, however not because of the oil, but because of how Western countries chopped up the maps after WWII (and earlier, and/or later), or because western countries are propping up the current dictators because they're "our" dictators!

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I don't think it makes sense to use specious historical arguments to determine whether a given source of oil is "ethical" or not (and again, I think the "ethical" designation is itself kind of goofy).

            If we're judging the "ethics" of oil based on its source, it makes more sense to look at things like present-day human rights records and environmental records of the source country.

  • Reverend_Blair

    I wonder how far back the strategy on this goes. I'd guess that the Conservatives made sure the book got written, made sure it got published, and made sure that Levant got plenty of promotion in the press. Now they seem to feel that they've re-framed the issue enough to go full-time with it. They are morons.

    I grabbed a used copy of Levant's book…no way I was giving the "author" any of my money…as soon as I could find one. The thing may as well have been written in crayon. The reasoning Levant uses is about what you'd expect at a below-average preschool.

    • Holly Stick

      I'm assuming that Jim Prentice was too intelligent and had too much integrity to endorse the phrase, but now that he's gone, the stupid anti-science Conservatives decided it was a great idea.

  • ggc

    i suggest that the ethical folks of ontario & quebec-land refuse one filthy oil-soaked dollar from alberta. westerners should, as i do, attempt not to purchase anything made in these provinces. the warm feeling they get from saving the world, would keep them quite toasty as they freeze and go bankrupt at the same time

  • NorthernPoV

    So Harper's thugs are attempting to change our minds again via Newspeak. It has pretty well worked before – for example, by re-marketing the TAR sands disaster as the "oil" sands – now we take that a step further and label the environmentally unacceptable (and therefore high unethical) product of the TAR sands to be "ethical oil".

    Somewhere George Orwell is ruefully smiling.

  • alfanerd

    Couple of things, there is no tar in the oil sands. Tar sands is a misnomer. Tar comes from pine trees, and coal tar comes from coal.

    Also, I've been informed by your lefty friends that heated rhetoric causes otherwise normal people to go on shooting sprees. So please, heated language like "Harper's thugs" should be avoided, unless of course you want to be responsible for murder.

    Finally, the oil sands are far more ethical then oil from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

  • TimesArrow

    My wife [who's a teacher] took one look at this storyline and laughed. What if we were to use the same line of rhetoric on our education system? We should feel complacent about the need to fix deficencies because at least it's better than Sudans or N. Koreas?

  • tedbetts

    And Johnny's "D" in reading comprehension is OK because Susie got an "F".

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    I heard Iran is rolling out a new tourism campaign.

    VISIT IRAN; We're more ethical than North Korea.

  • NorthernPoV

    Calling someone a thug – especially when accurate – is a far cry from calling for their assassination, as "you-all" know and refuse to acknowledge.

    and yes, a certain kind of tar comes from tress – but the English language often has multiple meanings for a single word. Tar has a number of uses and one of them shows just why this unethical disaster in Northern Alberta should remain labeled the TAR sands.
    "Tar, pitch: any of various dark heavy viscid substances obtained as a residue "

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    The correct name for them is bituminous sands. They are referred to as tar sands because of their resemblance to tar.

    The correct name for Harper's thugs is Harper's propagandists. Ezra Levant may be many things, but calling him a thug is not only uncivil but preposterous; I'd wager he faints at the sight of blood.

  • alfanerd

    Right, except no one is claiming that someone called for the congresswoman's assassination. The culprit is "heated rhetoric". It doesnt matter whether its accurate or not, heated rhetoric causes people to go on shooting sprees. So please, before anybody gets hurt, you need to tone it down.

  • John.K

    Worked for Cuba, didn't it?

  • Emily

    I think the warmth, beaches and palm trees were more of a factor there.

  • Holly Stick

    Harper's thugs should be force-fed deformed fish until they learn to stop lying about "ethical" oil.

  • Jenn_

    My God you're an idiot. The culprit is *violent* rhetoric.

  • Holly Stick

    No, no, I'm sure he screams like a little girl with a sugar overdose.

  • alfanerd

    There you go inciting murder again. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

  • bergkamp

    " …. no one liked your stupid joke about NDP supporters."

    I thought it was funny, and accurate, and like to think of myself as someone.

  • ZestyMordant

    My apologies Bergkamp. The majority of people did not like his stupid joke about NDP supporters.

  • alfanerd

    Come back on the weekend if you want to hear my best material.

  • MostlyCivil

    If you're on stage on Tuesday afternoon, you're a long way from working the weekend headliner slot.

  • MostlyCivil

    I wonder what his reaction was when he saw that libel decision?

  • MostlyCivil

    "Afghanistan. Less corrupt than China, and a nicer leader than North Korea. Yours to discover"

  • YYZ

    (1) Canada is more ethical than most oil-producing nations therefore our oil is. This is plain simple and is pretty hard to argue with (despite many people arguing with it), but is clearly a rhetorical position vs. a policy position as many posters have pointed out. I would expect nothing less from this particular government.

    (2) This has nothing to do with whether we should or should not address environmental issues caused extracting oil in Canada.

    (3) It is deplorable that the Minister of the Environment is taking up this cause (vs. the Minister of Industry or Minister of Foreign Affairs). It is a major conflict.

  • Emily

    Nah…we'd just spend the money on social programs, and the US sees that as commie-like, ya know.

Previous

Next

From Macleans