German Chancellor defends planned lithium deal with Serbia
Mercedes-Benz and Stellantis are currently in discussions with Serbia’s government to invest in the country.
Oil sands development in Northern Alberta.
Most Canadians overvalue the contribution the oil sands industry make to the country’s economy, finding it hard to believe it only contributes 2% to Canada’s total Gross domestic Product (GDP), results of a recent poll published Friday show.
According to the survey conducted by polling firm Environics for the environmental group Environmental Defence, 57% of Canadians think the industry’s impact is larger than what Statistics Canada shows.
The study found that 41% of Canadians think the oil sands contribution to the world’s 11th largest economy is between 6 and 24 times higher than it actually is. Of those polled, 75% agree the country should shift its dependence on fossil fuels toward cleaner energy sources.
Source: Environmental Defence’s poll, June 2014.
“The numbers speak for themselves. Canadians are clearly ready for a safer, cleaner, more prosperous energy future,” Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said in a statement.
“We are routinely told our economy will sputter, governments won’t be able to balance budgets, and social services will have to be sacrificed if we don’t triple the size of the tar sands as fast as possible,” he added.
Source: Environmental Defence’s poll, June 2014.
The industry, expected to provide about $79 billion in government revenue over the next two decades, is possibly the most controversial subject in Canada these days. Companies trying to develop, transport and sell Alberta’s crude have faced fierce opposition from environmental and aboriginal groups. Efforts to transport the oil to US markets through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have been stalled by the US government, activists and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
“The [oil sands] are not the primary driver of our economy,” Gray insisted. “Their contribution is relatively small and certainly not sufficient to justify the risks of planned massive expansion,” he said in the statement.
Source: Environmental Defence’s poll, June 2014.
Meanwhile, petroleum producers and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has been mounting a PR campaign —including its $24 million ad campaign in Washington— to build a better reputation for the billion dollar industry.
According to the Federal government, companies plan to invest over US$610 billion (Cdn$650bn) in projects over the next decade.
Image by Christopher Kolaczan | Shutterstock.com
15 Comments
nobody24
Curious that an Enviromoron funded study, dismisses the economics of REALITY…
nobody24
…of those polled…
U308
Why is Mining.com republishing this activist garbage?
Just_The_Facts
For the same reason Financial Post, The Globe and Mail, Reuters and Bloomberg, to mention a few, did it. I think that, trying to strike balance, journalists tend to give too much tribune to environmentalists.
superUnknown
You can prove anything with statistics. Ninety six percent of doctors agree.
“conducted by polling firm Environics for the environmental group Environmental Defence”
I smell a rat.
eddieo
Two percent of the economy produces more greenhouse gases than all the GHGs reduced throughout the rest of the country.
Expansion of the tar sands in not in Canadas – or even Albertas – best interest.
allritejack
I agree it is not appropriate to print such unsubstantiated garbage on this forum.
Just_The_Facts
And it is garbage because… You say so?
allritejack
No but because the unbiased facts say so. Everything in life is a balance of good and bad and an equilibrium is required. Its the same with a marriage, you put all your attention on your wife and your kids or career suffer etc. Every country has a poverty issue to some degree, the oil sands are a gift to Canada as oil is to the Middle East. It’s a question of optimizing its potential.
Bill Quam
We need to hear about these studies here especially. The global mining sector has a way of selectively believing they provide more benefit than they do in reality. Look at all of the resource rich developing economies. If the sector want increasing profitability then they need to adopt a socioeconomic business and investment model. The sector is doomed if it does not change the shell game that has been the standard.
Change or die out like the industrial rust belt has done when Japan, China, India come up with a more profitable business model. The Green Program http://www.thegreenprogram.org does just that with the Socioeconomic Mineral and Business Certification system in the “conflict minerals” mining belt of the Great Lakes region of Africa.
nonredneck
This is a good article, its not just about promoting the Mining Industry’s interests, but reveals the false notion of the importance of the Industry, that many people, including Harper, possess. I am an Industry insider, and make no excuses for the Industry, I have witnessed the incredible pollution on a daily basis that an Oil Sands operation produces, if only people could witness it first hand, like Neil did, his was the Natural reaction. We need to collectively reduce our energy consumption, and absolutely can’t allow Gateway to get built. At the very least, let’s keep this Oil in Canada, and build the necessary refinery capacity here in Canada to upgrade the bitumen and refine into its final end products. I myself am a reformed Muscle car fanatic and have driven 4 banger cars for years.
patentbs
The article proves a couple of things. Propaganda has influenced perception. People can not count. In Quebec there are fabricators almost exclusively supplying products to Ft Mac area companies. Saskatoon supplies many of the pressure vessels to operators in that area. Can we count the houses built for the workers at those suppliers?
These big projects provide more to government than the direct royalties. .How about GST alone?
It is an opinion pole not a fact finding mission. Nobody in this country is against alternate energy or conservation!
cliff the geologist
The article notes that 75% of Canadians think we should switch to cleaner energy supplies, which I presume are solar and wind generated power. I would be interested to see the percentage if the question were asked: Would you support the conversion to solar/wind power if it would result in your Hydro bill increasing from $150/month to $300/month? My belief is that the 75% number would plummet. For those who doubt that the bills would triple…come and see my hydro bills from Southwest Ontario and compare them to those I had several years ago…they have MORE than doubled….but we do have a LOT of windmills and solar panels in the area!!!!
JoeNormal
Environmental Defence is a U.S./OPEC funded group….who, naturally, would like to see Canada OUT of the Oil Production business. To say that the Oil Sands contributes to “Climate Change”…is about as realistic as Obama’s “regulate cow farts” new laws….these people really have NO IDEA. CO2 is a GOOD Gas, makes Plants GROW. These people have no concept of the cycle of LIFE. Climate changes…has for millions of years BEFORE mankind, and will, millions of years AFTER WE’RE GONE. Perhaps if Geology 101 was a REQUIRED Freshman course at the so-called ‘universities’ that we have in North America (Basket-weaving 101, anybody?) there would be a lot less of this B.S. going around, and a lot more REALISTIC solutions for replacing the ever-shrinking Petro-reserves.
darlingsapphire
IF YOU WANT TO WORK WITH OIL YOU ARE VERY MUCH WELCOME, BUT KEEP IT AWAY FROM THOSE
WHO KNOW THAT IT CAUSES CANCER, LUPUS, DIABETES, LUNG DISEASE….I FORGET THE OTHER
SEVEN ILLNESSES AND KILLERS THE OIL CAUSES. IF YOU DO THE RESEARCH YOU WILL FIND WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW. IT’S TOO BAD THAT THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS HAS REACHED SOME OF IT’S MASSIVE
SIZE ….DO THE RESEARCH AND FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TAR SANDS (BITUMEN) REACHES
DANGEROUS PROPORTIONS AND HOW IT LEAK INTO PRISTINE AREAS AND KILLS EVERYTHING AROUND
IT……JUST HORRIBLE, AND THIS TAR SANDS HAS BEEN CAUSED BY GREEDY, SELFISH HUMANS.