There has been some mention in comments on this Blog that want to compare the energy industry and the forest sector in Alberta. We did a survey in 2005 of almost 3000 Albertans on behalf of the forest industry looking into what they needed to do to enhance their social licence to operate.
Forest v. Oil and Gas
Comparison of two important Alberta industries:
Percentage ranking of Excellent and Very Good Performance:
The first number is the forest industry, followed by the oil and gas sector:
Concern with long term sustainability of resources: 83.7 vs. 63.1
Demonstrates environmental planning and mtg: 80.0 vs. 63.9
Gets attention/support of government: 77.3 vs. 88.9
Supports research and applies technology: 80.5 vs. 87.3
Is accountable on how it uses forest lands: 69.7 vs. 51.2
Coordinates with other sectors, communities and users 62.0 vs. 54.9
Is aware and respects needs of forest wildlife 61.7 vs. 47.2
Part of the work we did was a comparison of Albertans impressions of the performance of the two industry sectors on some key criteria on responsible and sustainable business practices.
You can see from the table there is a statistically significant difference between the two industries in every aspect under review. The most significant perceptions about the conventional energy sector was the low ranking in awareness and respect of wildlife habitat, which was found to be one of the most significant value drivers for Albertans in the use of their forests.
The low level of the energy sector’s accountability in how it uses the forest is telling as well, especially when it is a fact that the oil and gas sector cuts down more Alberta trees each year than the entire Alberta forest industry.
On the other hand, the perceptions amongst Albertans are that the energy sector get much more attention and support form government than the forest industry. Given the differences in relative size and economic significance this is hardly a surprise. One positive perception comparison for the energy sector is its use of research and technology.
The key finding is that the forest industry is perceived as an overwhelmingly better resource steward than the energy sector. This perception is not becoming reality as some of the energy sector players have tried to scare and intimidate government and suppliers over the “Our Fair Share” Royalty Review.
A recent poll is showing 88% of Albertans think royalties in the energy sector should be higher. Our findings of 2 years ago illustrated the poor perceptions Albertans’ have of the energy sector’s resource management and stewardship responsibilities.
The new focused political pressures from the royalty review and the Auditor General, and the crystallizing impact they have had on engaging citizens, the energy sector may want to revisit its strategy about threatening to pull out investment that will only punish suppliers and local communities.
Hey Ken. Did you and Bill Hunter works on this little project in 2005. By the way, when are we going to hear your response to the technical report from CAPP, the NEB report and the Tristone note that was released today.
ReplyDeleteActually is was done through a competition via an RFP process for the private sector forestry industry.
ReplyDeleteI came to really appreciate the forest sector and what they do and how well they do it in terms of long term responsible stewardship and sustainability.
As for the CAPP, NEB and Tristone stuff - it will be a while before I get to them. I have some deadlines for some paying clients I have to meet.
Everyone in the oil and gas industry admits that we have public perception problems, Ken. Your are correct on that point.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you point out an example that is (apparently?) true yet so obviously absurd it must open all oil and gas eyes.
The forestry industry clear cuts vast swaths of boreal forest yet is a better environmental steward than oil and gas? That is almost as funny some reading I recently did about the NEP.
Now Bill Hunter can spend a bunch of taxpayers money on a goofy survey, but that don't make it so. The forestry industry is of necessity so hard on the environment they must put out propaganda to convince people otherwise. It seems like it works, at least as you present it.
In oil and gas, we just do a good job and figure everyone notices it. This isn't happening so rest assured we will study what the forestry industry is doing in terms of PR strategies and emulate them. We already do a far better job in terms of environmental practices so it'll be easy.
Some articles that you and other people can read and learn about the forestry industry are below. Ken you will be rather surprised when you see the actual numbers that forestry "fair shares" by clearcutting Albertan's forests; yeah the ones WE own. You will also be interested to see that they pay far more to forest what we don't own.....
Thanks for your input and I know you will enjoy the articles below and learn from them, and intelligent policy analyst like yourself is always willing to learn.
Your respectful friend - Ian Langdon
Let's Learn About Bill Hunter and ALPAC
http://wtfjournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/lets-learn-about-hunter-and-alpac.html
Beyond Hypocrisy: Alberta's Forestry Industry and Fair Share
http://wtfjournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/beyond-hypocrisy-albertans-share-from.html
Hunter and the Pembina Institute
http://wtfjournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/hunter-alpac-and-pembina-institute.html
Who's paying "fair share" on an energy equivelent basis
http://wtfjournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/ive-produced-some-data-from-alpacs.html
No "Fair Share" from forestry - Poplar Farming Proof
http://wtfjournal.blogspot.com/2007/10/no-fair-share-from-forestry-poplar.html
Ian - you appear to be presumptuous and ill informed at so many levels about the Alberta forest industry.
ReplyDeleteYou correctly pointed out my ignorance of the energy sector for admittedly not knowing what the trade jargon "F&D" stood for. Hardly a major transgression.
Go to the Alberta Forest Products Association website and learn something about the Alberta forest industry.
BTW - Hunter did not pay for the survey and he was not involved in its data collection or the analysis. More presumption.
BTW (again) Presumptiveness is not respectful – and I think you know that.
BTW (yet again) quoting your own blog as an authoritative reference is just a scam to direct traffic. Not appropriate.
I will not post a comment from you that does that again. It is not consistent with quality or authoritative blogging...and you should know that.
Well, being presumptuous and ill informed hasn't stopped Bill Hunter or yourself from talking about the petroleum industry, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?
ReplyDeleteYou can rebut my posts in detail on my blog; please point out all the errors you insinuate so I may correct them.
No scam intended, OK next time will cut and paste the whole section into you little comments box.
When you and your readers go into the links I kindly provided you will see statistics from the AFP website. yeah, been there. The numbers are pretty plain to see and they are bad for Albertans who own the forestry resource.
These statistics allow me to see what the government take from forestry is.
It ain't pretty. 2 or 3%; compared to Hunter wanting 50 or 60% of petroleum's gross revenue stream.
I am an amateur wrt forestry, but it doesn't take long to see the forest from the trees on that topic.
As a simple example, do you think the Softwood Lumber Dispute is based on a fantasy? No; it is based on Canadian governments not taking a fair share of stumpage fees. No such bilateral trade disputes have arisen because governments aren't taking their fair share of petroleum revenues.
Case closed.
Do I advocate charging the forestry industry a "fair share"? Actually, I don't.
And when an oil guy gets to do the "fair share" panel for forestry that advocates demolishing the forestry industry, I think I might have a bit of empathy to forestry guys poking back a bit?