Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

How Canada Went from 21st to 2nd in World's Oil Reserves

By Dan Woynillowicz, World Watch. Posted September 17, 2007.


The United States has its hopes pinned on Canada's "tar sands" for North American security in the oil market. But their "black gold" is an environmental nightmare.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production. This heavy dependence has often, and aptly, been described as an addiction; even U.S. President George W. Bush trotted out the metaphor in his 2006 State of the Union address ("America is addicted to oil").

Most of us regard addictions (to anything) as inherently unhealthy and admission of the problem as the first step toward getting clean. In this case, however, U.S. policy has simply been to seek increased oil imports from more reliable sources closer to home, in effect, to replace distant and unstable dealers with one from the neighborhood -- specifically, Canada, already the kingpin dealer of oil to the United States. In 2005 Canada exported almost 1.5 million barrels per day to the United States, about 7 percent of U.S. daily consumption. Canada exports 66 percent of its domestic crude oil production, and since 1995 the United States has received 99 percent of these exports. At first glance, it would seem that Canada wouldn't be able to boost oil production to fill the gap; production of conventional light and heavy oil in Canada was predicted to peak in 2006 and then rapidly decline. But that's where Canada's "unconventional" tar sands come in.

Production

The vast bulk of Canada's tar sands is found in the province of Alberta, the country's most prolific producer of fossil fuels. The tar sands deposits underlie more than 140,000 square kilometers of relatively pristine boreal forest, an area larger than the state of Florida. It's estimated that the tar sands hold approximately 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen (the technical term for the fossil fuel extracted from the tar sands). But most of this bitumen will never be recovered and only a fraction, 174 billion barrels, is estimated to be recoverable with today's technology and under current and anticipated economic conditions.

When the U.S. Department of Energy formally acknowledged these reserves in 2003, it vaulted Canada's oil reserves from 21st to 2nd in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. It's little wonder then that the U.S. Energy Policy Development Group has described the tar sands as "a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security." Canada's so-called "black gold" has come to be regarded as an abundant, secure, and affordable source of crude oil. But development of this unconventional fossil fuel comes with unconventional risks and consequences. Everything about the tar sands is big, most significantly its global warming and environmental implications -- leading some to now describe the tar sands as "Canada's dirty secret."

Producing oil from the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. Tar sands consist of a mixture of 85 percent sand, clay, and silt; 5 percent water; and 10 percent crude bitumen, the tarlike substance that can be converted to oil. Bitumen doesn't flow like crude oil, and getting it out of the tar sands is a messy job. The current technology, which has evolved relatively little since it was first developed in the early 20th century, is a hot water-based separation process that requires huge quantities of water and energy (see diagram). Imagine mixing a bucket of roofing tar into a child's sandbox. Then boil some water, pour it into the sandbox, and try to wash the tar out of the sand.

Most tar sands production takes place in vast open-pit mines, some as large as 150 square kilometers and as deep as 90 meters. Before strip-mining can begin, the boreal forest must be clear-cut, rivers and streams diverted, and wetlands drained. The overburden (the soil, rocks, and clay overlying the tar sands deposit) must be stripped away and stockpiled to reach the bitumen. Four tons of material are moved to produce every barrel of bitumen.

At current production rates, with just three mines operating, enough material is moved every two days to fill a 60,000-seat stadium. But only a small fraction of the bitumen deposits is close enough to the surface to be strip-mined. Over 80 percent of the established tar sands reserves are deeper and must be extracted in situ (in place) by injecting high-pressure steam into the ground to soften the bitumen so it can be pumped to the surface.

Once separated from the sand, the bitumen is still a low-grade, heavy fossil fuel that must undergo an energy-intensive process to upgrade it into a synthetic crude oil more like conventional crude, either by adding hydrogen or removing carbon. Upgrading the bitumen usually occurs before it is shipped to refineries, but sometimes raw bitumen is diluted (e.g., with naphtha) and pipelined to a refinery where it is both upgraded and refined. In the United States about three-quarters of the oil is refined into transportation fuels.

But even then not just any refinery will do. A certain amount of reconfiguring must occur at refineries more accustomed to handling conventional crude oil. Some American refineries, primarily in the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region, already accept some synthetic crude oil from the tar sands. But with growing reliance on this source of oil, numerous American refineries are converting or expanding in order to handle tar sands-derived synthetic crude oil or raw bitumen.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: oil, us, global warming, climate change, canada, tar sands

Dan Woynillowicz is a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, based in Calgary, Alberta.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What does it take to grab our attention?
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Sep 17, 2007 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We blunder on with our incredible thirst for this most damaging of commodities.
A recent visit to New York State displays vast seas of SUVs and many Hummers amongst them, unlike here (Canada) where the little Smart Cars and Yarises are becoming more popular and leave less of an environmental footprint.
We are on the path to extinction of our species and 95% of us are asleep at the switch - or maybe waiting for The Rapture.
Big Oil drives the cogs of all our machinery and little alternative energy is explored.
We're all barking mad - led by two mad dogs, Bush and Harper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just stating the obvious Posted by: Melvin
Question
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 17, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you have no decent water to drink or air to breathe, will you really care that you can still fill up your damn Hummer/Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/Armada/Land Rover/Tahoe ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REST of the Story....
Posted by: keefus55 on Sep 17, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, what the writer does NOT mention in their story is that the Government of Alberta has recently severely tightened their environmental rules to now require MASSIVE recycling of a lot of the natural resources...particularly water....that are now being used to extricate the oil from the tar sands.

The writer correctly points out that Alberta is now running out of fresh water. Not only is explosive human growth in the province now tapping into that vital resource, but the increasing demands of the oil extrication process are doing so as well.

This, coupled with many years of drought in western Canada are all conspiring to now place HUGE demands on the watershed there...demands that are clearly unsustainable over the long haul unless something is done to control it.

What the writer also doesn't tell us is that all of these companies are now being forced to build HUGE plants to RECYCLE most of the water used in these processes to drastically cut their net use of that resource in the extrication process. I know this to be true because I have a brother-in-law who is now directly involved in building one of these recycling plants and bringing it online in the region.

Clearly, we need to strike a balance between our near-term need for fossil fuels, and the impact that need has on our environment. Conservation and building more fuel-efficient vehicles is certainly part of that answer.

However, unless we all want to start peddling bicycles to and from work (and then freeze in the dark when we get there!), until such time as the energy-efficient production of alternative fuels can be brought online and made commercially viable, we are STILL going to be stuck with burning coal, oil and natural gas in order to live our lives.

That fact, in turn, means we need to continue looking for cost-effective ways to minimize the impact the exploration, extrication and use of these fossil fuels has on our environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NO we do NOT Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: NO we do NOT Posted by: mgloraine
» RE: This Albertan is typical. Posted by: Jordonquits
» RE: This Albertan is typical. Posted by: keefus55
» RE: This Albertan is typical. Posted by: Jordonquits
» RE: This Albertan is typical. Posted by: keefus55
» RE: This Albertan is typical. Posted by: Jordonquits
Invasion of Canada
Posted by: richholland on Sep 17, 2007 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since USA is gods own country soon the Neocons will have to invade Canada.....
The article described the destruction of Nature, so soon the airforce must bomb to protect the trees.
Besides that our spies informed us the Canadians live more relaxed than the brave americans compared to Gods own country they have better health insurance and education.
This is blasfemia.

The only chance for peace is if they gave our beloved LEADER
the taroil free and canadians start working in USA for minimum wages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Invasion of Canada? Posted by: xi_people
» RE: Invasion of Canada? Posted by: Jordonquits
» RE: Invasion of Canada? Posted by: xi_people
» RE: Invasion of Canada? Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: Invasion of Canada? Posted by: Jordonquits
» RE: Invasion of Canada Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Invasion of Canada Posted by: katyalynn
Solar Powered Mobilty
Posted by: Bill James on Sep 17, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In highly repetitive travel, why are we wasting energy moving a ton to move a person.

Go to www.jpods.com and help implement solar powered transportation networks. Then we would not need tar sands or Mid East oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Share
Posted by: Cargill1 on Sep 17, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote:

It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production.

Not quite correct. About 84m bbls of oil are consumed each day, and about 21m of that in the USA, so 25% of world production. But given they are only 5% of the world's population, Americans are most of the problem of imminent peak oil - there are no signs the solution will come from them.

The tar sands of Alberta are no solution either - they have all the familiar signs of an economic and environmental disaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: US Share Posted by: fearn
what is USA doing?
Posted by: richholland on Sep 17, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in order to lower consuming peak oil the EuropeUnion produces in most of the countries the so called High Speed Train.
The major cities are connected by train competing in time with airplanes (going to the airfield, checkintime, flight time etc.)

visiting USA (Los Angeles) in 1981 I was shocked about the quality of some roads and the fact of absence of a car replacing transportsystem.

In Europe we put some capitalisme in our system, could it be possibil theamericans should mix some socialistic (communityvalue) in their 19 th century capitalistic porridge????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what is USA doing? Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: what is USA doing? Posted by: Jordonquits
» A challenge to anyone . . Posted by: katyalynn
» NICE try ... Katalynn Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: NICE try ... Katalynn Posted by: katyalynn
purplesage
Posted by: formertraveler on Sep 17, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While reading this well-done article with all its horrific detail, does anyone else find it shameful, as I do, that AlterNet permits advertising about "Investment Opportunity" in oil sands, in the margins?

I contribute annually and hope most of you readers do also. But it's hard to countenance such advertising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: purplesage Posted by: JP-1
Isn't Canada switching to switch grass and hemp?
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 17, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh wait, I forgot. Those aren't petroleum based. Geesh, how long will this country suck out all the petroleum, coal, and nuclear stuff until they're forced to switch to alternative renewables?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do you still think they care
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 17, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did they care when you were showing photos of those poor birds coated with oil? Did they care when they sent our manufacturing base to asia? Did they care when they created an unsustainable housing bubble for the sole purposes of making quick cash? Stop pretending like these people have a conscience. They literally would kill you for a dollar if they could.

What affects them is the financial bottom line. And these tar sands have so many hidden costs not even mentioned in this article. He has the audacity to mention "hot water" up in Canada as if it's just some insignificant factoid. But where does all this hot water come from? Is that not important enough, because of those poor caribou?

How much actual raw energy does it take to produce one unit of energy in return? (EROI) That is what the really big investors care about, because it affects their profits. Their profits are going to be hit pretty hard when they see their EROI keep rising more than was projected! If the EROI approaches anywhere close to a ratio of 1:1, their investment becomes a loss. Another Enron, in other words. They will invade a dozen Iraqs to drive the price of oil up enough to cover the costs if that happens! Dont believe for a moment that Hillary will have any more will (or power) to stop that from happening than Bush did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History Channel scores another one....
Posted by: eosrk on Sep 17, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they had experts figure that if we build a 10000 square mile solar grid out in the Southwest, we could power the United States off that.....that's right.....so the power, gas, and oil companies are going to make sure it will never happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Think Outside The Propaganda Box Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
The movie "Road Warrior" was not fiction.
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Sep 17, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first time I watched "Road Warrior" I told friends, this will someday be reality. There will be the most uncivil period when gas stations start running out of fuel. Meanwhile, instead of a massive conservation effort, we continue to build 400 horsepower cars and SUV's and look to Canada for a solution to our oil addiction, environmental issues, no problem!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where's the benefit for Canada?
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Sep 17, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see the development of the tar sands to be doing much for the good of the average Canadian; as usual the benefits accrue to the large oil companies. The lofty position of the world's second largest reserve posessor does not even confer on Canadians the benefit of lower domestic fuel prices. On the contrary, the loveliness of NAFTA ensures continued indenture to corporate interests by not allowing the sale of fuel domestically for less than it it is sold for in the USA. Market price, IOW; market price being whatever the sign on the Corner Gas says at any given time. Imagine, if you were a farmer, being forced to buy your own corn for your own table at the supermarket price. One can argue that tax revenues from fuel sales are used to pay for social services, but this Canadian has not seen our taxes decline or services increase in living memory, on account of increased oil tax revenues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where's the benefit for Canada? Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
So when do we invade Canada?
Posted by: Artkansas on Sep 17, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just Asking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So when? Posted by: Nasookin
Actually, Iraq has the second highest amount of oil.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 17, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tar sands aren't like oil - they require large amounts of natural gas and water to process into liquid fuels, as the author states. This is just dishonest accounting by the US government - its like saying coal is just unprocessed synthetic oil.

This article really shows the massive hypocrisy of ExxonMobile and Stanford University, however. Exxon is the major funder of Stanford's "Global Climate and Energy Program". Here's their front-page blurb:

"We humans are interacting with the geochemical systems of our planet on a global scale. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by a third from its pre-industrial value, and the resulting change in the acidity of the upper ocean can be detected. While climate has varied throughout Earth's history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about the timing and magnitude of the climate's response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

While that debate continues, we should consider now how to develop technology options that have much lower emissions of greenhouse materials (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and black soot). Supplying the energy required by both well-established and developing societies while at the same time reducing greenhouse emissions will be one of the grand challenges that we humans must face in this century.


"How was the Project initiated?
The concept arose from discussions between Stanford and ExxonMobil, building on some prior research conversations with Schlumberger; then discussions began with other interested companies that shared the belief that the scope of the research needed called for a new type of global collaboration between academia and industry.


Meanwhile, Exxon is on an all-out push to expand tar sands oil production, gain control of Mideast and African oil, all while spending millions to fund dishonest 'scientific think tanks' who've been spewing lies about global warming for several decades now - and they've paid Stanford $100 million to spruce up their image.

Did I mention that they also get a five-year exclusive right to any patents generated at Stanford as part of their agreement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OPEC had DRILLING QUOTA MAXIMUMS... Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
The biggest problem;
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Sep 17, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Canada we like to think that we care about our forests and ecology in general, but the problem is that we have a Little Texas up here called Alberta, and its full of stupid conservative cow boys who only think about money and oil, plus the Prime Minister is from Alberta so I dont think he will lift a finger while his beloved province gets rich and fat.

Just like Texas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The biggest problem; Posted by: Jordonquits
» Oh, puh-leeze! Posted by: Canuckistan
Die Anschlus with Canada--needed NOW!
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 17, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has got me convinced. We really need to do the Anschlus thing with Canada.

"Kick their ass, and take their gas" is what I say!

Not only will it secure for the good o'l U S of A the unlimited energy resources that this country--God and Jesus's Most Favored Country, btw--but it will solve some other pesky problems that this maverick liberal country has caused.

Free health care? 'bout time we took care of that! Sets a VERY bad example. Look at all the rabble rousing by guys like Roger Moore about this. Giving people ideas in this country that they actually deserve the same sort of wicked socialized thing!

And that tolerance of gays and permitting abortion those Canadians have--taking over the country would soon put an end to that! Make 'em conform to the plain Truth that's in Gods' Bible!

And all that Canadian nonsense about gun control--blow them away on that one!

Think about it---just a few Blackwater mercenaries led by some preachers from the Moral Majority will solve all these problems. They'll make short work of those northern pussies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two-thirds?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 17, 2007 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production."

Two-thirds? I believe it's more like 20 million barrels of oil per day out of a total 80+ million barrels total global consumption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Definitely need a better alternative
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 17, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a horribly destructive and wasteful process. Water, natural gas and damage to the land. And it will never be able to produce oil fast enough to meet even 20% of the United State's current "needs".

The oil sands are not the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OPEC nations LIED...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Sep 17, 2007 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because there were product agreements between nations & rulers to keep a pace.

after this agreement... suddenly NEW RESERVES were identified which permitted the % to be tapped @ a higher rate...

surprise.

can you say PEAK OIL??

but what bugs ThisCanadian?

is that Canada refuses to embrace alternative energy to avoid horrifying Alberta... even the Sopranos know, you SELL the shit, you don't use it yourself...

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!



BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
We, two, form a Multitude ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thinking About It
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 17, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the method Alberta uses to extricate oil really all the much worse then say how oil is extracted from under the sea (where oil spills can occur) or where the Arctic Tundra is damaged? The problem here really is the extent of government oversight to ensure the environment is properly restored and water conserved and recycled. Now, there is a danger proper restoration and conservation won't happen or it will be done sloppily or poorly. This could happen as big oil money infects the oversight and regulatory apparatus and process in Alberta. This would be my biggest concern, and if that is the case, that restoration and conservation are not properly adhered to, then Alberta and Canada would be better off without this industry. However, if it can be properly regulated, water conserved, and the environment restored, I am not so "knee-jerk" a liberal environmentalist as to have a problem with what Alberta is doing. Notice I am saying, "IF." I think environmentalists need to pick and choose their battles. We cannot be so foolish to believe that the world is going to suddenly and markedly decrease oil consumption. On a personal note, I also find it a bit sickening to see so-called environmental liberals driving around big SUV's with pro-environmental bumper stickers on them, SUV's that you can see parked in the driveway of $1 million dollar New England or California homes. Meanwhile Joe Blow has to pay over $3 a gallon for gas to get to his job at Wal-Mart's. So, to be what I think is a real environmentalist and a real liberal we have to walk the walk and live our values. And, think about the Joe Blow's of this world as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thinking About It Posted by: Jordonquits
Welcome To The New-Newfoundland
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Sep 17, 2007 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One way or the other, that oil is coming out of the ground. Alberta is a conservative stronghold, and the conservative record on the environment is only more apalling than the Liberal Party, who at least paid lip service to Kyoto, the conservatives just bought a second hand copy of the Bush environmental plan and called it a made in Canada solution. 'Intensity-Based' they call it. Well the BS is certainly intense.

What are you going to do, convince Albertans that oil is bad? That's all they have, cattle notwithstanding. That oil will come out of the ground, same as it will in Iraq and everywhere else.

You could invent a car tomorrow that ran on water, they'd still try squeeze every last drop out of the earth, with no regard for the consequences, while lobbying against the evils of the water car.

The deals are already made, and when it's done, Alberta will be an ecological and economic wasteland. A ghost town, the new Newfoundland, lord tunderin Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Addtional Impacts...
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Sep 17, 2007 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to: ( http://www.oilsandswatch.org/ ) and take a look at the slides and video of what this actually looks like! The impacts to Canada are tremendous but do not stop there...

Here in the Midwest we have multinational corporations like BP, Conoco Philips, and others that have bought up old refineries (for about 30 to 50 percent of the cost of building a new one) and are expanding them on the cheap to process the synthetic crude from tar sands.

I say "on the cheap" because even though they are spending billions of dollars on their expansions they are concurrently seeking exemptions, variances, and/or increases in air and water pollution discharge permits instead of using state-of-the-art cutting edge refinery and waste treatment technologies that would increase efficiency, make them more competitive, and reduce pollution.

At the 1,400 acre -- 410,000 bpd refinery in Whiting, Indiana (where the Burton Cracking Process was first developed which doubled the amount of gasoline produced from crude oil and enabled the "progress" of the gasoline-powered automobile) BP is spending $3.8 billion to increase the amount of Canadian tar sand oil crude processed from 30 to 90 per cent and increasing production of fuels by 15% to 1.7 million gallons a day. The projected 2000 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs has lead to the all to familiar Jobs vs. Environment myth being hotly debated in the local press. The refinery currently employs 1,7000 and another 2,000 contractors.

BP's air pollution permit variances (granted on July 5th) are still pending with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and U.S. EPA and have been challenged by the City of Chicago, the Illinois Attorney General, the Natural resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center in an administrative review process before IDEM.

[ In related developments U.S. EPA is being challenged on its recent decisions to not tighten federal rules on toxic air pollution form refineries and is still sitting on regulations to require companies to install emission-reduction equipment if they build or expand. Perhaps they are waiting until all of the current U.S. refinery expansions are already under way or completed so the companies can argue economic hardship? ]

In what has been described as a firestorm of public and political (see: U.S. House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 187) outrage over IDEM's approval of a new wastewater discharge permit allowing the dumping of additional water pollution into Lake Michigan lead BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone to announce: "We will not make use of the higher discharge limits in our new permit..."

Among other pollutants (examples include: acetonitrile, benzene, lead, mercury, nickel, toluene, vanadium, etc.), BP's new permit allows the refinery to increase discharges of ammonia by 54% to 1,584 pounds per day (ppd) and suspended solids by 35% to 4,925 ppd and requires a mixing zone in Lake Michigan in order to meet water quality standards.

The mixing zone is currently allowed because Indiana has yet to adopt any final anti-degradation regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) opting instead to a solution to pollution by dilution! Under 1995 U.S. EPA mercury standards BP's annual discharge should be 8/100th of a pound. However, BP currently puts 2 pounds of mercury into Lake Michigan every year! BP says that it doubts any industrial polluter or municipal sewage treatment plant can meet the stringent federal limit of 1.3 parts mercury per trillion parts water for discharges into the Great Lakes... Under the new permit BP is given until 2012 to reduce mercury discharges. The refinery is also listed as one of the top industrial source of lead, nickel and ammonia pollution directly released into the lake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Additional Impacts continued...
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Sep 17, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first stated goal in the CWA is "it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985." Of course in the current corporate political climate going towards Zero Discharge is never talked about even though the gains American industry could realize in efficiency, competitiveness, and profits from technology transfers worldwide from new and innovative technologies would more than offset any additional costs of developing and implementing them.

In trying to improve its degraded public image the "green" advertising "Beyond Petroleum" BP, which made $22.3 billion last year, has pledged a $5 million grant for Purdue Calumet Water Institute (PWI) and the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) towards a joint effort to identify and evaluate emerging technologies with the potential to improve wastewater treatment across the Great Lakes. Lets hope their honest about doing better since the members of PWI's advisory board are Rees Madsen, senior environmental consultant for BP Whiting and Kay Nelson (she submitted comments to IDEM in support of BP's new wastewater permit), director of environmental affairs for the Northwest Indiana Forum.

Interestingly the City of Chicago spent $10,000 hiring a engineering firm to study BP's wastewater discharges and identified 7 technologies currently on the market that BP didn't even consider using in its expansion plans. The report from the Chicago Department of Environment states that implementation of the technologies to reduce pollution could cost and additional $40 million increasing BP's planned wastewater treatment investment from $150 million to under $200 million which is still a fraction of the overall $3.8 billion expansion project.

Even though Indiana's Governor Mitch Daniels (former Eli Lilly lobbyist and head of OMB for the Bush administration) has already been presented over 70,000 "Beyond Preposterous" petitions signed from concerned Indiana and Illinois the new BP wastewater permit is a "Done Deal" and is now considered final. "We've got thousands of jobs that will be at risk if it doesn't go forward..." Daniels says. Nothing but BP's word keeps them from discharging more pollution into Lake Michigan.

Contrast that to the report "Healthy Water, Strong Economy: The Benefits of Restoring the Great Lakes Ecosystem" which involved 1,500 people coming to gether to agree that it's a good idea to spend $26 billion in investments over the next five years to create $50 billion in long-term economic benefit for the region by cleaning up the Great Lakes. Including $13 billion to $14 billion, for upgrading municipal treatment plants to reduce combined sewer overflows of inadequately treated human and industrial wastes while creating thousands of permanent jobs and over 185,000 construction jobs. When it pays for itself it sounds like a no brainer to me... Especially when we apparently can spend over $451,375,358,894 on fighting a war for oil, er... I mean democracy, in Iraq!

The current state of deregulation and whatever regulations still exist and how they are "enforced" create a disparity between common sense and what we are forced to live with. BP can say they are complying with all the requirements of the regulations... What they fail to say is that these are regulations that the regulated community either wrote or lobbied for until they got their way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Solution...
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Sep 17, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the mid-1990s, we had too what the oil industry considered as much capacity. Federal oil price controls ended with deregulation in 1981 when the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day (bpd). By 2005 we had just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million bpd. Once deregulated, through business practices and collectively, the oil industry reduced refinery capacity and increased profits to record levels through mergers, acquisitions, and shut down of independent refineries. Evidence is detailed in the report; "The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity: More Than Meets the Eye" by Senator Ron Wyden.

Another consideration is the fine line OPEC walks between price and demand while keeping us hooked up to their oil like a bunch of junkies on drugs and making as much money as possible... The biggest fear OPEC has is that oil prices will go up and stay high long enough to fuel investment into conservation and alternative energy sources to the point that a critical mass is reached and the need for their oil is greatly diminished or replaced by other energy sources they don't control. That's exactly what happened in the 1970's and it took OPEC opening up the tap and flooding the markets to make oil cheap again over a decade to reverse the trend. The result was that interest in conservation and alternative energy waned and investments dried up in the face of cheap oil again.

Of course the way to actually solve the problem is to change that way we commute and technologies we use to do so...

By increasing the average mileage to 35 miles per gallon we could by 2018: create 241,000 new U.S. jobs, save U.S. consumers $37 billion dollars, reduce US oil dependence by more than we import from Saudi Arabia today, not to mention cutting 260 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent pollution! See: "Creating Jobs, Saving Energy, and Protecting the Environment: An Analysis of the Potential Benefits of Investing in Efficient Cars and Trucks, A 2007 Update" - Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.ucsusa.org ).

Conservative estimates of how far technology can take us include: using continuously evolving conventional technologies, automakers could produce a fleet of cars and light trucks that achieve over 40 miles per gallon of gasoline. Using hybrid technologies, the fuel economy level could be raised to 55 miles per gallon. And with fuel cell technology, we could possibly reach near 80 miles per gallon. This vehicle fleet would look much like that of today while maintaining, if not improving, performance and safety standards.

Current proposals to increase average mileage to 32 miles per gallon (mpg) are a joke! In 1908 the Ford Model T got 25.0 mpg. In 2004 the average mileage for US autos was 20.8 mpg!

The only time US auto manufactures have increased mpg is when they have been forced to. US auto manufactures don't like being told what to do! Why do you think they came up with SUVs and created one of the most effective advertising campaigns in history to create such a demand for them? SUVs have no federal mandated mileage standards. Contrary to industry claims, many of the technology issues are so much smoke... Huge improvements are already available and affordable right now. For example, get the DVD "Who Killed the Electric
Car?" and watch it! Visit Sony Picture Classic's interactive webpage on the DVD for more facts.

See the Rocky Mountain Institute's ( www.rmi.org ) webpage for it's papers and publications (like "Winning the Oil Endgame") on Transportation and Energy. Check out the 69 to 99 mpg Hypercar SUV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Solution continued...
Posted by: ldasteelworker on Sep 17, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently available and affordable technology such as electric cars and trucks can meet close to 90 percent of the population's daily transportation needs and Hybrid vehicle technology can meet the other 10 percent.

Unlike the future promise of hydrogen powered fuel cell technology, several types of electric vehicles are currently being manufactured, sold, and have an existing infrastructure to use for charging them -- the common electrical outlet! Any existing internal combustion driven vehicle can be converted to electric.

Using electrical vehicles actually pollutes less even if the electricity comes from coal as compared to internal combustion engine emissions. However, electricity certainly does not have to come from coal and much cleaner sources of renewable and sustainable energy already exist
such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and biomass. In addition renewable and sustainable energy sources can be developed locally to further increase security and efficiency in supply. There is a lot more to tell but you should go and look it up for yourself -- get informed as to what the truth is!

The real question you should be asking is: Just what is preventing rapid change and progress in transportation and energy production and use?

We need to raise the bar of choices society is given!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Toxic Alberta
Posted by: dfish on Sep 17, 2007 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This documentary outlines the destruction that the oil Sands are doing to the enviroment. I urdge everyone to watch this doc at VBS.com http://www.vbs.tv/player.php click on the News tab and scroll through to find "Toxic Alberta"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

percentage of world oil production
Posted by: luisbaez on Sep 17, 2007 11:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author claims that "It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production." That is completely wrong; it is more like 25%.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE Check numbers
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 18, 2007 12:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States consumes ... two-thirds of global oil production.
Dan Woynillowicz, and World Watch, where did you get this
number? I would believe one quarter.

Dan Woynillowicz I see you mention BENZENE on page 3.
Benzene is a super-carcinogen. If you ever want to get cancer
quickly, just get into that benzene. The costs of such air pollution
are a lot of animals, including people, getting cancer.

Gasoline made from coal is full of fine abrasive sand. Engineers
who design engines will not use it. I wonder how much sand will
be in gasoline made from tar sands? A car engine may not last
more than a fraction of its normal life expectancy if it is run on tar
sand gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Innovate
Posted by: Innovate on Sep 21, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes some good points and highlights areas for improvement. I don't know, however, how the author arrives at the initial statement that the U.S. uses "two thirds" of global oil production. This seems a bit high. Global oil production is ~84 million barrels of oil per day. U.S. consumption is ~20 million barrels of oil per day or ~ 1/4 of global production - still high, but nowhere near the 60% plus implied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PM Harper "ices" the Climate Puck...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Sep 24, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harper: there's no MONEY in climate protection... is there? ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS! YEAH!!!

Canada is working on a variety of strategies, but one of the most exciting is carbon capture and storage.

It holds great potential for major emission reductions at home and abroad.

Pilot projects are underway in western Canada. CO2 is being pumped deep underground into rock formations that have been drained of their oil and gas.

Trapping it there creates a virtuous energy cycle: We take hydrocarbons out, tap their energy, and put the emissions back.

*shriek*

we don't need no GREEN solutions! we can expend research & energy... making petroleum less carbon-y...

yeah, that's it... let's get right on that...

we don't need no stinking renewable energy alternative solutions... naaa~~h!

Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian.com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Open Sore
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Sep 26, 2007 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's no secret that demand for oil is increasing everywhere, and if Canada decides to open Alberta up to more petroleum drilling to satisfy world hunger for black gold, it will forever scar the landscape.
Northern Canada's environment is very fragile; energy exploration will alter practically every living thing in that province. Canada must consider the day after.
Yes it will make the country prosper, but, BUT the land will have an open sore that will not heal. Please, Canada. I love your country but resist this temptation. Think of the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]