As a Canadian it blows my mind that we can have the second largest deposits of oil in the world, but our government remains billions in debt and one in seven Canadian children live in poverty.

I feel like we are being played for fools here in Canada, because foreign-owned oil companies like ExxonMobil, British Petroluem and PetroChina (71% of oil sands production is owned by foreign shareholders) are making billions exporting raw tar sand from our country, while us citizens are dealing with all the nasty downsides.

Time for a tar sands reality check.

Here's the top 10 reasons Canada's tar sands suck:

1. The Canada tar sands isn't just an environmental issue, it is also a social justice, human rigths and health issue. A higher incidence of rare and deadly cancers has been documented in First Nations communities downstream of the oil sands by doctors, the Alberta Health Department and First Nations since 2007.

2. Like birds? Me too. Did you know that over 30 million birds will be lost over the next 20 years due to tar sands development? 

3. 95% of the water used in tar sands surface mining is so polluted it has to be stored in toxic sludge pits. That’s 206,000 litres of toxic waste discharged every day.

4. Canada's tar sands make Hoover Dam look like lego blocks, because we are home to 2 of the top 3 largest dams in the world. The dams are used to hold back all that toxic sludge produced by mining tar sands.

5. Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces 3.2 to 4.5 times more greenhouse gases than conventional oil produced in Canada or the United States. To put that in perspective, a Honda Accord burning tar sands gas has the same climate impact as driving a Chevy Suburban using conventional gas.

6. According to an annual climate change performance index, because of the tar sands, Canada's climate performance is the worst in the entire western world. We rank 58th out of 61 countries on the index, beating out only Kazakhstan (59th), Iran (60th) and Saudi Arabia (61st).

7. 11 million litres of toxic wastewater seep out of the tailing pits into the boreal forest and Athabasca river every day. That’s 4 billion litres a year. Anyone want to go fishing?

8. Norway has saved $644 billion in its petroleum production investment fund. Meanwhile, Alberta, where all the tar sands deposits are, has only saved $16 billion. There is no Canadian federal fund.

9. The International Energy Agency says up to two thirds of known fossil reserves must be left in the ground to avoid a 2°C global temperature rise. MIT reports that when a global price on carbon emerges to prevent climate change, it will make the oil sands economically non-viable.

10. And if you think the tar sands are going away, think again.The oil sands underlie approximately 140,000 square kilometres of Alberta – an area about the size of Florida. Oil sands leases cover about 20% of the province’s land area. If the oil companies have it their way, the tar sands operations are on a trajectory to triple in size, with literally no end in sight. 

So there you go. The tar sands suck, Canadians are getting screwed and the only people seeing any kind of big payoff are the big oil companies.

Thanks to the Tar Sands Reality Check project for putting all these facts together, and getting them signed off by top experts. 

Protti was recently named as the new head of the Alberta Energy Regulator, a new provincial agency whose mandate, is "...to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta."

Citizens groups are rightly upset with the appointment, given that Protti is a former oil lobbyist in various capacities, previously working as the vice president of corporate affairs for Encana, and most significantly as the founding member of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the main lobbying arm of Canada's oil companies. 

Protti's most recent job, prior to his appointment to the Alberta Energy Regulator, was the president of an organization called the Energy Policy Institute of Canada. The Energy Policy Institute of Canada describes itself as, "... a non-profit organization formed by business organizations that are concerned about Canada’s energy future." The Institute lists  the largest tar sands players in the country as its major supporters, including companies like Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Encana, Suncor and Shell. 

According to government registry documents, the Energy Policy Institute of Canada shares a Calgary office space with National Public Relations, a consulting agency with lobbyists in Ottawa representing the interests of Protti's old group the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, as well as Protti's other former employer, Encana.



All a little too cozy for my liking - and the Alberta government might think so too, considering Protti's official bio [PDF] on Alberta Energy's site does not even mention Protti's stint running the Energy Policy Institute of Canada. So it looks like this tight network of pro-oil lobbyists has grabbed the golden goose with Protti now running the agency overseeing environment and safety regulations in Alberta's oilpatch.

Is it a golden goose or a Trojan horse? Regardless of the metaphor, Protti's appointment is worrisome, given the feverish rate the government of Alberta and Stephen Harper's federal government are developing Alberta's tar sands. Protti is not very likely to stand in their way. 

"The analysis shows that between 60-80 per cent of coal, oil and gas reserves of publicly listed companies could be classified "un-burnable" if the world is to achieve emissions reductions that mean an 80 per cent probability of not exceeding global warming of two degrees Celsius."

"Smart investors can already see that most fossil fuel reserves are essentially unburnable because of the need to reduce emissions in line with the global agreement by governments to avoid global warming of more than two degrees Celsius. They can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. But I hope this report will mean that regulators also take note, because much of the embedded risk from these potentially toxic carbon assets is not openly recognized through current reporting requirements."

Which party wins could seal the fate of two major pipeline projects proposed for the west coast of B.C. - the Enbridge Northern Gateway project and the Kinder Morgan expansion (yes, the same one that showered the suburbs in oil 5 years ago). 

For most Vancouverites, the thought of more oil tankers and pipelines along the pristine coastline of Vancouver is disturbing. While some tankers do ply the waters already, Vancouver is a major tourist destination whose economy relies heavily on its natural beauty and amazing ocean-scapes. 

But to overseas markets, the sound of more tarry bitumen being pumped onto ships destined for foreign lands would be a glorious symphony. Take China for instance, who has spoken very loudly about its frustration with Canada's "outdated" oil sands plans and slow-moving approval of new coastal pipelines.  

Adrian Dix, the leader of B.C.'s New Democratic Party and election front-runner, announced this week that his party officially opposes the Kinder Morgan project, telling reporters that:

"They are talking about an increase of five- or six-fold [in capacity] and I think that transforms Vancouver into a major oil export port. I don't think people in Vancouver see that as the right way to go, and I don't think that's the right way to go."

"It seems to me that increasing from 80,000 barrels a day to 450,000 barrels a day (exported from Metro Vancouver in tankers) is a massive change in the nature of that operation"

 

"There is a high risk that extreme weather events like heat waves, heavy rainfall, bushfires and cyclones will become even more intense in Australia over the coming decades."

"The State Government is not opposed in principle to uranium being shipped from a Queensland port through the Great Barrier Reef," Natural Resources and Mines Minister Andrew Cripps says.

"With something as sensitive as the Great Barrier Reef, you have to ask yourself what is it you want in the long term? Do you want those ports or do you want the Great Barrier Reef to continue being great, because you can't have both."

How can that be? With so many people calling our massive tar sands reserves the "Saudi Arabia of the North," how can we be so cash-strapped? How can the Alberta government be planning to cut funding to schools, education and health care if the province is so oil rich? 

The best answer can be found in Norway, which this year alone will enjoy a $44 billion budget surplus. The country has the 22nd largest proven oil reserves in the world and about 40 per cent less oil is produced by that country, compared to Canada. 

On top of massive government budget surpluses, Norway also has no foreign debt, and $634 billion set aside as a pension fund. This fund, called the Government Sovereign Wealth fund -- set up to collect oil and gas revenues -- is projected to be worth $1 trillion by 2020 and currently holds more than one per cent of all the world's equity. 

To put it simply, Norway is rolling in the dough and their number one sector is oil and gas exploration, production and export.

There are many differences between Norway and Canada that can explain why Norway is so rich and Canada so relatively poor, but there is one huge difference that stands out amongst the rest: oil royalties. Royalties are the amount a government charges oil companies for being allowed to extract and sell the country's oil.

Norway charges oil companies about 70 per cent of their profits for the right to extract and sell Norway's oil. So for every dollar a company like ExxonMobil or British Petroleum makes in profit in Norway, about 70 cents of that dollar goes to the government and back to the people of Norway. 

A director of the Norwegian Ministry of Oil & Energy, Matte Agerup, summed up Norway's philosophy on their oil reserves best when she explained that, "the state [Norway] operated on the basis that the oil company was the helper in harnessing the country's natural resources, but that the oil ultimately belongs to the nation."

The Canadian government does not charge a royalty on the profits of oil companies operating in the Alberta tar sands, only the Alberta provincial government does. In 2009, the Alberta government collected more in gambling and casino revenue than it did in royalties from oil companies.

In recent years, the Alberta government has been collecting roughly a 5 to 10 per cent royalty from oil companies operating in the tar sands (the calculations, as you can imagine, are complicated, but this appears a safe estimate). Author and tar sands expert, Andrew Nikiforuk, writing in the Tyee, provides a much more in-depth look at the numbers if you're interested. 

Suffice it to say, Canadians are not getting the returns they deserve for the risks they are inheriting. Companies like ExxonMobil, who last year made an estimated $104 million a day from global operations, get to extract oil from Canada's tar sands and sell it off to foreign interests, and Canadians get little more than the resulting climate change pollution and massive toxic lakes of sludge that seep into our freshwater reserves. 

Great deal if you're ExxonMobil. Bum deal for Canadians. But the answer seems pretty simple - charge the oil companies way more for the right to extract and sell our country's oil. Politicians, of course, will tell you it's much more complicated than that. 

But trust me, it isn't. Norway did it and the oil companies are still there. And, in fact, they are investing more than ever.

"If you ask the question: Do you want your oil from (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez or (Alberta Premier) Alison Redford, I think I know the answer."

Doer is making the argument that US President Barack Obama should approve the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, so America can get its oil from the friendly North, instead of the much maligned Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela.

What Doer fails to mention, or maybe he just doesn't know, is that the largest import commodity Canada receives from Venezuela is crude oil.

According to a 2011 government report [PDF] on Venezuelan-Canadian trade relations:

"Imports from Venezuela are dominated by crude oil. In 2009, Canadian oil imports [from Venezuela] were valued at $778 million, making up nearly 86% of Canada's total imports from that country."

A May 2011 Natural Resources Canada report [PDF] notes that Canada imported 33,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Venezuela in 2009. That works out to about 12 million barrels of oil that year. 

While Venezuela has had issues in the past around their oil industry, Canada imports even more oil from countries with much more serious human rights and environmental issues. Canada's largest source of imported crude is Algeria, which has been mired in an armed conflict with Islamist extremists for more than 20 years. Canada also imports oil from Angola, Iraq and Nigeria -- all countries that make Venezuela look like paradise. 

Ambassador Doer and the Harper government are working overtime at the moment to convince the U.S. government to green light the Keystone XL pipeline.



This latest Hugo Chavez scare tactic is pretty ridiculous when one considers the fact that Canada is more than happy to receive millions of barrels a year from Hugo Chavez.

An Ambassador's role is typically apolitical, and that is for good reason. An Ambassdor's job is to represent the country, not the Prime Minister and his political party. Making undiplomatic statements to the U.S., our largest trading partner, is what happens when this division between ideology and diplomacy gets blurry, as it appears right now. 

A single pipeline is not worth ruining our relationship with the sleeping giant Canada sits above. It might wake up and realize it's being duped into helping Canada reach the highest bidder on export markets, which will be no help to the U.S. consumer as gas prices will go up for many, contrary to the fictitious story that Gary Doer and the Harper government is feeding the U.S. media. 

It isn't the XL pipeline itself that is at the heart of the matter though. It is the 500,00 barrels of Canadian tar sand oil that will be pumped through the pipe that has so many Americans upset. And it should upset Canadians too. 

For years Canada was known as one of the world's leading environmental stewards. While a small player, Canada is known for its skills in diplomacy, and was a key player in the ratification of international environmental treaties like the Rio Earth Summit, the Kyoto protocol on climate pollution reduction and, of course, the Montreal Protocol to reduce acid rain and close the hole in the ozone layer.

For the most part, our country has been very good at striking a balance between the financial bottom line and the long-term health of our environment and the people living in it. But that has all changed in a very short amount of time, with the rapid expansion of Alberta's tar sands operations and a federal government that sees economic concerns superseding human health and the livability of the environment around us.

Now that has all come to a head and Canada finds itself in the center of one of the biggest controversies on the planet, with a major superpower at the center. The chickens have, so to speak, come home to roost for Prime Minister Harper and there is an opportunity to make a correction in the road that Canada is currently traveling down. 

The battle over Keystone XL has been brewing for more than four years. With a final decision on Keystone expected from President Obama as soon as the next month or so, the situation has reached a fever pitch: on February 17 in front of the White House, if expectations hold true, we will witness the largest rally ever held in the U.S. on the issue of climate change. More than 20,000 people will gather in Washington D.C. to lobby for action on climate change and to pressure their president to disallow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

These tens-of-thousands of everyday Americans, whether they know it or not, are protesting Canada as much as they are the Keystone project.

The question for Canadians in all this is not whether we pump tar sands oil down to the United States, but instead a much bigger question of what we want our country to be, and be known for by other people in other countries. In the name of fiscal prosperity at all expense, Stephen Harper's conservative government has decided that Canada will tether itself to the exponential development of the tar sands for decades to come.

Since the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper have taken power, our Canadian government walked away from the Kyoto protocol, when we were one of the first countries to sign it and motivated other countries to follow our lead. Our government fought against a plan by the G20 nations to reduce fossil fuel tax breaks to companies like ExxonMobil, the most profitable company in the history of companies.

Most recently, our government passed a set of bills that reduce environmental protections against tar sands oil expansion. And most egregiously, our government is supporting lobbying efforts to convince the world that our tar sands oil is not only clean, but that is it also "ethical."

As environmentalist and author Bill McKibben writes, this weekend's protest is about much more than a pipeline:

“Alberta’s tar sands are the continent’s biggest carbon bomb. If you could burn all the oil in those tar sands, you’d run the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide from its current 390 parts per million (enough to cause the climate havoc we’re currently seeing) to nearly 600 parts per million, which would mean if not hell, then at least a world with a similar temperature.” 

Indeed, this weekend's protest is about the future. It's about Canada and the nation we will be moving forward. Will we continue on our current path to becoming the world's newest, and possibly last, petro-state -- the country that ushers in a "new normal" of extreme weather that we've only seen in the movies?  

Or, will we rebuild our Canada back into the country of international diplomacy and environmental action?  A country whose citizens strive for a balance between environmental protection and economic development. This weekend can serve as an opportunity for Canada to join, at least in spirit, the critical mass in Washington D.C. and let our neighbors to the South know that we too are concerned about the future.

Considering the majority of Canadians did not vote for Stephen Harper, and most believe that he and his govrnment are doing a poor job protecting the environment, the timing of the #ForwardOnClimate rally couldn't be better.

If we can't be there in person, the least we can do is spend a few minutes this week on our smart phones or laptops getting the word out on Facebook and Twitter. It is a far second to showing up, but I can tell you from experience that every bit counts and you never know what it will be that breaks through the noise.

Send a message of support using the hashtag #forwardonclimate and tell rally participants why, as a Canadian, you support their activities to stop the Keystone Pipeline project.

Share a message on Facebook, by clicking here and sharing the "Forward on Climate" petition, set up by one of the rally organizers 350.org, and tell rally participants that we have their back.

It's the Canadian thing to do, eh.

As a former employee in Canada's Foreign Affairs I have attended many bilateral meetings with foreign dignitaries. If I were advising Kerry, I would suggest one question he should ask of John Baird to see if he is an honest broker.

The question is: "Is Canada committed to confronting climate change?"

John Kerry is, and has been for a long time, a vocal leader on the issue of climate change. Sources inside his former Senate office have told me Kerry regularly expresses his commitment to act on climate change and understands the imperative of curbing water and air pollution to safeguard the economy.

Canadian Minister John Baird has a very different stance towards the climate change challenge, preferring to express contempt for proposals to implement market-based solutions to Canada's soaring greenhouse gas emissions. For example, just last year Baird told Parliament that the Harper government disbanded the National Roundtable on Energy and Environment because they did not like the Roundtable's recommendation that Canada adopt a tax on carbon.

"Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families," Baird stated in Parliamentary debate.

For the record, polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a tax on carbon pollution. Even many of the companies operating in the tar sands are calling for a carbon tax.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, Kerry and Baird are diametrically opposed. If Baird is honest with Kerry he should explain to the freshly minted Secretary of State the rationale for the Canadian government's backtracking on international commitments to address climate change. Perhaps he can also explain why his party is currently running a national attack ad campaign against the Opposition party for proposing a carbon tax.

On the other hand, perhaps Baird will instead try to steer the conversation to what the Harper government considers a much more important and dire issue: President Obama's approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would pump millions of barrels of Canadian tar sands crude to U.S. refineries to largely serve an overseas market.



The Alberta tar sands is considered one of the dirtiest and most carbon intensive industrial projects on the planet. A barrel of oil derived from bitumen produces three to four times more carbon emissions than a conventional barrel of oil.

Kerry, being the savvy diplomat he is, could (and hopefully will) point out to Baird, that any conversation about the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline is intrinsically tied to Canada evolving its postion on climate change. If Canada is serious about aligning with the U.S. on climate policy, as Stephen Harper has expressed, then Baird should be fully briefed and ready to cooperate based on President Obama's stated commitment to tackle climate change in his second term.

In his inaugural address two weeks ago President Obama said:

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."

The Keystone XL pipeline poses a key test for President Obama's commitment to fulfill his promise on climate action. Encouraging rapid expansion of Canada's tar sands operations is irreconcilable with aggressive efforts to curb climate change pollution in North America.

If Minister Baird is honest with his counterpart, he will admit as much to Secretary Kerry. Anything less than honesty on Baird's part will start Canada's relationship off with the new Secretary of State very poorly. It is a tough position for Baird to be in, but it is one created by the Minister and the Conservative government itself.