Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Turning Tar into Oil: An Economic and Environmental Disaster Looms

By Naomi Klein, The Nation. Posted June 1, 2007.


The Iraq War has set off one of the largest oil booms in history -- and the race to mine the tar sands of Alberta will result in environmental disaster.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Naomi Klein

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.

This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law -- that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta.

For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.

Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen -- black, tarlike goo that is mixed up with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.

It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes.

Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.

Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in.

Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put. Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands").

That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta -- previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil -- was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.

All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary.

The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs. Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: oil, calgary

Naomi Klein is the author of "No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies" and "Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate."

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


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:
Anything that is NON-renewable and likely to involve wars for it will be deemed "acceptable".
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 1, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever wonder why there are no efforts to fund and allow alternative renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, hemp to compete in the so-called "free" market? Ever wonder why INDUSTRIAL HEMP remains BANNED even as we fight wars for finite resources such as oil, coal, nuclear? Ever wonder why neither the right nor the left rewards conservation but spits on those of us who actually try hard? Ever wonder why efforts to fund and keep affordable PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION are DERAILED to DEATH ?!?!?

NONE of these require petroleum or for that matter wars, THAT'S WHY ! And anyone who argues that any of those efforts I described above require petroleum has gotten their facts all WRONG. No hemp, solar, wind, and geothermal do NOT require petroleum and only spokespeople for BIG OIL will say it does. Turn off the TV and help each other grow this country harmlessly and put the YOYO middle-fingering to rest !

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

» Hemp, solar, wind and geothermal Posted by: Lloyd Drako
Thought Exercise
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 1, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I promise not to make this whole post about iraq and the oil motive, but I do believe we invaded iraq in order to drive up the price of oil to the point where tar sands can be exploited. I believe the neocons did this to avoid economic collapse.

Now for a thought exercise, consider this. What if everything works out perfectly with the tar sands. Lets say we're able to extract 20 mbpd by 2020. Ignoring the xx number of countries that are currently in decline, let's say we're able to increase global production to meet demand. So in 13 years we go from 84 mbpd to 100 mbpd. BUT, even under this rosy and unrealistic scenario, the cost of producing that tar-oil is considerable. As noted, it's like $20+ per barrel. But that's not just money being spent, it's energy. So when you scale this up into the tens of millions of barrels, you have a problem! Millions of barrels of oil would be going into the production of the oil. If you can visualize that, then you can understand that we are ALREADY at peak oil, and have been for two years. Because over the past 2 years, oil production has ceased to grow, yet the COST of production, in terms of both dollars and barrels of oil input, has continued to rise.

So that 84 mbpd or so of oil that we're currently producing, even if it is slightly increasing over the years, the x number of barrels it costs to produce that 84, that number x is increasing at a faster rate. Which means we're already at peak oil, and have been for far longer than most realize. Probably since 2002 or earlier. The tar sands hold the key to understanding this.

Tar sands also use up a LOT of natural gas. Much of that gas was previously untapped, due to it being so far away from where it is in demand. But when that gas is gone (or piped down to where we're really starting to need it), the oil companies are going to have to start sucking down even more of their oil output back into the production process. Heh they even want to build nuclear plants up there, to power this process. Now that is scary. (Not because I hate nuclear plants, they dont bother me.) It is scary because it shows you how much energy is truly required to produce oil from tar sands!

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

I thought Canada was a socialist paradise. How can it be that
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jun 1, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they are involved with hydrocarbon exploitation? It must the evil, capitalist USA that pressured Canada into participating the evil exploitation of Mother Gaia by drilling for oil, extracting gas, clubbing seals, mining for minerals, and cutting down forests. The USA is awful!!

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

How much energy is used to extract oil from tar sand?
Posted by: Lizmv on Jun 1, 2007 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seems to be not only financially costly but also energy costly.....Anyone know?

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

» Ok I found it....... Posted by: Lizmv
Another amazing coincidence in my fortunately long life.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 1, 2007 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1970s, my late father, Ed Scott, a career geologist for Union Oil of California, now Unocal, lived in Calgary where he was vice president of exploration for Union’s Canadian subsidiary.

Back then, the Alberta tar sands weren’t commercially viable. But had they been, my father, who was an ardent hunter and loved the wilds of Canada, would have vetoed Union’s development of tar sand deposits, had it been proposed.

Years later, in 2004, I wrote about Dad in a narrative nonfiction book of mine, George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT, to point the destructive influence oilmen have had on U.S. foreign policy.

I already knew Bush and Cheney had worked in the petroleum business before winning the.White House. But imagine my surprise upon learning that our UN ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been a Unocal consultant.

Another binding tie was Khalilzad's membership in the rightwing subversive organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), along with the architects of Gulf War 2: Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby. President Bush is connected to PNAC through his brother, Jeb, a PNAC founder.

Getting back to Zamay Khalilzad, he was a Chevron board member in addition to his Unocal relationship. When Bush 41 was president, Khalilzad worked for Paul Wolfowitz in the Defense Department. Prior to Gulf War 1, both Wolfowitz and Khalilzad advocated the use of military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

After Khalilzad left the DOD, he worked for the Rand Corporation, a rightwing think tank that performed research for the U.S. military, DOD and American intelligence community. Not surprisingly, Unocal was a Rand client.

While consulting for Unocal, Khalilzad participated in talks with the Taliban on Afghan oil and gas pipeline infrastructure, escorted a delegation of Taliban leaders that visited Unocal headquarters in Texas, and called for the United States to support their regime.

During the Clinton years, Khalilzad conducted risk assessments for Unocal on their proposed 900-mile pipeline project to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan. Even as the Clinton administration began to recognize the repressive nature of the Taliban regime and its links to Osama Bin Laden, Khalilzad called for U.S. engagement with the Taliban.

The history of Unocal’s Middle East adventurism was featured in a Washington Post story headlined, “How Afghanistan Went Unlisted as a Terrorist Sponsor.”

The article said Unocal hired Henry Kissinger and former U.S. ambassador John Maresca for advisory work. Marcesca later became a Unocal vice president. Robert Oakley, former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, was hired by Unocal as well for advisory work.

Richard Armitage, a PNAC signatory and Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, also performed Unocal contract work. No stranger to the pipeline business, Armitage was a member of the Burma/Myanmar Forum, a group that received major funding from Unocal. In 1997, he was implicated in a lawsuit filed by Burmese villagers who suffered human rights abuses during the construction of a Unocal pipeline. Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, also performed contract work on the Burmese project.

I could go on and on about the White House being controlled by oil company executives, but instead, I will relate the feelings expressed by my father, as told to me many times. The influence on government energy policies by petroleum companies would have concerned him greatly. For certain, Dad, who was honest to a fault, would not have wanted oilmen in the White House.

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

Extinction of Homo Sapiens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 10:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See my comment under http://www.alternet.org/environment/52799/?cID=670542
We have less than 200 years until our extinction under the previous "Business As Usual" scenario.

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