*Should we be at all concerned that a previous report by IHS CERA on "
The Role of Canadian Oil Sands in US Oil Supply" claimed "to offer an independent assessment of the potential role of Canadian oil sands in future US oil supply," yet has a list of "report participants and reviewers" that includes almost exclusively those with vested interests in developing Canadian tar sands (e.g., the Alberta Department of Energy, the American Petroleum Institute, the Canadian Oil Sands Trust, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy, Marathon, Statoil Canada, Suncor, and TransCanada itself)?
*Should the fact that IHS CERA runs what it calls the "
Canadian Oil Sands Energy Dialogue" comprised heavily of those same tar sands and fossil fuel interests, and which holds regular meetings of "oil sands stakeholders," some of whom even get to review "draft versions" of their reports, add to our concerns?
*Is there any good reason for IHS CERA to be so opaque regarding who funds their tar sands "research" and reports?
*With regard to the previous three bullet points, is there any connection between the overwhelmingly pro-tar-sands slant of the report's participants and its conclusion, which is that tar sands (it euphemistically likes to call them "oil sands") development is a great thing that should be encouraged, even subsidized/supported by government, and that it does "not have to be at odds with the environment?"
*In short, is it all a mere coincidence that IHS CERA - the same outfit that has
churned out a long series of reportsabout how Keystone will deliver energy security, lower gasoline prices, more jobs, etc. - has now come out with a new report, by the same "analysts," yet again concluding (surprise!) that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have an adverse environmental impact, at least with regard to greenhouse gas emissions?
*Does the fact that the lead authors of the report, Jackie Forrest and Aaron Brady, have been long-time oil industry consultants - in Forrest's case, specializing in tar sands and refining - affect the conclusions of their report in any way? Also, why is it that the authors' full bios are not included in their latest report?
*Are the IHS CERA folks being just a wee bit too optimistic on the prospects for rail transport of tar sands exports, especially given the recent oil train disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 50 people?
*Finally, does there appear to be an odd, internal, logical contradiction in this latest IHS CERA report? On the one hand, Canadian and other tar sands interests have been pushing hard for the Keystone XL pipeline, arguing that it's essential for development of Canadian tar sands resources. Yet now, those same folks are basically saying, forget all that, it doesn't really matter whether Keystone XL is built or not, the tar sands will be developed regardless (and thus, their conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions or tar sands output). Odd.
We eagerly await a response to our questions (but are not holding our breath) from IHS CERA.