Would love to have seen coverage from a neutral position. Take an objective, scientific approach.
Nobody doubts that energy has brought us First World development. Advancement. Modern convenience and wealth. Awesome.
But why focus on only ONE narrow choice of energy - Oil ?
When you focus on ONLY one form of energy, makes me think this was funded by ONLY those companies who stand to benefit from that one form. Those who argue that economic development ONLY comes by harvesting Alberta's oil - to have it burnt in China.
Look- I get it - when one's job is in jeopardy or lost, its natural to look to reverse that course. And I sure believe we should nudge our economy in a direction that supports good First World jobs. But, Let's not pretend this film/ argument is about creating jobs. Because jobs will come producing ANY form of energy - Nuclear, Solar, Hydrogen, etc., etc..... if you just let them compete. Take the massive subsidies off oil and gas, along with the minuscule ones on Renewables, and let the market run.
Perhaps, instead of our Gov't putting billions into a Pipeline ( to ship oil to China), we should put it into building a nuclear plant (to ship electricity to our neighbours.) Perhaps we build & ship solar PV panels, H2 cells, etc.
Then we consumers get to fill our car tank with $9 of electricity, instead of $60 of gasoline. What's wrong with that? And Energy workers in Alberta have more jobs, better paying, more sustainable, and less prone to market vagaries.
You take a dim view of the Alberta worker community, if you think the only thing they can do is dig stuff from the ground and burn it. I believe they could perform leading edge jobs - producing H2 Fuel cells: Ballard Power; Nuclear reactors: CANDU; Solar PV: Canadian Solar.
Nigeria can dig stuff from the ground and burn it ( no offence Nigeria).
But leading economies do leading edge technologies.
An objective film would be agnostic on the form of energy, and be supportive of ALL forms ... talk about the Energy industry, not just the Oil industry.