Alberta
Demian Newman pens second open Letter to fellow Canadians
We give a lot of credit to Demian Newman in his ongoing attempts to bring reasonable discussion to the pipeline debate. In this most recent opinion piece, he links to a lot of different sources of information to support his argument. Take the time to read this article as well as the opposing POV written by Mike Sawyer, linked at the end of this story.
Read Demian’s first Open Letter by clicking this graphic: 
Here’s Demian’s second Open Letter:
Dear fellow Canadians,
In my original Open Letter, I had a very simple and basic premise; I do not believe shutting down Canada’s oil and gas industry will help the environment or climate change. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe it would have the adverse effect.
Over 200,000 people have read my opinion piece, and a lot have left very positive comments. But there have also been some opposing viewpoints. Which is good, because I wanted to start a conversation. With that in mind, I have summarized all the opposing comments below, with a response to each (minus the personal attacks…which I quickly dismissed).
Before we dive into all the comments concerned with my original letter, I would just like to summarize again; that Canada’s oil and gas industry putting up an OUT OF BUSINESS sign today, will not help Canada, or the planet, on any environmental level. Because, 1) you (and I), will not change our energy consumption. 2) that energy will simply be provided by another country, which does not have the same environmental regulations and standards to extract and sell their natural resources as Canada does.
If you’re protesting Canada’s industry because you’re fighting climate change, then I need to remind you that this is a worldwide issue, not a just a Canadian one. So, if that’s your intention, then you need to use your efforts to make worldwide change. Not just suffocate Canada’s industry.
If you’re already getting fired up that I’m not getting to the Q&A conversation, I promise I heard them all. But I don’t think a lot of people heard me before commenting on my first letter. And a lot of those voices were coming from a city that I absolutely love, but is obviously on a very different page regarding Canada’s oil and gas industry than me.
So, to my friends in Vancouver; I should’ve focused a bit more on the project which has been such a bone of contention for you – The Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion. And I’m not going dive that deep into this, as again, the basis of this letter was a conversation with everyone from my first letter. But I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up that your former Mayor, Greg Robertson was vehemently opposed to a Canadian pipeline (the TMX), but last June signed a $150M pipeline deal to get the ever-expanding Vancouver airport jet fuel – from the state of Washington.
This is the part where I’m left scratching my head again, as Mr. Robertson fights against a Canadian pipeline, saying “it’s not worth the risk. In fact, it’s not in Canada’s interest”. How is a pipeline from the state of Washington, instead of Canada, in Canada’s best interest?
I’d dive into the hypocrisy of Mr. Robertson blasting Canada’s oil and gas industry, by saying that the TMX would put “people and the environment are at risk”, but a pipeline direct to the Vancouver airport from the state of Washington, is apparently no issue. However, I will refrain, as I like to travel. And though commercial airline travel certainly isn’t the best for the environment, I do believe that Canada’s airlines/airports are doing everything to be a world leader in reducing their environmental footprint – because I’d expect nothing less of a Canadian industry.
To use an analogy, I didn’t have a chance to in my first letter; I do believe Canadians protesting Canada’s oil and gas industry would be the equivalent of Canadians boycotting Westjet and Air Canada, but still going on the same holidays – just using international airlines instead. This idea is obviously ridiculous, as no one could believe this would help the environment on any level.
But then there are protesters all over the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, but not one to be found fighting against the 4000 tankers bringing imported oil to Canada each year. Again, it’s head scratching.
I do think to understand why it’s happening, we need to have a cross-Canada conversation.
So, below are all the opposing opinions from my original letter (and I do apologize if I missed any, as I did try and summarize all of them). I’ve done this in a Q&A format, with the Opposing Comments (summarized) and then My Opinion. And it is only my opinion, and I’m sure someone else can give a much better reply, should they want to keep this conversation going…
Opposing Comments:
I received a lot of similar comments, that there’s no point in investing in a dying industry with no future.
My Opinion:
If you’re referring to no future based on worldwide oil reserves? The math on “Proven Reserves” is pretty straight forward, and everything you look up has it at 50ish years. This is based on today’s technology, and when you consider how far technology has come in the past 10–15yrs the opinions get pretty varied on how long the 50 years extends into. As this technology makes producing the “Probable Reserves” and “Possible Reserves” more likely by the day.
Without getting pulled down on this, I hope we can agree that fossil fuels aren’t running out any time soon – but aren’t a “forever solution”. So, we do need to find energy from multiple sources.
Opposing Comments:
It’s not a dying industry, it’s a dead industry. It’s the Model-T to the horse and buggy, Netlfix to Blockbuster video, or the Internet to traditional media.
My opinion:
I’m sorry, but if fossil fuel energy was a dead industry – then it’d be dead. But absolutely every economist is saying that fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase worldwide each year. I don’t have to copy a link for this, as you can find Google results by the hundreds for factual data. And it’s not hopeful data, but factual based estimates which provide information that every country, Fortune 500 company, bank, etc is listening too, while investing for the future.
At the bottom there is a link to an Energy Minute video, which does a great job explaining that the decrease in oil used by Canada between now and 2040 is more than offset by the increase use from developing nations. I’ve also again added Chris Slubicki’s video link (below) to this, as there’s a big portion of his presentation that explains this (and everything) much better than I ever could.
Opposing Comments:
A lot of people asked for proof that Canada is a world leader in oil and gas environmental standards.
My opinion:
The one thing I realized after my original letter, is that I’ve done a terrible job archiving everything I’ve read/watched/heard over the years, which drove the opinion for my first letter. So, if I could ask anyone for the stats on Canada versus the world on environmental standards in this industry, that’d be great. I know I’ve read hundreds of positive articles over the years (maybe more).
However, I have included the very public list of oil producing countries flaring gas in a link below (billions of cubic meters of gas which releases CO2 into the atmosphere). Canada ranks 22nd for the gas our industry emits (typically methane, ethane, butane, propane and hydrogen sulfide). I’m reading that as extremely positive, since we’re 7th in oil production over that time (2013-2017). Our 1.3 bcms pales in comparison to Russia (19.9) Iraq (17.8), Iran (17.7), or the USA (9.5). And don’t get me started on Nigeria who flared 7.6 bcms, which is more than 5 times the gas Canada flares, even though we produce almost twice as much oil.
I also included another link below of an interesting article this past month, where we have the least political corruption of any country involved in the oil and gas industry. Which is kind of funny, as I don’t think any Canadian would be surprised by that.
Opposing opinions:
Even though I didn’t mention the TMX pipeline in my original letter, I had numerous people say they were for Energy East and BC LNG, but dead-set against TMX – because of the certainty (as in absolute certainty) that there will be a tanker spill in the Vancouver harbor. And it could threaten the Orca population.
My opinion:
I agree. It might surprise people (but I really hope it doesn’t) that I also don’t want an oil tanker spill, nor do I want those tankers to endanger a single killer whale. And now that the feds bought TMX last summer (which is a whole other letter for another day), and EVERY CANADIAN is officially a pipeline company owner, I do think we should take these concerns seriously.
Current info will tell you that the TMX being built would increase tanker traffic off the coast of BC by 6.6.%. Certainly not a huge percentage. I also understand that any increase needs to be measured against its environmental impact.
The National Energy Board (NEB) just came out last Friday, that they want the creation of the marine mammal protection program in response to the TMX. So, it’s good to see the NEB doing its job as a 3rd party nonpartisan review board on international and inter-provincial aspects of the oil, gas industry – which certainly doesn’t need to be removed as per bill C-69 (again, another topic for another letter).
Also, for the spills, I did see the plans for the (I believe quadrupled) emergency response program for tanker issues, because of the 6.6% additional TMX tanker traffic. Which was followed up with how incredibly unlikely an event like this would be, as the tankers are handled with tug boats until they hit open water.
What is easily accessible on Google are the stats on tanker spills (below). Worldwide it’s been 2 large tanker spills (700+ tonnes) since 2010. I also believe that two is, two too many – which is why I believe the Canadian industry will add a ton of safeguards over and above worldwide standards (like they do with their pipelines).
Speaking of, there is still nowhere near the Canada wide education on pipelines and the Canadian environmental standards for safe construction and maintenance of them. As somehow a record of 99.9995% pipelines with zero issues in Canada isn’t good enough. Neither is the fact that Canadian pipelines rate of spills were 57 per cent lower than in Europe and 60 per cent lower than in the United States over the past decade.
I understand that it should be 100%. But honestly, what is?
Opposing opinions:
Many in BC are upset as they are viewed as a mere obstacle for Alberta to get their oil to market. When Alberta gains all the benefit financially.
My opinion:
Federal and provincial governments will see $46.7 billion in additional taxes and royalties from construction and 20 years of operation. At the point, where a CANADIAN OWNED pipeline is making Canada billions, why as a Canadian who wants green energy vs fossil fuels, wouldn’t you demand your current government use that money to research and develop this green/clean tech. Seems like a win-win…with some compromises. But every reasonable solution requires compromise.
Opposing Comments:
The romance of the electric car saving everything. And there are a lot of Canadians with this idea.
My opinion:
I can’t underscore my confusion on how the electric car has been so romanticized.
I completely understand the low emission side of the argument. But I’m shocked at how many people stop there, as if the electric car is “an environmental mic drop moment”, and don’t look any further. I think the video on the Energy Minute website does a fantastic job of both the pros and cons of the electric car (link below). But I also couldn’t help but include a link regarding on of the concerns on the batteries (also below).
Opposing opinion:
Not super surprising that I received lots of anti Oilsands “tarsands” “dirtyoil” comments, where Fort Mac got slammed pretty hard.
My opinion:
I included a few examples in my original letter about Oilsands GHG emissions dropping 29% since 2000 and a barrel of oil from there being a smaller carbon footprint than that of a barrel from California. But it fell on deaf ears.
So, this part of my letter isn’t for those you oppose the Oilsands, but instead is for those companies working in Canada’s Oilsands. It’s time to spend millions on a cross-Canada public relations campaign for this industry. And don’t tell Canadians how many jobs it creates. Cause I’ve heard from Canadians – and they don’t care.
Its time promote the thousands of real stories, where Canadian oil and gas projects cost so much more because of the extra time and effort needed to do them in the safest and most environmentally responsible way possible. Show Canadians what Fort Mac was before; unusable farmland with oil literally bubbling up through the ground. Show them what I’ve seen, that the reclamation efforts after the oil is extracted and the area is returned to a lush green forested area, where people would be shocked that oil and gas wells used to be there.
Perhaps we also need to get Canadians angry, and show them how they’ve been manipulated by groups like The Rockefeller group (article below) to demonize the Canadian Oilsands for their financial benefit.
Opposing Comments:
Who cares if protesters are paid? Doesn’t mean they don’t believe in their cause.
My Opinion:
I feel really bad that there are Canadians who’ve spent an enormous amount of time and effort at these protests and rallies, thinking they were trying to benefit the world. When they were actually helping line the pockets of billionaires. It makes me angry.
I hope they all look into it. And it makes them angry.
Protesting a Canadian pipeline based on saving the environment, probably wasn’t funded by environment loving humanitarians. But instead funded by a corporation with this in their Corporate Guidance: From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines (taken from the Vivian Krause interview link below).
Again, I’d be mad.
Last and my favorite Opposing Comments:
That I’m a millionaire lobbyist for Canada’s Oil and Gas industry.
My reality
I wish! That sounds fantastic!
But alas, I’m just your run of the mill sales guy.
I absolutely benefit financially from a booming oil and gas industry. And I was frustrated by this downturn hitting me financially, but not enough to type out these massive rants. These are 100% based on Canadians working together for an oil and gas industry we should all be proud of; as the best, safest, and most environmentally friendly in the world. As anything less would be un-Canadian.
Again, I’m Demian Newman. And I’m shocked so many people read my last rant. And even more so, if you made it through this epically long one.
Links to articles I’ve mentioned above:
Worldwide future of oil (This is a brand-new website, which can only grow through donations. And both sides of this debate hopefully want a no-partisan website which has no agenda other than educating everyone on the facts of energy. So, I’ve donated in hopes they grow this site, and I hope you do as well):
https://energyminute.ca/video/83/oil-what-does-the-future-look-like
The electric car:
https://energyminute.ca/video/76/the-electric-car
Vivian Krause interviews:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/vivian-krause-tar-sands-campaign-canada-oil-1.4895487
Counties flaring gas:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/gasflaringreduction#7
Canadian’s being manipulated by groups like The Rockefeller group:
Creation of the marine mammal protection program:
https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/1/neb-wants-trans-mountain-marine-protection-program/
Chris Slubicki Youtube video:
Oil tanker stats:
Ranking Canada’s oil industry on corruption:
35,000 children in Congo’s mines (related to electric car, and all batteries):
Here is a link to a story that includes Demian’s first Open Letter, and a response from Mike Sawyer. 
Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association
Dear Dr. Duggan,
I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.
I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.
You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?
Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?
Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.
You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”
As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.
As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.
It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.
You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.
What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.
Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?
If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?
As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?
You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”
When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?
Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.
Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning “consensus.”
The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?
The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?
In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.
Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.
If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.
I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.
Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.
Yours sincerely,
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Paul Wells interviews Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
It’s beginning to look a lot like statehood: Danielle Smith and more on the pod
Here’s Justin Trudeau, urging Pierre Poilievre to declare whether he stands with Canada or with “Danielle Smith, Kevin O’Leary, and ultimately, Donald Trump.” The great thing about a wedge is it can always do more wedging. Meanwhile Danielle Smith is still the premier of Alberta and she’s my first guest this week.
At one point in our interview — which makes Smith the third consecutive Alberta premier to appear on this podcast, so don’t be shy, François Legault — Smith says she asked Trump at Mar-a-Lago whether he’d like to buy more Alberta oil. We’re coming off a truly weird couple of weeks when people were falling over themselves to call Smith a traitor or sellout for that kind of talk. Which is odd for several reasons, including this: as my guest from two weeks ago, former US ambassador David L. Cohen, pointed out, Alberta already sells immense amounts of oil into the American market. So it’s not some deranged fantasy to imagine it might sell more.
I never liked the “Team Canada” talk that swept through this country like a bad fashion trend after Trump tweeted his threat of 25% blanket tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports. I kind of don’t care who’s offside that sort of coerced and silly unanimity, or for what reasons: it will always be somebody, and the social capital you burn up in a futile attempt to enforce the party line will be a terrible, stupid waste. Kids, ask your parents about the Charlottetown Accord referendum. That it turned out this time to be the premier of the province with by far the most to lose from some counter-tariffs or, especially, from an oil export ban should not have been a big shocker. The party-line approach is also a strange response. There’s no Team America. Donald Trump will be challenged in court for everything he does for the rest of his time in office, often by state governors, and encouraging those natural divisions among our American friends makes more sense than forbidding natural divisions at home.
This may have something to do with why Louis St. Laurent, in his 1947 Gray Lecture, named national unity as the paramount value in Canadian foreign policy, ahead of liberty and the rule of law. “No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect,” he said, in one of the most enthusiastically ignored lessons in Canadian political history.
As it turns out, I think the air was already going out of the Team Canada balloon before Smith joined me on a Zoom call. Voices have been piping up, including economist Trevor Tombe on David Herle’s podcast, warning about substantial permanent economic cost in exchange for not much political gain.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear where I stand on all this. Smith makes herself pretty clear too.
Subscribe to Paul Wells.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
I added a second guest because I knew my time with Smith would be finite, and because we have so much to talk about these days. My second guest is Amy Greenberg, who’s one of the leading historians of the antebellum United States (1800-1860, the period leading up to the Civil War.)
She’s a former Guggenheim Fellow, an award-winning teacher, and the author of five books, many of which grapple with the notion of manifest destiny — the idea that the United States, as a historic vanguard of liberty, must keep growing until it filled a continent.
Manifest destiny is a founding American myth, a uniquely powerful intersection of messianism and acreage. You know who’d have a feeling for that sort of thing? A real estate man from Queen’s. But Greenberg, understandably, was reluctant to analyze anything Trump might be up to. She’s happy to stick to what she knows, but that’s fascinating enough: American expansionism as a project of zealots, but also of scoundrels eager for a distraction. The idea of annexing Texas, which became the Mexican-American War and thus the topic of Greenberg’s most prominent book, occurred to the hapless accidental President John Tyler while he was facing impeachment and after the Whigs’ congressional wing had kicked him out of the party. And as she points out in an earlier book with the intriguing title Manifest Manhood, the expansionist impulse is also an expression of a certain idea of robust and aggressive masculinity. Just remember, she’s not talking about Donald Trump.
You can listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts and a bunch of other platforms via the “Listen On” button that you can see at the top of this post when you view it on your desktop browser. If you listen on a podcast platform, hit “Like” and “Subscribe” buttons, and leave a good review, to help spread the word.
You can read a (machine-generated) transcript of this week’s episode via the “Transcript” button at the top of this page when you view it on your desktop browser.
I am grateful to be the Max Bell Foundation Senior Fellow at McGill University, the principal patron of this podcast. Antica Productions turns these interviews into a podcast every week. Kevin Breit wrote and performed the theme music. Andy Milne plays it on piano at the end of each episode. Thanks to all of them and to you. Please tell your friends to subscribe to The Paul Wells Show on their favourite podcast app, or here on the newsletter.
Subscribe to Paul Wells.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
Trump Takes Over and Implements Communication Freeze at HHS, CDC, and NIH
Jaw-Dropping Number Of Inmates In Women’s Prisons Are Actually Men
World Economic Forum pushes digital globalism that would merge the ‘online and offline’
-
Alberta2 days agoUCP Calgary-Lougheed riding calls for response to the Dr. Gary Davidson COVID 19 Task Force Review
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoEveryone is freaking out over DeepSeek. Here’s why
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day agoDeepSeek: The Rise of China’s Open-Source AI Amid US Regulatory Shifts and Privacy Concerns
-
Economy1 day agoNewly discovered business case for Canadian energy could unleash economic boom
-
AlbertaCOVID-19Review2 days agoThe Alberta Medical Association doubles down on COVID-19 Pandemic response
-
Business2 days agoInstead of competing, Ontario’s Ford plans to spend billions to stimulate growth
-
espionage1 day agoDemocracy Betrayed, The Scathing Truth Behind Canada’s Foreign Interference Report
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta health ministry to ‘consider’ report calling for end to COVID shots for healthy kids