The BP Oil Spill Winners

Beach crews aren't the only people cleaning up after the Deepwater disaster.

BY CHARLES HOMANS | JUNE 25, 2010

CANADIANS

Are you a politically stable country with untapped oil reserves that won't soon be trapped behind a daunting web of post-spill moratoriums and regulations? If so, the world's energy companies would like to have a word with you. Expect newfound interest in Australia's offshore oil reserves, for instance.

But the big winner here is Canada, whose oil reserves, mainly in the form of Alberta's gargantuan oil sand deposits, are the second largest in the world behind Saudi Arabia's. Extracting crude from oil sands -- a process that combines the kid-glove delicacy of oil drilling with the subtle artistry of strip-mining -- is the most pollution-intensive and expensive way to get oil out of the ground, a grueling endeavor that levels forests and leaves toxic runoff in its wake. But Canada's oil sands are anticipated to become the largest source of U.S. oil imports this year anyway -- and since the BP spill, Canadian boosters have been busy talking up Alberta oil as a safer, cleaner alternative to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. On a diplomatic visit to Washington in May, Jim Prentice, the Canadian environmental minister, claimed that the hazards of oil-sands production were "probably less than the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling."

 

Plenty of people have thrown cold water on this notion -- environmentally minded investment groups and oilfield service company executives have both pointed out that oil sands will hardly be immune to the newly skittish regulatory and investment climate surrounding post-BP oil drilling, and Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has made political hay of opposing the expansion of Canada's oil-shipment infrastructure since the BP spill.

But it's more likely that oil-sands operators will benefit from the newfound apocalypticism in the world's view of petroleum: the understanding that for even the safest-seeming sources of oil, all bets are off. "After enduring years of criticism for safety and environmental risks, the oil sands players are deriving quiet solace from the [BP] spill, as observers realize the challenges inherent in developing new oil sources whether on or offshore," Citigroup Capital Markets analyst Robert Morris told Canada's Financial Post this week.

MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

 

Charles Homans is associate editor at FP.

PUMPGUY

7:39 AM ET

June 29, 2010

Oil sands

Your article is misleading at best, and filled with erroneous information.
The oil sands are, it is true, more energy intensive in terms of extraction that light, sweet crude that just bubbles up out of the ground. Nevertheless the best estimates are that extraction is only about 10% more energy intensive than this light crude. That's not a lot.

The use of phraseology such as "strip mining" ;"levels forests" and "leaves toxic runoff in its wake" are prejudicial and clearly not based on fact. Having been there to study the location first hand the efforts at reclamation are extensive and there are large tracts of pristine forest that supports wildlife and that are located where the mine USED to be. The money spent on minimizing the environmental impact are leagues ahead of what is done in many other oil producing states.

Please; stay away from the hyperbole and report on the facts.

To those who complain about the oil sands without having ever been there, the moment you burn that gas in your car you're contributing significantly more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere that was contributed in extracting or producing a thousand barrels of crude.

 

BLEEYARGH

9:28 AM ET

June 29, 2010

Ridiculous.

Canadians do not benefit from selling oil to America rather than to anyone else-- in any case, the distribution of wealth therefrom, as the author clearly fails to understand, is largely province- (state-) concentrated. As well claim that people in Ohio benefitted from Lousiana and Texas oil.

Only the most foolish and politically oriented environmentalists would feel benefit from BP's bungling. The rest, no doubt, feel that the damage to the environment outweighs the rather temporary benefit of having some new people listen to them. If security vigilance has not remained high since 2001, how much of this so-called "winning" will stay in Greenpeace's pocket?

Inconsistent, ill-thought out nonsense.

 

MKPANDEYA

4:53 PM ET

June 29, 2010

Winners indeed

The part on the lawyers was an eyeopener. Interesting to note how the big firms prepare so well when it comes to saving their own ass.... .but when it comes to being prepared for emergencies and avoiding accidents, look how lost they are...

 

BANGPRESS

12:07 AM ET

June 30, 2010

Great

Thanks.

 

TRAXTON

1:02 PM ET

July 1, 2010

My favorite part

Is the TK on page 4. It cracked me up.

 

R5R6

4:37 AM ET

July 5, 2010

more winners

The article didn't finish. A very important winner not included into the list is the journalists. Although they make themselves as heartbroken as anyone else, the disaster for others is like a gold mine for them! They are competing to take this as an opportunity to attract eyeballs.

 

ZARA454

11:04 AM ET

July 26, 2010

The use of phraseology such

The use of phraseology such as "strip mining" ;"levels forests" and "leaves toxic runoff in its wake" are prejudicial and clearly not based on fact. Having been there to study the location first hand the efforts at reclamation are extensive and there are large tracts of pristine forest that supports wildlife and that are located where the mine USED to be. The money spent on minimizing the environmental impact are leagues ahead of what is done in many other oil producing states.
lupus symptoms