So it turns out that that feeling of ears-burning during Super Bowl wasn’t because I failed to predict the completely preposterous, epic comeback win by the Patriots, although that was kind of embarrassing and I lost a lunch bet on it.

What actually caused this was that it appears people were talking about me, which always makes me nervous. Apparently I was briefly in the crosshairs in informal discussion amongst friends that centered around where my politics lay (for the record, socially liberal, fiscally conservative – is that even a thing anymore?), but then apparently the discussion turned to where do I stand on the “environment” which of course is a loaded question, even if it wasn’t intended that way.

After being informed about this, I attempted to answer the question with a series of texts but the subject matter was interesting enough and caused sufficient introspection that it seemed worthwhile to explore it here. Warning – this may descend into rant territory…

What do I think of the environment and what does the question even mean? Is it a straw man question about CO2 and climate change (it pretty much always is) or is it a question about what do I think of the environment in the context of the industry that provides my livelihood which, according to widely held public perception, is anathema to any and all things green, clean and environmental. Just to be clear, I’m talking about oil and gas here, not the sneaky conniving world of finance and M&A. Pretty different questions obviously.

First and foremost, let’s be absolutely clear – unless you think Mr. Burns from the Simpsons is a real person, no one in their right mind is really “against the environment”.

For me, I like the environment, some of my best friends are environmentalists. I have myself on occasion been known to partake in such activities as hiking, looking at flowers and otherwise naturing.

As Canadians, we are blessed with unparalleled abundant and unspoiled natural endowments, albeit under pressure from industrial development, resource extraction and, to a certain extent, rapid urbanization. That said, we Canadians, or so we are told, often take nature and the environment for granted because there is so much of it. Or do we?

Seriously, sustaining and maintaining the environment is a fundamental part of our quality of life as Canadians – it’s part of what we sell to the world. But we have to be mindful that the society we live in, the national wealth we continue to build and the quality of life we enjoy is born of this abundance and depends to a large extent on the exploitation of these resources.

With this in mind and bringing it down to the industry context, I guess I would say that I am an environmental pragmatist. This is driven by an acknowledgement that the privileged lifestyle that I and my family and friends and most of the rest of us in North America enjoy is due in very large part to an ability to harness cheap, abundant energy to light homes and businesses, power factories, energize transportation, reduce the cost of goods and services and invigorate the production of affordable food. The other side of this equation, for me, and really in the regulatory environment we operate in, is a necessary respect for the environment that allows this to exist, the bounty that Canada has to offer in terms of raw material and different sources of energy – fossil or renewable and the trade-off that development of this bounty must at the same time protect it. Thus, from an industry perspective, the environment must of necessity be a critical element in the thinking of oil and gas companies and the service companies that work for them, both as a regulatory consideration as well as a stewardship and stakeholder perspective as people who live, work and breathe in the communities where these resources are extracted.

It should be noted that Canada has some of the most stringent regulations on oil and gas development in the world – don’t ask me, ask the burrowing owl or the migrating pigmy butterfly or whichever bit of wildlife is the latest to stop and force the rescheduling of major multi-million to billion dollar projects.

For these reasons I am pro fossil fuel development, pro pipeline, pro regulation, pro environment and pro renewables. When some years ago Obama said “all of the above” about US energy strategy, it was a catchy slogan, but the reason it’s catchy is because it happens to be the right way to go. We can have sustainable development of fossil fuels and a commitment to renewables and a desire to preserve the environment all at the same time – I don’t see it as a contradiction.

Consider pipelines. Pipelines are the safest, most efficient and most environmentally responsible way to ship oil and gas across the continent. That there is even a debate about this is preposterous when you consider the alternatives – rail (boom), barge (spill) or truck (really?). In a world where fossil fuel usage is going to grow for the foreseeable future (and it is), blocking or denying building, replacing or upgrading these projects strikes me as short-sighted and foolish. I look at the protestors and I wonder what their motivations are and how much they actually know about what they are protesting aside from cozy slogans.

It seems that all too often, protestors are either protesting the wrong thing or the right thing in the wrong place. It’s all good to register your concerns, hold a proponent to the highest and most stringent building standards or even to lawfully protest a pipeline that is being drilled under the Missouri River for example, but if you are too obtuse to consider the bigger picture or set your sights on places where the real bad stuff happens (hello Russia/China, I am looking at you), you are really a bit of a hypocrite.

Consider the under-reported aftermath of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that caught everyone’s imagination until Obama caved and winter came (let’s be honest, winter in the Dakotas ends a lot of protesting). Apparently authorities with the Standing Rock Tribe and the State are struggling to clean up the garbage left behind by the protestors – some 250 truckloads worth that need to be removed before spring when everything thaws to prevent, you guessed it, a toxic, environmental disaster. Ironic? Yes. Predictable? You bet. Sacred Ground my ass. Fly in protestors got their 15 minutes of airplay, knew they were never really in any danger from the authorities and got out like the exploitive carpetbaggers they were when they got their way and haven’t been seen since. They were there because it was convenient.

In my view, if you really wanted to protest environmental degradation, you would be protesting Russian oil spills, the toxic disaster that is Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela (hint – it’s flammable!), former Soviet bloc kleptocracy tire fires, peat fires in Indonesia that in 2015 spewed more greenhouse gas emissions on a daily basis than the United States and pumped billions of tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, the massive expansion of coal plants in China, clearcutting of the Amazon for agriculture and sugar cane to produce ethane or any number of additional under-reported and under-protested indignities being done to the planet.

Meanwhile, the oil sands are continually excoriated for their mining operations (that they have to reclaim and which represent only 4% of the deposit area, the rest being extracted “in-situ”  or through drilling), their water usage (80% of which is recycled back into the process) and air quality (Fort Mac – better than Toronto, hmm – don’t even get me started on cities in China).

This is why me and most people in our industry literally lose their minds when a fly-in celebrity drops by to tell us how evil we are and why the oilsands is Mordor. Seriously? This is our home. We don’t go to your house and tell you how feckless and irresponsible you are or question the need for a 25,000 sq. ft. house with an elevator for 2 people or the private yacht you borrow, or the private jets you use. We watch the movies, enjoy the music and on occasion roll our eyes at the excess and then get back to work trying to make a better life for our families while respecting the world we live in.

We do our part here as industry participants. The oil and gas industry invests hundreds of millions of dollars in health, safety and environmental initiatives every year. Our clients adhere to a standard of practice that was inconceivable even 10 years ago. People and companies that come to Canada are shocked at the rules they have to follow. Some will even cut and run because they can go somewhere else that doesn’t give a crap. But we do and if you want to play in our backyard, these are the rules you have to follow. Because we do care about what is left behind.

I often think that if the Canadian regulatory environment was globally applied we would soon see the break-even price of oil and gas development rise pretty rapidly and the tiring discussion about whether Canada was a competitive jurisdiction for resource extraction would finally end because the playing field would be level.

Are there problems? Sure, nothing is ever perfect. Spills and leaks happen. But we are transparent, nothing is hidden. We own our mistakes and figure out why they happened and take steps to mitigate the risk. Then we get back to work and make sure it doesn’t happen again. There are hundreds of innovative companies in Canada constantly (and successfully) looking for ways to extract our resources in a more sustainable and less environmentally impactful manner so that the Canadian economy can continue to grow and maintain its status as one of the most envied in the world.

So yeah, pro-development, pro-regulation, pro-Canadian oil and, yes, pro-environment. I think you can be all of those things.

Prices as at February 10, 2017 (February 3, 2017)

• The price of oil was choppy during the week ending flat as increased drilling activity, storage and OPEC compliance battled for market influence.
  • Storage posted a big increase
  • Production was flat
  • The rig count in the US and Canada continues to grow

• Natural gas was volatile during the week as milder weather reduced bullish sentiment and pushed prices down

• WTI Crude: $53.84 ($53.84)
• Nymex Gas: $3.040 ($3.060)
• US/Canadian Dollar: $0.7643 ($ 0.7678)

Highlights

• As at January 27, 2017, US crude oil supplies were at 508.6 million barrels, a increase of 13.8 million barrels from the previous week and 37.9 million barrels ahead of last year.
  • The number of days oil supply in storage was 31.6, behind last year’s 31.9.
  • Production was up for the week by 63,000 barrels a day at 8.978 million barrels per day. Production last year at the same time was 9.186 million barrels per day. The change in production this week came from a small drop in Alaska deliveries and increased Lower 48 production.
  • Imports rose from 8.290 million barrels a day to 9.392, compared to 7.124 million barrels per day last year.
  • Refinery inputs were down during the week at 15.893 million barrels a day
• As at January 27, 2017, US natural gas in storage was 2.559 billion cubic feet (Bcf), which is 2% above the 5-year average and about 11% less than last year’s level, following an implied net withdrawal of 152 Bcf during the report week.
  • Overall U.S. natural gas consumption was down by 5% during the week on warmer weather and demand declines across all sectors
  • Production for the week was flat and imports from Canada fell by 2% from the week before
• As of February 6, the Canadian rig count was 272 (42% utilization), 198 Alberta (45%), 24 BC (34%), 45 Saskatchewan (33%), 5 Manitoba (39%)). Utilization for the same period last year was about 26%.
• US Onshore Oil rig count at February 10 was at 591, up 8 from the week prior.
  • Peak rig count was October 10, 2014 at 1,609
• Natural gas rigs drilling in the United States was up 4 at 149.
  • Peak rig count before the downturn was November 11, 2014 at 356 (note the actual peak gas rig count was 1,606 on August 29, 2008)
• US split of Oil vs Gas rigs is 80%/20%, in Canada the split is 56%/44%
  • Offshore rig count was down 1 at 21
  • Offshore rig count at January 1, 2015 was 55

Drillbits

• There is a vicious rumour out there that Sarah Palin may be in line to be US Ambassador to Canada. No idea what to make of this. Seems kind of just the right amount of crazy to have legs, but, um, what? I think if it happens, we have no choice but to appoint Celine Dion in retaliation.
• Justin Trudeau will travel to Washington DC on Monday to meet with “La Grande Orange” to discuss items of mutual concern and cooperation. Look for Justin to bring home a full line of Ivanka Trump merchandise to his sweetie for Valentine’s Day. I wish I could be in attendance at that meeting. Invite clearly lost in the mail
• The Dakota Access Pipeline easement was granted by the Army Corps of Engineers
• Trump Watch: After three weeks he is still the President of the United States, thus eliminating the first square off our term board.