Trucks leave the Syncrude oil sands extraction facility near Fort McMurray, Alta., on October 25, 2009.MARK RALSTON
A provocative ad "Rethink Alberta" documenting the environmental impact of the oil sands on the province is hurting the province's image as a pristine vacation venue where cowboys roam around on horses and mountain creeks bubble with clean, cold water, according to a new online poll.
The polling company Angus Reid conducted a three-country poll, asking Canadians, Americans and Britons their reaction to the ad as they compared it to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The ad was launched last month in the U.S. by environmental groups; it is on YouTube.
"You think you know Alberta?" says the calm male voice on the ad. "Think again. (his voice becomes a little more menacing at this point) The tar sands in northern Alberta; over 42,000 acres of contaminated tailings ponds, toxic lakes large enough to be seen from outer space."
"The tar sands are destroying an area the size of England."
Anyway, you get the idea, which appears to have been quite effective: Asked before watching the ad if they would visit Alberta, 54 per cent of Britons and 49 per cent of Americans indicated they would "definitely" or "probably" come to the province.
The story is entirely different after they watched the ad: only 24 per cent of Britons and 26 per cent of Americans gave that answer.
Angus Reid conducted the poll of 1,012 Canadians, 1,013 Americans and 1,956 Britons between July 22 and August 1.
Asked to describe the video, 29 per cent of Canadians told Angus Reid's pollsters that it was fair compared to 32 per cent who said it was not; 31 per cent said it was offensive and 31 per cent said it was honest.
Interestingly but not surprising, five per cent of Albertans said the video was fair, while 67 per cent found it unfair. This is compared with 36 per cent in Ontario who thought the video was fair.
In the U.S., however, 23 per cent of respondents said it was fair compared to 15 per cent who said it was not; 20 per cent said it was offensive and 39 per cent said it was honest.
The story was similar in the UK where 29 per cent said it was fair, 11 per cent said it was unfair; 10 per cent said it was offensive and 40 per cent said it was honest.
As whether they agree that the "environmental impact" of Alberta's oil sands is "actually worse" than the environmental impact on the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 43 per cent of Americans said they strongly or moderately agreed with the statement compared to 42 per cent of Britons.
Twenty-seven per cent of Canadians gave the same answers.
Environment Minister Jim Prentice, meanwhile, has not commented directly on the ad.
His spokesman Bill Rodgers said Monday that, "The Minister has said many times that he wants to see the oil sands developed in a responsible manner."
"On May 7 of this year he said, 'I think it's always been clear that the oil sands provide a safe, stable, secure supply of energy and they need to be developed in an environmentally responsible way. The risks associated with the oil sands, the environmental risks, are significantly different than, and probably less than the kind of risks associated with offshore drilling.'" wrote Mr. Rodgers in an email.
Edmonton Conservative MP James Rajotte toured the oil sands earlier in the summer with Ottawa Tory MP Pierre Poilievre and former Government House leader Jay Hill.
"I cannot say whether this campaign is having an effect or not," said Mr. Rajotte Monday. "But I would encourage people to go view the oils ands for themselves (both the mine sites and the in situ facilities) so they can see firsthand the size of these facilities in comparison to the vast boreal forest."
He said he is "disturbed by the singular focus" on the oil sands and it's unfair to criticize without comparing to other industries and processes.
"We also have to compare this industrial process and resource extraction with other hydrocarbon processes and with other industrial sectors. How do the oil sands compare to heavy oil from California or Venezuela? How does an oil sands mine compare to a nickel or copper or diamond mine in terms of surface disturbance, water use and emissions?" asked Mr. Rajotte.
UPDATE:
This comes from Angus Reid's Mario Canseco:
Why did we do this? - We thought it was important to see whether the message would work. We have the ability to show people videos when they take our surveys, and we've done some previous analyses (on the Tory Ignatieff ads and the Shona Holmes health care ad in the U.S.). The rationale for the exercise was simple. Ask questions about holiday destinations in Canada, show the video, and then ask again to see whether the needle moves.
Big Surprises? - We expected a drop, but nothing as devastating as what we saw. From roughly half of people in the U.S. and Britain who say they would "definitely" or "probably" consider Alberta as a holiday destination, we plummet to about one-in-four in the two countries. This does not bode well for the tourism industry in Alberta, and while some people would dismiss the situation, we should not underestimate the power of online social media. Getting a link from a friend that says: "Check this out" will be more effective in shaping perceptions of would-be tourists than a full-page ad in the Washington Post.
For the Feds? - Early in 2010 we asked Albertans about the way their federal and provincial administrations were defending the oil sands, and the results were pretty grim. The reaction to the Rethink Alberta may be a problem down the road. Albertans are a key component of the base for the federal Conservatives, and if the oil sands continue to be used as a whipping boy by environmentalist groups, the base could get angry.