American Sands Energy (AMSE) - Eastern Utah (Review by David Riedel)

___

Oil sands are a critical source of oil for America. Canada is our largest source of imported oil sending two million barrels a day over the border. Half of that comes from oil sands.

There are extensive oil sands on the U.S. side of the border especially in Eastern Utah where it is estimated that 12 to 19 billion barrels of oil reside.

While fracking and natural gas get so much of the attention these days, oil sands have the potential to become a major domestic energy source.

One of the major challenges with mining and processing oil sands is the fact that traditional approaches use several barrels of water in the processing of one barrel of oil.  This is where one company is significantly different—its process uses no water.

American Sands Energy (AMSE) is a development stage company focused on oil sands deposits in Utah. It has licensed technology to process oil sands without using any water and at a cost well below competitive approaches. Since AMSE’s process uses no water, it creates no tailings or other waste that requires containment or permits.

AMSE is raising capital to build out a 5,000 barrel per day facility in Eastern Utah to process sands from mining claims that it owns or partly owns.  The company currently has 150 mn barrels of likely reserves that it controls and is confident it could add 500 mn barrels of reserves in the area quite easily.

American Sands has licensed technology from Universal Oil Recovery Corp., which has a proprietary solvent and process that allows for a very clean, low energy process that uses no water and results in no emissions or waste products. This technology has been tested on a pilot plant for the past two years and has proven to work efficiently. Once up and running in 2015 the plant will be at break-even at oil prices of $45/barrel (WTI crude is currently at $106 per barrel).

AMSE’s unique process mixes a proprietary solvent with the oil sands that separates the oil (in the form of bitumen) from the sand.  The sand is then re-heated allowing the solvent to escape and be recycled for reuse. The process results in clean dry sand that can be sold or used in mining operations and bitumen that can be used as is in road paving operations or processed into other products.

Risks include permitting risk, processing plant scale risks, considerable related party transactions and exposure to a commodity market.

American Sands is currently loss making and has a market cap of $10 million.  The company estimates that its total capital requirements are $70 million to put all of its properties into production.

We have estimated the company’s value using three popular methods for valuing development stage oil companies. Averaging these three estimates and adjusting for CAPEX and time to reach production provides a value of $58.8 million or $1.56 per share. We believe American Sands Energy is significantly undervalued and represents a unique way to play alternative energy sources in the U.S.

More in: AMSE Initiation Report July 2013.

Moran: US Incentive For Keeping Gulf Oil Flowing Will Diminish

By Michael Moran

The Persian Gulf has roiled the world regularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 – through an Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War, bombings in Saudi Arabia and Yemen of US military targets, the Iraq War in 2003 and in 2011 the Arab Spring. In each cases, crises spawned in the Gulf sent shudders through global markets, sending the price of oil sky high and prompted US presidents to order naval task forces based half a world away to put to sea.

Yet by 2030, the incentives will have changed. Yes, the US Navy is still watching, warily. And because oil remains a global commodity where prices everywhere are vulnerable to small disruptions, America remains concerned about any problem that might disrupt the flow of oil and gas through the narrow Strait of Hormuz – the bottleneck that could in an instant take Saudi, Iraqi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and other energy supplies off the market. But it’s not the disaster it was in, say, 1991.

Over the next decade and a half the fleets that really care will no longer fly the Stars and Stripes. More than likely, warships from a host of Asian countries – Japan, China, India and others – will be regular visitors to the Gulf by that time. It will be these nations, not the US or its European allies, who have the greatest stake in preventing a calamity that could damage their economies.

For Americans, this may come as quite a relief. For decades, ever since Britain’s Royal Navy lost command of the seas after World War II, the US Navy has provided something of a free public utility by ensuring that global commerce is free to travel on the long, exposed sea lanes connecting major economies. In effect, American task forces are the Coumadin of the global economic circulatory system, preventing blockages and, occasionally, identifying potential tumors to be excised more urgently.

(Like that blood-thinning drug, of course, overdose and other misuse is possible. By and large, though, most of the world is happy for the US to spend billions annually to guarantee free movement of goods by sea.)

The incentives for the US to bear this particular burden are changing. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), by 2030 the share of US oil consumption fulfilled by Persian Gulf sources will have fallen below 35 percent – and perhaps even further, given the new productivity of old US wells, new discoveries off Brazil and the shale gas and tight oil revolution in the US Midwest.

But South and East Asia is facing a very different future. For China, the figure in 2030 is 75 percent. For South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, the percentage is even higher. India’s suppliers are slightly more diverse, but even there over 60 percent of imports will flow from the Gulf in 2030.

Sliced a bit differently, the data leads IEA to project that Asian economies will be importing 90 percent of Persian Gulf oil by 2030. Indeed, higher prices for oil precipitated by a Gulf crisis – at some point – actually becomes a benefit to a country producing as much oil as the US will in 2030.

“From a strategic perspective, the “Achilles heel” of China is its over-whelming dependence on Persian Gulf energy imports to fuel its rapidly growing economy,” says Samir Tata, a former U.S. intelligence analyst and author on naval issues. “The sea lines of communication over which these vital oil and gas imports are transported by tanker … and the choke points linking them are controlled by the US Navy.”

The Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia may be the beginning of an end to this free ride. Given the costs – both financial and political – of maintaining the US Fifth Fleet’s carriers, escorts and submarines in the Gulf, and the continuing pressure in Washington to curb expenditures, it may not be long before Asian nations have to figure out a way to guarantee their own oil supplies.

This means a very different reality on the high seas. Nature is always a threat in the deep ocean, of  course, but since World War II commerce has not feared political threats except in specific places relatively close to shore – the Red Sea off Somalia or the Gulf of Guinea on Africa’s West Coast, for instance.

That may change over the next several decades as new players start acting on new incentives.

China’s disputed claims to areas of the South and East China seas have garnered headlines of late, but the management of the vital energy sea lanes through the Indian Ocean and its multiple bottle necks is a probably a more important factor behind the growth of naval budgets in the region in recent years.

After all, China’s disputes with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and others over territorial waters is about oil and may exist beneath them. National pride, of course, also plays a role.

But the vast stretches of Indian Ocean that all these nation’s oil and gas imports must traverse is, to put it in the lexicon of national security, a “clear and present danger.”

The most publicized manifestation of this trend was the launch last year of China’s first aircraft carrier, a refitted Soviet Navy leftover renamed Liaoning.

Regionally, Indian military leaders have also expressed concerns about a system of port projects along Indian Ocean basin funded or partly owned by China. Referred to in India’s press as the “string of pearls,” these port facilities stretch from Myanmar to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – with Chinese contractors also building major port facilities in Tanzania and Mozambique. India has also been alarmed by the increased activity of Chinese submarines in nearby waters.

Of course, Chinese companies are involved in port operations around the world – including the Panama Canal. China denies it wants to encircle India – a charge that frequently appears on Indian op-ed pages. Its navy’s expansion has proceeded at a pace that’s hardly surprising given the extent of its economic growth. And naval experts agree China’s navy is no match for Japan’s, would probably struggle against India’s relatively modern and larger fleet, and certainly cannot challenge the US Navy’s regional dominance.

Some regional strategists are hoping that the existence of a common threat to their interests – the risk of an interruption in Gulf oil flows – might foster cooperation rather than competition. So far, that’s simply not been the case. If anything, the region appears as fearful of China as losing its energy supplies.

Last month, Japan and India announced they would hold regular naval maneuvers together in the Indian Ocean – augmenting the annual US-led naval maneuvers that have been held – without China – since 2007.

Naval spending is also rising in Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines and South Korea, too. While few in official circles will say so publicly, as much of this spending is directed at the threat of Chinese domination of these vital sea routes and in the mutual interest all these nations have in securing them against interruption. The plans across the region include six carriers, dozens of powerful surface warships and over 100 submarines at a cost of some $220 billion by 2030.

That’s a regional armada that should keep Somali or Indonesian pirates at bay, to be sure. But it could also turn a reason for cooperation into a casus belli.

But in 2030, when crisis in the Persian Gulf once again threatens to become a debacle of global proportions, things will be different. Yes,  the region’s unique combination of repressive regimes, energy resources, intra-Islamic rivalry and pent up popular frustrations can still explode in violence, sending shudders through global markets, sending the price of oil sky high and prompting naval task forces based half a world away to put to sea. But from an American standpoint, a 2030 spike in global oil prices – at least while tight oil holds out  - might look more like a windfall than a tragedy.

Michael Moran is Vice President, Global Risk Analysis at Control Risks, the global political, security and integrity risk consultancy.

Tim Worstal on Keystone XL: These people really are getting desperate!

I really do understand that there are people out there who don’t want the Keystone XL pipeline to be built. For a number of different reasons, some of them even possibly sensible reasons. But there are at least some of the people opposing that pipeline who seem to be becoming desperate, even to the point of advancing self-contradictory arguments to oppose the pipeline. One such is here, from Consumer Watchdog.

U.S. gasoline prices will rise, with the greatest effect on the
Midwest. The chief purpose of the pipeline is to raise the price
of Canadian tar sands by creating new export markets outside
the Midwest. Statements by Alberta, Canada officials and the
pipeline developers reflect this aim. Their explicit intention is
to export to the Gulf and abroad, which would increase the
price of crude oil and gasoline in the United States and, in
particular, the Midwest.
• Midwest drivers would be hardest hit because the region
currently imports more than half of its oil for refining from
Canada. Increases at the pump could range from 25 cents to
40 cents a gallon, depending on how regional refineries re
spond to paying $20 to $30 more per 42-gallon barrel for
Canadian crude oil.
• Canadian oil currently sent to the Midwest from Canada
would likely be diverted to Keystone XL to reduce Midwest
supply, which would put additional pressure on gasoline prices.
• Midwest refiners have been reaping exceptional profit on
cheaper Canadian oil and will resist giving up that profit to off
-set the large increase in the price of their Canadian crude oil.

That last point doesn’t accord with the first point being made. In fact, that last point makes the first point being made wrong. It’s not possible for both to be true.

Think it through for a moment. Yes, Keystone will mean that more of the Canadian tar stuff reaches the Gulf refineries. This means that less of it will get stranded at Cushing OK. So, yes, the price of crude at Cushing will rise.

This could mean that gasoline prices will rise in the Mid West. But it can’t mean both that gas prices will rise and that excessive refining margins will fall. If excessive refining margins are being made then people in the Mid West aren’t getting cheap gas to reflect the low crude price. That’s where the excessive margins are coming from, from the fact that the gas price is disconnected from the crude price. So, we might either see a fall in those refining margins or a rise in gas prices. But both won’t be happening at the same time. If Keystone removes the oversupply of crude at Cushing then refining margins will fall and there’s unlikely to be much effect on gas prices.

The aim of tar sands producers with refining interests on
the Gulf Coast–primarily multinational oil companies–is to
get the oil to their Gulf refineries, which would process addi
tional oil largely for fuel exports to hungry foreign markets.
Other oil sands investors, including two major Chinese petro
chemical companies and major European oil companies, have
an interest in exporting crude oil and/or refined products
to their markets. Such exports would drain off what the tar
sands producers consider a current oversupply, and help push
global oil prices higher.

And that’s just ludicrous. How is an increase of supply of crude to the international markets going to increase the international price of crude? Have we entered some mirror universe of entirely alternative economics or something? An increase in supply leads to a fall in price, not an increase.

If you’d like a more detailed look at the arguments being made I recommend this from Craig Pirrong, aka The Streetwise Professor.

But my basic diagnosis is that some opponents of Keystone XL are becoming so hysterical in that opposition than they’re becoming incoherent in their arguments.

Jack Perkowski on China´s Shale Gas.

Jack Perkowski, Energy Analyst:

"When I met recently with a senior investment officer from China Investment Corporation (CIC), the country’s sovereign wealth fund, I was told that CIC is very bullish on the United States. Why? In CIC’s opinion, the existence of large shale gas reserves in the U.S. will provide a massive shot in the arm for the country’s large but mature economy — kind of a modern-day energy equivalent to the deus ex machina in Greek literature.

If that is the case, then an equally bullish case can be made for China on the basis of its shale gas reserves alone. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that China has total reserves of 1,275 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, almost 50 percent more than the 862 trillion cubic feet in the U.S., and more than that in the U.S. and Canada combined.

China’s most promising shale gas deposits lie in three giant basins: the Tarim Basin in the northwest, the Ordos Basin in north-central China (including Inner Mongolia), and the Sichuan Basin in the southwest. However, the only way to get to these reserves, which are embedded in shale deposits that can be anywhere from 8,000 to 21,000 feet below the surface, is by employing what is known as “hydraulic fracking” technology. Fracking refers to a procedure whereby fractures in rocks and rock formations are created by injecting fluid (typically water mixed with sand and/or chemicals) into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures then allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted.

There are a number of very significant obstacles that stand in the way of China capitalizing on its large shale gas reserves. The first is water. China already faces a severe water shortage, and fracking requires large quantities. The second is the country’s lack of pipeline infrastructure necessary to transport gas from where it is found to China’s large population centers. The most critical obstacle of all, though, may be China’s lack of fracking technology.

Fracking has been developed over many years in the U.S., but China is only now trying to catch up. Despite the fact that China’s National Energy Administration has set ambitious goals of producing 230 billion cubic feet of shale gas annually by 2015, and at least 2.2 trillion cubic feet per year by 2020, the amount produced in China by the end of this decade will only be equal to about a quarter of America’s current production. Moreover, many industry experts believe that China will not reach these levels of production until 2030, ten years later.

Not surprisingly, the world’s largest energy companies are already active in China. Shell, which has teamed up with PetroChina , is investing $1 billion a year to tap into China’s vast basins of shale gas. Chevron CVX -1.13% recently formed a joint venture with the China National Petroleum Corporation, and has begun drilling exploratory wells in Sichuan. And Conoco Phillips — in a joint venture with Sinopec — announced in December that it plans to drill wells in Sichuan later this year.

In a second round of bidding that started in September last year, China’s Ministry of Land and Resources awarded 16 companies the exploration rights to 19 shale gas blocks, in an effort to widen exploration and drilling activities in China. More than half of these companies have coal and mining backgrounds, but no experience in fracking. Each company will have three years for exploration and must start within six months of the award date.

Most of the second-round winners are finding exploration and production very challenging due to the high drilling depths and tough operating conditions. As a result of their slow progress, a planned third round of shale gas bidding is likely to be delayed until the end of this year, or even 2014. Less than 10 fields will be offered in the third round, smaller than the number of blocks awarded in the second.

In the meantime, heavy air pollution in many of China’s major cities is causing city officials to accelerate the conversion of their vehicles from gasoline- and diesel-driven engines to those that use compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). CNG is most suitable for taxis, while LNG is more suitable for trucks and buses.

Beijing, where the skies were so dark with pollution on many days this winter that flights had to be cancelled, recently announced plans to increase the number of taxis that run on natural gas from the current 99 to 2,000 by the end of July in a trial project to promote the use of clean energy in public transportation. Beijing now has 2,000 vehicles powered by natural gas, and that number is expected to increase to 10,000 by the end of 2013, according to the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. A total of 7,000 natural gas powered public buses alone will be put into service by the end of 2015, the bureau said.

According to Beijing officials, vehicles that use natural gas instead of gasoline can reduce pollutants with particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometers by 93 percent; nitrogen monoxide by 20 to 40 percent; carbon dioxide by 25 percent; and carbon monoxide by 50 to 70 percent. Moreover, natural gas will cost 30 to 40 percent less than diesel fuel.

On an overall basis, natural gas accounts for only 5.7 percent of energy consumption in China, much lower than the world average of 24 percent. China’s government expects to increase the rate to 10 percent by 2020, which will make China’s natural gas industry fertile ground for Chinese and Western companies with the technology and resources that can help the country to reach its goal."

Polémico proyecto Angra III en Brasil

Se trata de Angra III, la tercera planta de este tipo que construye el país suramericano. “En realidad, es solo una forma de generación de energía y es esencial para que el país pueda equilibrar su matriz energética”, explica Luiz Alfredo Salomao,ex secretario de tecnología de Brasil.

Cabe recordar que desde el año 2004, la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica (AIEA) autorizó a Brasil a producir Uranio enriquecido. Hace unos años Brasil enviaba ese mineral a Canadá, allí lo transformaban en gas, que posteriormente era llevado a Europa para enriquecerlo, luego se devolvía al país suramericano donde finalmente se convertía en material sólido, en cápsulas con las que se alimentan las plantas nucleares. 

Ahora Brasil domina la tecnología del ciclo de enriquecimiento de uranio, porque cuenta con yacimientos de este material, de hecho, es el sexto país en reservas de Uranio del mundo; pero además puede enriquecer uranio mediante una ultracentrífuga que construyó con tecnología nacional y que, según expresa Salomao, es superior a las Europeas. 

“La tecnología de enriquecimiento de uranio, desarrollada por la Armada, es superior y más económica que la usada por Estados Unidos y Francia. Nuestra propia tecnología demanda 25 veces menos energía que la de las potencias nucleares”, asegura. 

Anualmente, Brasil gasta millones de dólares para obtener el combustible que requiereN sus plantas nucleares (Angra I y Angra II), así que, según expresó el analista brasileño, la inversión en este rubro de la energía nuclear tiene un objetivo claro: “Que a partir del 2010 el país sea capaz de producir todo el uranio enriquecido que necesite. Se trata de una planta que generará 1.000 megavatios de potencia, comenzará en el 2009 y se extenderá hasta el 2012 por lo menos”. 

Angra III es un proyecto de expansión de las plantas electronucleares, el cual se encontraba estancado desde hace 20 años, cuando a través de la firma de un convenio con Alemania se compraron unos equipos, los cuales permanecen almacenados en sus cajas de origen. 

El analista precisó que su país no tiene ningún programa militar con el desarrollo y puesta en marcha de estas plantas y recordó que eso está vedado por su constitución, pero en cambio sí se concentrarán en las aplicaciones de energía nuclear para múltiples áreas como la medicina, ingeniería o agricultura, donde podría ayudar a perfeccionar los procesos productivos y por ende la calidad. 

La pregunta clave es cómo un país suramericano, famoso exportador de café, podría quedar dominando la producción de uranio enriquecido. “Todo comenzó hace 60 años cuando el Gobierno comenzó a pensar cómo desarrollar el país… empezamos a producir acero, empezaron a producir energía eléctrica, pero entendimos que teníamos que tener recursos humanos capacitados para transformar la sociedad”, dijo Salomao.

Brazil sees strong demand at first oil: gas auction in five years! (Gulf)

Global energy companies showed strong interest early yesterday at Brazil’s first auction for oil and natural gas rights in five years, alleviating fears that government intervention and growth in new global supplies might crimp enthusiasm over the South American country’s oil sector.

With offers coming in at as much as 40 times the minimum bids set by the government, strong demand early in the auction suggested that investors remain anxious to be in Brazil following discoveries of massive new offshore reserves in 2007.

The two-day auction by Brazil’s national oil regulator began with the sale of onshore blocks in the northeastern Parnaiba basin and offshore blocks in the Foz do Amazonas basin, near the mouth of the Amazon river, and in the Barreirinhas basin.

Bids from state-run energy company Petroleo Brasileiro, Portugal’s Galp Energia SGPS and OGX Petroleo e Gas, the oil startup controlled by Brazilianbnaire Eike Batista, won early onshore blocks.

Britain’s BP Group and France’s Total were among the successful bidders for the offshore Amazon blocks, located just south of a major 2012 oil discovery off the coast of French Guyana. One bid, a joint offer by Total, BP and Petrobras, was 38% higher than the minimum bid of 9.02mn reais ($4.49mn).

On offer are rights to 289 onshore and offshore exploration and production blocks that add up to an area roughly the size of Bangladesh. The blocks, in regions outside the offshore swath near Rio de Janeiro where the big recent reserves were discovered, are estimated to contain at least 35bn barrels of oil, or just over a year’s worth of global crude oil demand.

Though a record number of participants signed up to take part in the auction, government officials, industry suppliers and others are watching the sale closely to determine how much the 64 Brazilian and international companies registered are willing to bet on Brazilian oil and gas.

Officials have been eager to know whether interest will remain strong among major multinational energy companies or whether smaller, adventuresome investors could prove more willing than bigger competitors.

Also of interest is how much appetite may come from the state-run energy companies of other developing countries, which are increasingly seeking cross-border ventures with like-minded enterprises.

Doubts ahead of the auction reflect what is a dramatically different energy landscape compared with the last time oil and gas rights were sold in Brazil, a promising oil frontier where production has nonetheless fallen in recent years as the government halted sales of new blocks and reworked the rules for its most promising reserves.

For starters, the world appears to have more oil than investors believed five years go. A shale-oil boom in the US - and increasingly successful efforts to extract once hard-to-reach oil in Canada, Venezuela and elsewhere — mean that bidders no longer see an industry defined by dwindling supply.

And Brazil has startled many investors since the huge reserves near Rio were discovered. Seeking greater control over future concessions, and a greater share of oil produced in the so-called subsalt region where the big new discoveries lie, the government upended a regulatory model that had proven popular with foreign investors since the 1990s.

Still, the potential for profit appears to be motivating bidders, many of whom are used to operating in countries far less investor-friendly than Brazil. In addition to whatever upside the blocks on auction this week offer, many investors are eager to gain or increase exposure in a country that could still boast vast undiscovered reserves.

“The size of the prize in the country is really too big for companies to ignore,” said Ruaraidh Montgomery, a Latin America analyst for energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “The opportunity’s just too great.”

Investors are being selective, though. While they bid fiercely for the offshore Amazon blocks, located in promising deepwater fields, the regulator said bidders showed little interest in more speculative blocks. Only two companies, for instance, made bids for three of 26 blocks offered in shallow water closer to shore in the same basin.

Brazil’s government said it expects to raise more than 1bn reais from the sale — or possibly twice as much as the 628mn reais in minimum bids set for the auction.

Brazilian companies are taking part despite production delays and sluggish development of new fields. Petrobras, as the state-run company is known, in the second quarter of 2012 posted its first quarterly loss since 1999 and this year has struggled to ramp up output.

OGX, meanwhile, has lost nearly 90% of its market value after the company failed to meet initial production targets.

Other registered foreign bidders include BG Group, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Norway’s Statoil, Spain’s Repsol, China’s CNOOC, Australia’s BHP Billiton and Angola’s Sonangol.

Most blocks being sold are in frontier regions, or underexplored areas with little or no existing oil or gas output.

The blocks, mostly in north and northeast Brazil, have been broken into four onshore and seven offshore zones across 11 sedimentary basins. In addition to the Foz do Amazonas and Parnaiba basins, another area likely to attract heavy interest is the offshore blocks in the Ceara basin, off the coast near the northeastern city of Fortaleza.

Like the rest of Brazil’s offshore oil bounty, geologists believe the blocks could mirror deep subsea oil deposits off the west coast of Africa. The deposits, scientists say, were formed over millions of years as biological matter settled in sediments deep in the rift between South America and Africa as the two continents, once contiguous, drifted apart.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Keystone XL (Alexander Kaufman)

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed environmental concerns as he stumped for the Keystone XL pipeline at a conference in New York on Thursday, urging lawmakers to approve the project. Harper told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan that an increase in Canada-supplied oil was inevitable in the United States and it was only a matter of how and when the crude was shipped.

The only “real immediate environmental issue here,” he said, according to the Globe and Mail, “is do we want to increase the flow of oil from Canada via pipeline or via rail?”

The Conservative Party leader has sent brigades of cabinet ministers to the U.S. in recent months to woo the mostly Democratic congressmen who oppose the 1,179-mile-long pipeline that would stretch from an oil sands pit in Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Neb. “This absolutely needs to go ahead,” Harper said. “All the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of approval.”

He said the TransCanada Corp. (TSE:TRP) project would create 40,000 jobs in the U.S. and offered “enormous benefit to the United States in terms of long-term energy security.”

Harper scoffed at the protesters who have vociferously opposed the construction of the pipeline, which would bridge Canada’s oil sand pits with refineries on Texas’s Gulf Coast.

“It is not just a matter of getting on a street corner and yelling and that will somehow lead a solution,” Harper said, adding that environmentalists were at odds with “economic and social development.” “Unless we realize that and take those things seriously, we’re going to keep talking around the real issue.”