Tonight I sat in on “public consultations” on development of Alberta’s oilsands. These oilsands, located principally in northeastern Alberta, hold some 180 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and maybe as many as 315 billion barrels altogether. This makes Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. However, as the Economist reported in its December 2005 survey of Canada, these oilsands reserves are “hardly cheap or clean oil, of the sort that gushes obligingly out of the Saudi desert. Separating oil from the sands requires expensive technology and consumes a lot of energy and fresh water.” Although I haven’t yet been up to Fort McMurray, basecamp for most of the oilsands development, my understanding is that it’s something to see. Again, the Economist: “The little town is busting at the seams, and the sheer scale of the mining operations around it makes jaws drop. From horizon to horizon, diggers and dumpers, on wheels or tracks, are clawing away topsoil and carting off the black, bitumen-enriched deposits beneath.” And beyond Fort Mac, the whole damn province is exploding; there isn’t really any place to live even if you’ve got the money, and in a whole month in Edmonton I don’t think I’ve seen more than a couple retail windows not hanging a desparate “help wanted” sign.

The Government of Alberta has formed what it calls a Multi-Stakeholder Committee to develop oilsands policy recommendations based on public input solicited via a series of public hearings (or what Canadians seem to call public consultations) in various parts of the province. Despite some asking around, plus some internet research, I can’t say whether this Multi-Stakeholder Committee is actually viewed on the street as multi-stakeholder. It’s got representatives from Alberta’s provincial government, Alberta local governments, Canada’s federal government, First Nations and Métis, and the oil industry and environmental lobby; I do know that the Alberta Federation of Labour, which is calling for caution on oilsands development, has tried but failed to get a representative on the committee. Furthermore, I don’t know if these public consultations, or this committee more generally, will have any real influence on policy. As an American-raised cynic, I have a hard time believing that a committee where a local school district trustee gets to participate would have any say about a multibillion dollar oil reserve situated just 500 miles from the most powerful country in history.

What did the public have to say? The committee’s hearings in Edmonton span both today and tomorrow, and I just attended one public comment session of four, so I may not have gotten a reliable reading of the Edmontonian pulse re: the oilsands. But for what it’s worth I can report that there were about 35 people there, and only four of them spoke (two on behalf of organizations—Hands Off Venezuela and the Sierra Club of Canada—and two on behalf of their own concerned selves). All strongly urged caution and indeed three called for a moratorium on development to await further study of environmental and public health impacts. Again, my American brain tells me that the real policymaking is not being done anywhere near these consultations or any member of this committee. And, especially considering that the concerned public can only muster a small gaggle of attendees from a city of close to one million to a meeting on what’s among the biggest issues for the future of North America, I suspect I’m right.