35 Replies to “Ethical Oil: A Debate”

  1. I don’t understand what ethics has to do with oil. Ethics, to my understanding, refers to the principles of our relations with others.
    I understand what good business practice has to do with oil, and other sources of energy, such as power dams, nuclear energy systems etc…but I don’t see where ethics enters the picture.
    After all, good business means a commitment to extracting and processing the energy in an efficient way. It’s bad business to ‘make a mess’ because of the cost of clean-up. So, if clean-up requirements are kept to a reasonable cost level then, it’s good business.
    All production whether it be of food, furniture, cars or teddy bears…has ‘waste production’. You have to factor that in to costs.
    But ethics? I don’t get it.

  2. Can’t watch the video from where I’m at but I’m sure the environMENTALISTS are working out some faux facts to counter Ezra as we speak. After all Mid-East BLOOD oil is far more ethical.

  3. ET,
    I think the ethics argument is relevant because the enviroleft has for so long said that we are doing “bad” things by extracting bitumen from the sands. The lefties attack the oilsands because it is an easy target, we won’t imprison them for lying about it. They call us evil for doing it.
    That’s why framing the argument from an ethics point of view is so brilliant. Yes, ethics doesn’t matter from a business point of view. But by framing the debate as “oil companies are evil” the left has allowed Ezra to definitively prove them wrong.

  4. Actually, ET, dumping waste (sewage, chemicals etc.) is substantially cheaper than disposing of it in a responsible or “ethical” manner. It is the reason why communist and third-world dictatorships are usually the most environmentally polluted. They cannot afford, or couldn’t be bothered, to clean up their industrial messes.

  5. The sense I had from the opposition to the oil sands premise, was that oil is evil period – end of story. His argument seemed to be that we should all be living on farms with our windmills, and that the sole reason oil is evil is because it is responsible for modern living – things like cities, travel, and shopping malls. His whole argument is that we should go back in time and that it is modern living that is evil. The oppositions argument was purely a nostalgic one. When you take away the string of subjective shock terms used by the opposition, he said nothing and had no counter argument.
    The opposition knew he lost the debate and needed to interject that Ezra was a “master debater” as a cover for not having a real argument to begin with.

  6. No-one
    The question women activists should be asking themselves is: where do I fit in this new/old world of “living on farms with our windmills”. Cook, clean and garden much? I suspect there will not be too many jobs in Human Resources on the farm eh?

  7. I don’t get the ethics theme either. If you purely judge oil sands on an objective, physical basis you’ll find that it’s a piss poor source for energy…it’s EROI is THE LOWEST of all energy sources at a max of 3:1…solar is 4-6 times more efficient.
    The real solution is to cut wastes by focusing on efficiency, to implement new, BETTER technology – especially building materials and transportation, and stop throwing billions of dollars to prop up an old energy technology – oil – and/or start supporting the advancement of new energy technology. One look at the names behind all the major funding of our Universities tells you much about how the world works.

  8. LC Bennett – no, my point is that good business practice can’t dump and pollute because, at some time, this has damaging economic results.
    If you pollute the waters, the food chain dies. If you pollute the air, the vegetation dies. If you pollute the soil, you can’t grow food. And so on. This is economically disastrous.
    So, short-sighted business is bad business because it doesn’t consider the economic effects of one’s production processes. The massive clean ups required for entrenched pollution are far greater than the costs of responsible industrialism.
    China is one of the most polluting economies on earth. This is having serious economic effects on its population, who are ridden with diseases from the polluted air, water, etc. You don’t drink the water in China, you wear masks, antibiotics are the medicine of choice for everything..and this is going to have its effects as well.

  9. BTJ: Oil isn’t just energy, its dense, transportable, stable and useful energy.
    For $60 worth of liquid fuel (gas) I can travel in comfort, at my own pace, with the people of my choosing 7 or 800 km’s.
    If it was just a mater of energy why don’t we just make solar or geothermal cars? Unless of course there’s more to it then that.

  10. The problem, ET, may be that the definition of good business practice is fuzzy. I would define it as the most cost efficient SOPs. Good business practice, then, involves maximizing production and minimizing cost. Therefore, I must still disagree with you reasoning. Pollution control is expensive, very expensive and has few benefits to the industry in terms of profit vs. cost.
    I doubt that the Chinese government cares about the health of their people?
    I doubt that the Chinese industries care about the damage?
    They may realize it is harmful but they don’t care – that is unethical.
    It wasn’t that long ago that most countries, Canada included, didn’t much care about dumping waste into the environment either, out of ignorance. Today you would find very few companies or employees that would knowingly pollute the environment. This is not just because they fear penalties but because of western are more environmentally aware and technologically savvy. They are more ethical and this feature is a product of western culture of “do no harm” (knowingly).

  11. Correction for a particularly bad sentence: This is not just because they fear penalties but because western businesses are more environmentally aware and technologically savvy.

  12. LC Bennett – I understand your comments, but I don’t think you get my point. I’m not being very clear.
    When I say that it is bad business to pollute because of the resultant costs to the soil, water, air…and food production, and health etc..I don’t mean for the ONE business that is doing the polluting. I’m looking at the broader societal and economic picture.
    Let’s say that one company pollutes a lake – great damage to the small business fishing industry in that region. Now, the one company may think it’s cheaper to not deal with the current expense of not-polluting, but, in the long run, with the loss of economic strength in the region (that loss of the fishing, and the concomitant loss of economic strength in surrounding businesses)…then, this harms that company and the society.
    Someone will have to pay to clean up. The company may find its corporate and capital and even personal taxes must increase because the govt cleans it up. The company may find that people can’t afford its products because taxes have gone up..and so on.
    I’m focusing on the economy as a network, a complex network, where what one business does..affects other businesses and economic systems.
    China may think that, in the short term, its economy will thrive. But in the long term, the damage done to the people and envt..will have economic results. Am I any clearer with this attempted explanation?

  13. You are correct, ET, that businesses will make decisions that result in lost profits in the short term because of long term consideration. Example: take a generating unit off-line due to operation problems. They lose profits in the short term but gain in preventing expensive maintenance costs in the longer-term. Good business practice.
    I have never seen an environmental control pay for itself in either the short term or long term.

  14. Andrew Nikiforuk is so emotionally invested in this issue that it seemed as though he was going to either cry tears or start shrieking in rage at times.
    Also, his entire position is dependent on the belief in AGW and the false idea that there are replacement energy sources.
    His claim that the current recession was caused by high oil prices is not only wacko, he doesn’t believe it himself.
    Oil is at 83.86 per bbl right now and he wants to slow development of the Alberta Oil Sands.
    Slowing development would slow the growth in production of energy and cause prices to climb to 2008 levels and beyond.
    It’s the law of supply and demand.

  15. I ‘get’ what you are saying, I just disagree. The delay between profits and the inevitable consequences of pollution are far enough apart that each business would not need to consider the long term effect of their pollution. History of industrial development shows this to be true. The only change is that through prosperity and knowledge we now value the environment and will spend money to protect it, despite its cost.

  16. Nikiforuk might have to get a job if he couldn’t make money crusading against people who already work for a living.
    I heard nothing from him that was not a distortion or based on BS. So where does that smug sob get off defining morality?
    For that matter just how is this any different from any other lefty activist agenda?
    They come out acting as if they hold the moral high ground on an issue by misrepresenting the underlying situation. Define their arguments and position as the only moral possibility and paint their detractors and opponents as defacto imoral, amoral, stupid or evil.
    It’s all in the lefty activist handbook.
    Shooting their non-fact based premises and arguments down is simple …. Ezra can do this day in and day out …. and the only people who are going to hear about it are you folks!
    Fun for us but a waste of time unless the mass media begins to act like adults (aint gonna happen) … or they are taken out of picture.
    If you see any bit of this in a mainstream outlet … it will portray Nikiforuk as an effin hero. He is nothing close to being moral or heroic.

  17. Maybe these folks that are concerned whether the oil is ethical or not should turn their unethical gas furnaces off for rest of the winter.

  18. “Maybe these folks that are concerned whether the oil is ethical or not should turn their unethical gas furnaces off for rest of the winter.”
    Agreed. The options do not exist for us up here.

  19. What is it with the leftards and their moral relativism?
    When people mention the “beacons of freedom” of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Iran, leftards get a sudden case of “where’s that?”.
    This is just another case of leftists practicing their surrender monkey routine. I’m sick and tired of this stupid, inane, and gutless strategy of the left.
    As Ezra said, go to Saudi, Iran or Sudan, and try to practice your divorce, your alternative lifestyle, or anything other than hardcore Islam, and you will beaten with stones, at best, or tortured to death at worst

  20. I know of no oil,gas or mining companies in this country that does not try to exceed all of the criteria. They will fight some legislation because it makes no sense but safety and pollution are two things the industries strive to be ahead of the game.
    It is not only in this country, Canadian companies try for Canadian standards in third world countries.
    It makes good business sense to do so. A po’d populace doesn’t make regulators happy.

  22. ET:
    “my point is that good business practice can’t dump and pollute because, at some time, this has damaging economic results.”
    How so? Here’s how it works…a company faces a choice between two actions. They can either follow regulations or not follow regulations and face a fine….the catch is it’s cheaper to not follow regulations and pay the fine than to front the bill to follow regulations. If you take a look at the fines given to large corporations over the past decade they are astronomical because everyone ignores regulation knowing that even if they are caught they’ve still saved money.
    duffman:
    “If it was just a mater of energy why don’t we just make solar or geothermal cars? Unless of course there’s more to it then that.”
    Because oil and gas has received MASSIVE amounts of funding (subsidies, research, etc) for decades.
    You never approached the subject of EROI, which is horrible in the case of the oil sands.
    A better debate happened in Vancouver between Ezra Levant and Ben West…Ben kept things in the realm of logic and away from emotions…Ezra is narrow minded in his approach and avoids direct confrontation on anything that threatens his assumptions.

  23. I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of liberals have “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” which is characterized by opposing anything and everything despite the legitimacy of the idea/suggestion put forward and regardless of how it is presented. Those with ODD will oppose ideas and suggetions that are good for them, and/or would be to their benefit simply because they get a “rush” from being oppositional. They are compulsive opposition addicts.

  24. Because oil and gas has received MASSIVE amounts of funding (subsidies, research, etc) for decades.
    So you’re all bent out of shape because people spent money to make a useful source of energy even more useful and efficient? What kind of argument is that? “Alternative” energy exists solely on the backs of RIDICULOUS amounts of subsidies, and isn’t exactly underfunded in research either, so I guess you’ll be pulling your support of those?
    I notice you never approached the subject of energy density, a key factor in explaining oil’s dominance of and unmatched utility in transportation. EROI is hardly the only metric by which to measure an energy source’s utility. If you convert energy into a more useful form, and more importantly can do so at a reasonable cost, as the the oil sands essentially do, then you’re ahead of the game. Well, society is. You personally will still be ignoring the insurmountable obstacles of unreliability and crippling expense virtually every “alternative” energy source demands.

  25. Ezra handled himself very professionally in this debate (he doesn’t always, he lets his temper get in the way) because I suspect he was well prepared for this dolt. Plus he was in friendly territory.
    (unless he was in Edmonton)

  26. Nikiforuk seems so bitter. Like he knows he’s losing the debate, yet has no choice but to continue.
    Ezra’s brilliance is that he’s using liberal arguments in support of tarsands oil. Environment, social justice, peace, minority rights. Like Jiu-Jitsu techniques for debaters. They can`t win.

  27. I wish that I had the easy demeanor of Ezra. He seems so non-threatening as he shreds his opponents with a childish smile; a true artist!

  28. Watched the May interaction/trainwreck. She as per usual couldn’t stay on topic. If she was Columbus she’d have discovered Liverpool!
    What a douche.

  29. Ethical Oil! What about Unethical Science/EPA ?
    The AGW theory “was” an International Fraud…. In the US Senate hearing last week the Chairman (Democrat) defended the data manipulation & sloppy research, by the Scientists, as not reaching the threshold level of fraud.. but he used the word “Fraud” more than 5 times…Those that push this turkey will get a lesson…

  30. BTJ: wtr to EROI, I choose to ignore it because it is not a good measure of usefulness, not all energy is created equal. The price of something is a direct measure of its value (in fact its the very definition of its value), on a per energy basis oil is more valuable then natural gas. (by 2 to 3 times)
    While you’re tossing around EROI, ever look at the EROI of electrical generation from Natural gas? The laws of thermodynamics makes it less then 1, yet what keeps the power on at night or when the wind doesn’t blow?
    you are correct the oilsands does have a low EROI, but as the output more useful then the input there is net gain. Turning 1 unit of natural gas energy into 3 units of crude oil makes a lot of sense (and dollars).
    If natural gas was as useful as gasoline on a per unit energy basis they would be priced the same on a per unit of energy basis.
    lets say EROI is 3, a BOE is roughly 6 units of gas. so we need 2 units of gas to produce 1 barrel of oil. At $5 for gas and $80/bbl for oil, only a fool would see not all energy is equal.
    Turning $10 worth of gas into $80 worth of oil just makes sense.
    If it was as simple as BTU’s I should just be able to run my car on grass clippings and unicorn farts.

  31. Indiana Homez at 5:32 PM: “The question women activists should be asking themselves is: where do I fit in this new/old world of “living on farms with our windmills”. Cook, clean and garden much? I suspect there will not be too many jobs in Human Resources on the farm eh?”
    ============
    If my mother was still alive, they could ask her. I remember the amount of work she used to do and it makes me exhausted just thinking about it. We didn’t get electricity or running water in the old farm house until I was nine or ten years old. By that time, she had five kids, fed mostly thanks to her back breaking labour in the garden and kitchen.
    I remember laundry day, with piles of soiled diapers on the kitchen table. (Sorry for the unpleasant imagery, but that’s what life was like.) The washing machine had to be refilled several times with water from the well boiled on the stove. ALL the clothes had to be ironed, using those old heavy “iron” irons warmed up on the stove.
    I don’t remember if that was the day before or the day after baking day, when the same table would be covered with fresh out of the oven loaves of bread and buns and tons of other stuff, but hopefully it was after. And the raw milk and cream and home churned butter was stored in the well, along side the lizards and ugly beetles.
    And we all survived!
    Oh. And did I tell you about the Saturday night bath? Who got the clean water and who didn’t? There’s no way I would want to return to that sort of lifestyle.

  32. Andrew said that oil at 147 bucks a barrel caused the US recession and banking crisis. So is he saying that slowing down oilsands development will lower oil prices? The guy’s “arguments” are incoherent and delusional. I doubt he’ll be sitting down to debate Ezra again. Nice to see a greeny squirm when a little light is shone on their ideas.

  33. They can’t take the high road anymore. The self righteous mucus has been shown for the slim it is. The Moral camouflage has been removed. Ezra is a genius.
    JMO

  34. Hits in 18 days before being linked by SDA = 970
    Hits in 2 days after being linked by SDA = 695
    It’s like watching Monty Pythons’ King Arthur vs. the Black Knight…

  35. Which is more ethical, buying oil from the oil sands where there are no human rights violations,and it’s relatively clean, or buying oil from thuggish dictators who export terrorism and trample on human rights and the environment?
    From the consumer’s point of veiw buying oil from the oil sands producers looks a lot more ethical than buying it from thugs and dictators.
    Ezra is looking at it from the liberal consumer’s point of view.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation