In his Powerline article, John Hinderaker tried to refute Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperins article in the Washington Post related the claims by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) that the biggest lease holder in Canadas oil sands isnt Exxon Mobile or Chevron, but the Koch brothers. While one could quibble as to what it means to be the biggest lease holder, I think we can agree that it is meant to mean the entity that holds the most acreage and/or has the most money wrapped up in tar sands leases. John Hinderaker had an easy task ahead of him if he wanted to effectively refute the report. All he had to do was show that company X either had more acreage leased or had leases worth more than Koch, or that both conditions were true. He could even have found a tie on either score between Koch and another company. He could even have discredited the report by showing that Koch doesnt actually have 1.1 million (recently closer to 2 million) acres leased. But despite having at least seven effective lines of argument available to him, Hinderaker made none of these arguments. Instead he mounted four other weaker lines of attack, and loses them all on closer inspection. He criticizes a chart of the four largest acreage holders, asks us to evaluate colored blots on two maps, attempts to misdirect our attention to production figures and then claims that Tar Sands is contrary to the Kochs interests. Lets take each of these arguments one by one. He starts by criticizing a chart presented by the IFG that showing Kochs acreage compared to Conoco, Exxon and Chevron. He complains that this is sheer information (what does that even mean?) comparing Koch to other companies that are not major tar sands players. But thats the point, isnt it? The chart shows that Koch has what appears to be the most acreage, just north of 1.1 million acres leased (as confirmed by the Alberta authorities) with Conoco coming in second with what appears to be 900,000 acres. While Hinderakers would like to make us believe this is an incorrect or meaningless comparison, it is the essential proof of IFGs claim, and Hinderaker makes it his first argument. It appears that Hinderaker doesnt know what hes doing. What Hinderaker needs to show is that the numbers are incorrect or that there is an unlisted company with more acres than Koch, but he fails to do either. The chart, dull as it may be, supports IFGs argument. The next argument Hinderaker presents is a deliberately misleading visual one. He presents two maps of Alberta covered in colored blotches. He provides no links to the maps sources and he includes no legend to help us understand what all the colors and boundaries mean. I should that the IFG report provides links to the sources and detailed instructions on how to use government resources to produce the maps yourself. This kind of transparency adds to IFGs credibility, and is the exact opposite of Hinderakers presentation. He wants us to see that all the tan colored spots are the Kochs and all the green colored ones belong to Canadian Natural Resource, Ltd. Since there is more green than tan, then the holdings of Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd. must be greater. Case closed as far as Hinderaker would have us believe. But its not as simple as that. What Hinderaker doesnt reveal, actually what he deliberately conceals is that the only part of the Alberta maps that matter in this discussion is the area contained within the purple boundary. The area within the purple boundary contains the oil sands deposits, the Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lakes areas. Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd. is a diversified company that has other extraction interests elsewhere in Alberta, so all the green areas beyond the purple boundaries are irrelevant. Its quite clear from the maps presented by Hinderaker that Koch is indeed the largest lessor of land in the tar sands deposits. You can view the regions of tar sands deposits here: oilsandstoday.ca/whatareoilsands/Pages/WhatareOilSands.aspx?gclid=CJvE1d6eq70CFUuXOgodJXoA2g. To prove his point, Hinderaker needed to show a lot more colors other than tan in the purple bordered region, but he didnt. His next line of attack is to complain that Koch isnt a major producer of oil from the tar sands deposits. This is a nonsequitur. Koch doesnt have to be a major producer of oil in order to be the largest lease holder. Being the largest lease holder simply requires leasing more acres, or having leases of the greatest value. It has nothing to do with actually pumping oil. Hinderaker is attempting to refute a claim that IFG hasnt even made. He needs to realize that more typing doesnt equal more credibility and making irrelevant counter arguments is just noise and doesnt support his case. His last substantive argument against the IFG report is a logical muddle. He contends that tar sands is contrary to Kochs interests. This kind of clucking might work at Americans for Prosperity sponsored cocktail parties, but it flies in the face of the fact that Koch Industries and its subsidiaries have indeed invested at least tens of billions of dollars in leases and infrastructure in Canadian tar sands deposits. Maybe Hinderakers crystal ball is better than the Kochs, and maybe the Kochs will actually lose money on this venture, as they did funding politicians in 2012, but I hardly think Hinderaker is able to make a credible claim that the Kochs INTEND to lose this money. It would seem clear to me, and to any reasonable person, that the Kochs have invested this much money in the tar sands deposits precisely because they believe they will make money on them, and they apparently dont care that Hinderaker may disagree. If you go back and read Hinderakers article again, skipping over the now discredited claims, what is left? Nothing of substance, just animosity and a template for propaganda. So Hinderaker, writing in a forum sympathetic to oil interests, presents a dishonest and quite desperate attempt to refute a report that is measured, accurate, transparent and as far as I can tell factually accurate, but fails terribly in his attempt. Why would he do that? Maybe thats another story for another day, but what we can learn from this is that you cant just read angry and dismissive hyperbole from an obvious corporate tool and believe it without evaluating the evidence presented and thinking for yourself.
Posted on: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:52:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015