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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Biggest Global Warming Crime in History

By Cahal Milmo, Independent UK. Posted December 13, 2007.


The Canadian wilderness is set to be invaded by BP in an oil exploration project dubbed 'the biggest global warming crime' in history.
Advertisement

BP, the British oil giant that pledged to move "Beyond Petroleum" by finding cleaner ways to produce fossil fuels, is being accused of abandoning its "green sheen" by investing nearly £1.5bn to extract oil from the Canadian wilderness using methods which environmentalists say are part of the "biggest global warming crime" in history.

The multinational oil and gas producer, which last year made a profit of £11bn, is facing a head-on confrontation with the green lobby in the pristine forests of North America after Greenpeace pledged a direct action campaign against BP following its decision to reverse a long-standing policy and invest heavily in extracting so-called "oil sands" that lie beneath the Canadian province of Alberta and form the world's second-largest proven oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

Producing crude oil from the tar sands -- a heavy mixture of bitumen, water, sand and clay -- found beneath more than 54,000 square miles of prime forest in northern Alberta -- an area the size of England and Wales combined -- generates up to four times more carbon dioxide, the principal global warming gas, than conventional drilling. The booming oil sands industry will produce 100 million tonnes of CO2 (equivalent to a fifth of the UK's entire annual emissions) a year by 2012, ensuring that Canada will miss its emission targets under the Kyoto treaty, according to environmentalist activists.

The oil rush is also scarring a wilderness landscape: millions of tonnes of plant life and top soil is scooped away in vast open-pit mines and millions of litres of water are diverted from rivers -- up to five barrels of water are needed to produce a single barrel of crude and the process requires huge amounts of natural gas. The industry, which now includes all the major oil multinationals, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell and American combine Exxon-Mobil, boasts that it takes two tonnes of the raw sands to produce a single barrel of oil. BP insists it will use a less damaging extraction method, but it accepts that its investment will increase its carbon footprint.

Mike Hudema, the climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace in Canada, told The Independent: "BP has done a very good job in recent years of promoting its green objectives. By jumping into tar sands extraction it is taking part in the biggest global warming crime ever seen and BP's green sheen is gone.

"It takes about 29kg of CO2 to produce a barrel of oil conventionally. That figure can be as much 125kg for tar sands oil. It also has the potential to kill off or damage the vast forest wilderness, greater than the size of England and Wales, which forms part of the world's biggest carbon sinks. For BP to be involved in this trade not only flies in the face of their rhetoric but in the era of climate change it should not be being developed at all. You cannot call yourself 'Beyond Petroleum' and involve yourself in tar sands extraction." Mr Hudema said Greenpeace was planning a direct action campaign against BP, which could disrupt its activities as its starts construction work in Alberta next year.

The company had shied away from involvement oil sands, until recently regarded as economically unviable and environmentally unpleasant. Lord Browne of Madingley, who was BP's chief executive until May, sold its remaining Canadian tar sands interests in 1999 and declared as recently as 2004 that there were "tons of opportunities" beyond the sector.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, global warming, climate change, alberta, tar sands, bp

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
Not A Global Warming Crime
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 13, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pursuant to the usual obsession with global warming, the headline and focus of this article are highly misplaced. This is a habitat destruction crime, with global warming being merely a byproduct of the habitat destruction.

There are many other very serious environmental problems aside from global warming. Even if humans stopped adding unnatural greenhouse gases to our atmosphere immediately, we would still be destroying the Earth by many of our other actions (overpopulation, logging, mining, cattle grazing, etc.). It is very disappointing to me, a longtime environmentalist, that enviros have become so obsessed with global warming that they're now totally failing to recognize all the other environmental harms we're doing. There's no point in trying to solve global warming while ignoring all the other environmental harms, and articles like this one just add to that process.

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

» RE: Not A Global Warming Crime Posted by: richholland
What do you expect when everything is simply For Sale?
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 14, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The job of government has been to set limits; it's called writing laws. However, our American tradition has been to give business the run of the continent. So long as we had vast resources that made some sense.

Times have changed, and we don't know how to change. Making change is what we humans find the hardest to do.

Serious talk of limits began 35 years ago. Remember the Club of Rome? No one is listening because that called for change. We cannot see past the simple rule, if you can pay for it, you deserve it. The answer is to grow up. But that means to change. So we continue as dependent children hoping for a good mommy and daddy. Democracy cannot survive that way.

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

Self rRghteous Indignation is Cheap
Posted by: simp on Dec 14, 2007 6:19 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that there is a rush to develop oil sands is because you consume all that energy. Interesting that the worst offenders are probably Californians who probably have 2 cars per person. They are the most self righteous. Arnold runs around telling everyone they are BAD. Hey clown you drive a Hummer and so do all of your buddies. Look in the mirror before you blame everyone else.
When a politician is loudly blaming someone else you better look a little closer. Anyone who is not doing EVERYTHING to reduce their own emissions, is not really committed.

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

» Ad hominems are cheap too. Posted by: EKSwitaj
Global Warming is the ONLY environmental issue
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming is the ONLY environmental problem that will
cause the EXTINCTION OF HOMO SAPIENS [US, Humans,
People] in about 100 years, and the fall of civilization much
sooner. Global Warming is the ONLY environmental problem
that IS causing a truly major extinction event NOW. Global
Warming is therefore the ONLY problem, not just the only
environmental problem, worthy of attention at this time; except
for the problem of escaping from Earth and setting up a self-
sustaining colony on Mars, just in case. Read the following:

Book: "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2553.html
Under a Green Sky
Summary (Dec 13, 2007): In Peter Ward’s newest book, “Under a
Green Sky,” he explains how global warming has led to the loss of
life throughout Earth’s history. “If you look at the fossil record, it
is just littered with dead bodies (from past catastrophes),” Ward
says. He says that only one extinction in Earth’s past was caused
by an asteroid impact – the event 65 million years ago that ended
the age of the dinosaurs. All the rest, he claims, were caused by
global warming. “The Earth was ‘Al Gored’,” jokes Ward.

Book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. See a summary at
http://www.marklynas.org/2007
/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary
-of-six-degrees-as-published
-in-the-guardian

Articles: http://www.sciam.com/article.
cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

http://www.geosociety.org/meetings
/2003/prPennStateKump.htm

http://www.astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload&
name=News&file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload&
name=News&file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/news
/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/modules
.php?op=modload&name=
News&file=article&sid=2429
&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

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

8 years to runaway climate feedbacks
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 16, 2007 9:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See the chart on page 274 of "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. We have until 2015
to BEGIN REDUCING our total CO2 output and we have until 2050 to actually
reduce our CO2 output by 90%. The curve has to start down by 2015, not we
have to think about it by then. The peak of our CO2 production has to happen in
the next 8 years. Sorry, but we can't wait for research, no matter how interesting.
We have to implement what we know right now. The only technology we have
right now to replace coal fired power plants is nuclear power plants. I like solar,
wind, hydro, and geothermal, but all of them together cannot replace the base load
capacity of coal. Sorry, but nuclear is the only option. If we don't follow the
schedule in Six Degrees, we will encounter positive feedbacks which will take the
control of the climate out of our hands. Civilization may fall anyway well before
2050, and we could go extinct by 2100. We have to hold the CO2 level to 400
parts per million to have a 75% chance of avoiding the positive feedbacks. The
natural positive feedbacks are explained in Six Degrees.

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

Make 'Em Pay
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Dec 17, 2007 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny how our Prime Minister has been pushing his 'made in Canada' alternative to Kyoto, which is basically the Bush plan. They know damn well that they can't give the oil companies free reign if we sign on to a silly thing like Kyoto.

The big story a while ago was about getting more royalties for the public of Alberta from the oil companies. Of course, they cried bloody murder, 'you'll scare away investment' 'the economy will be damaged for years!'. Come on. That oil is coming out of the ground one way or the other, and the ecological costs will be huge. So let's make them beg for it. Let's make them jump through so many green hoops that they almost don't want to do it. Let's regulate the shit out of them.

We're supposed to believe that the oil companies are just going to look at billions of barrels of oil and say 'nah, we have to do too much clean up, and the public thinks we should pay them for the destruction of their lands'.

It just takes leaders who aren't in their pockets.

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

» RE: Make 'Em Pay Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
What Price?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 17, 2007 2:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the ability of someone to continue driving a gas guzzling SUV on a long commute from their outsized suburban McMansion to a job worth the destruction of our air, water, land, wildlife and climate? I say no.

The western lifestyle in the US mold is an unsustainable one and our children will damn us for our shortsighted pursuit of an indefensible lifestyle at such a high price. What kind of people are we and what kind of world do we live in, when it seems that nothing is respected or sacred but money and the pursuit of money?

There is a way to live with the earth, as part of it as opposed to trying to live apart from it. We are interconnected and interdependent upon the whole ecosystem- everything is here for a purpose and we not only have to right to destroy on such a scale, but risk the very viability of life as we know it on this planet.

The people, blinded by greed and ambition, that are driving this are condemning their own children and those of countless others to misery and hardship- something they have no reasonable right to do. Those who by their support through purchase of such products are just as guilty of the destruction and madness.

Just where do these people think they are going to live when the air is foul, the water is not fit to drink, the land is poisoned and the climate changed beyond anything we know?

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

» RE: What Price? Posted by: richholland
solutions not possible
Posted by: richholland on Dec 17, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
reading Alternet it is obvious that as long as PROFIT making is the main force in the USA green solutions only will come if the big corporations are making profits with it.
Public enterprises working at break even are not communistic or terrorists or racists etc.
Communities could work together with the allready excisting technologie.
the problems on the housing market, enviromental pollution are mainly the result of a 19 th century filosofie:Capitalisme.

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

Are fossil fuels the modern equivalent of the slave trade?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 17, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canada is the number one oil exporter to the United States. The main use of that oil is for transportation - cars and trucks. Inefficient cars are one reason the U.S. accounts for 25% of global oil demand. Demand, in the economist's mind, is what creates supply.

It is very expensive to produce oil from tar sands - natural gas and water are needed in large amounts, as are strip mining equipment and fuel to operate them. Only in an era of high energy prices is it profitable to develop tar sands. Costs of production are around $20 a barrel - far greater than in Iraq, but without the disadvantages of hostile natives. Thus, until people were willing to pay for it, the tar sands
remained untouched.

Tar sands are similar to biofuels in terms of the energy budget balancing - perhaps around 1:4 (in:out). The big difference with biofuels is that the carbon in biofuels came from the atmosphere when the crops were grown, while the carbon in tar sands oil has been in the ground for millions of years. A global society that used nothing but biofuels would tend to maintain a steady, stable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - but if biofuel crop production leads to increased deforestation or industrial agricultural practices, it would have the opposite effect of increasing CO2.

Climate-wise, tar sands are as bad as it gets. Long-term plans are to burn a portion of the tar sands on-site to provide energy for the mining and melting-cracking processes that produce oil. If global warming were to be countered, the first two types of projects to be shut down globally would be tar sands and oil shale, followed by coal and petroleum production.

Economically and politically, the Alberta tar sands consortiums and their investors (including everyone from China to India to Exxon to BP to ConocoPhillips) are in control. They view the tar sands as a "stranded asset" and intend to convert it all to exportable products. ConocoPhillips is planning on being the world's biggest tar sands operator.

The Canadian government also sees Alberta's low unemployment rate and booming development as strong economic growth and helps out by easing regulations and taxes and doing promotional work.

Multinational oil corporations are in business for one reason - to make money - and the fact is that the long-term costs of global warming don't appear anywhere on their balance sheets. Through acts of political and legal trickery, they and their shareholders have so far been managing to avoid responsibility for creating a global crisis of epic proportions.

BP is a pretty funny example- they run a huge greenwashing program about their "Beyond Petroleum" agenda, then are exposed creating an environmental disaster at Prudoe Bay, Alaska. They then enter into a consortium with the University of California, Berkeley, to set up a "Biofuels Research Center" - where they will have a controlling interest in the direction of research plus priority access to any patents generated. Part of the University of California's argument for this is the "need to fight global warming."

At the same time, oil companies are racing to secure claims over the newly ice-free Arctic ocean's potential mineral and petroleum reserves. As per global warming predictions made over 25 years ago, the poles and the mountain glaciers are melting first.

Hurray! say the oil companies - more access to oil! And, yes, we're deeply concerned about the now-acknowledged phenomenon of global warming and we have decided to fund some studies to find out what's causing it. Would you like a cigar?

Some Athabasca tar sands photos

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

canadian government to blame
Posted by: somegirl on Dec 17, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i can't really blame the oil companies, no matter how evil i think they are, for this. blame the canadian government that is allowing it, selling off their wilderness. just like the usa opening up the alaskan wilderness - it's reprehensible, but it's not the oil companies' fault that gov't representatives will sell their souls, and the nation's resources, to the highest bidders.

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

» RE: canadian government to blame Posted by: tommy_slothrop
As ignorant as Corporate and Political conservatives can be
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 17, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are laws that, when disobeyed, are lethal... this is extinction behavior, which seems especially rampant on the part of the wealthy and the elite (we are "led" by the stoopids of the world).

1. Everything is related to everything else;
2. There is no away/everything must go somewhere;
3. There are limits;
4. There is no free lunch; and,
5. Everything is always changing.

Every school child should and must know these laws. Without such rudimentary knowledge humans cannot survive. Now go to work and quiz the "adults" around you. Then go quiz the kids. I bet a beer you'll get less then 1% who know even one of them.

BP is like every other rich asshat who is taking up valuable resources. Extinction, people. Extinction.

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

otto
Posted by: otto on Dec 17, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up here in Canada this leads to another problem: Canadian sovereignty. Many of us are concerned about SPP talks between the U.S., Mexico and Canada (Security and Prosperity Parnership - sort of NAFTA on steroids!) which our governments are working out under the table. Canada already has to import oil because we are bound to send the U.S. 60 % of our oil, even if we have greater needs for ourselves. We have been giving in to American demands on travel restrictions and passports. (No protest when an innocent citizen (Mahar Arar) was picked up in New York and "outsourced" for torture in Egypt!) And we keep on hearing of plans to build pipelines to send tarsands oil to Texas, and water to the dry parts - now a good number of states - in the south. Ordinary citizens of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico have to unite to stop our governments from selling us all out to the big corporations like BP...actually, we have been doing this at SPP meetings, most recently in Quebec.

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

» RE: otto Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Is there any doubt
Posted by: willymack on Dec 17, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About the destructive effects of GREED? How else could one describe the criminals in the "energy" industry other than EVIL? A way to produce what we need in the way of propulsion and electrical power WITHOUT BURNING ANYTHING can and MUST be found, and the sooner, the better. Who knows? It may already exist and is being kept under wraps until everything combustible is exhausted.

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

» RE: Is there any doubt Posted by: thelostsailor
Make Renewable Energy Cheaper
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 17, 2007 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A global carbon tax is good but it's not enough. The world's poor will simply take down the world's forests.

We need to subsidize the invention, the development and the manufacturing of renewable energy devices -- wind, solar, many other options. This economic strategy leaves more trees standing.

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

» RE: Make Renewable Energy Cheaper Posted by: richholland
We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change!
Posted by: rt968 on Dec 17, 2007 8:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the following and then ask yourself... Do I really have an idea of what is really going on? The big picture? Can you see it? Here is the link and remember to look at the signatories to this open letter at the bottom. The notion that Global Warming is caused by humans is bogus.
www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

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

No change
Posted by: Melvin on Dec 17, 2007 8:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil form the tar sands goes to the USA!
Canada's oil in large part comes from Venezuela.
As has been said above ; Canada is being raped, for it's resources, just as much as third world countries are. I see it here in B.C where the forest is being exported to keep US sawmills alive. Needless to say 'if' Canada was powerful enough we would be doing the same. Frankly; there is no end in site & with a potential market recession next year there is little hope of change.

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

United States has 4 Times the Oil of Saudi Arabia! Natural Gas for 200 YEARS!!!
Posted by: DaySpring Gatherings on Dec 18, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOOGLE PRUDHOE BAY AND GULL ISLAND!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

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

oh and Global Warming.....how Solar System Evolving????
Posted by: DaySpring Gatherings on Dec 18, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/

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

Harper's Minority governments days...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Dec 18, 2007 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...are numbered!!!

the Progressive Conservative Party is alive and well... the conservatives may have abandoned us but we NEVER abandoned the party its ideals or principles!!! the Red Serge [Red Conservatives] are alive in well in the Progressive Canadian Party!

Their are special holes in hell for the likes of Peter Mckay and his backstabbing ilk, may he rot in hell forever!

now take that to the bank and choke on it David Frum you Fake Canadian!!!

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

The Whole Environment and Nothing But
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Dec 18, 2007 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life itself is the Great Issue of 2008, and that means every "Green" or Environmental Issue that, collectively, will supersede "global warming" as the "other than the war" issue in the next election.

Global warming, in its proper perspective, is a tide that comes and goes depending upon the amount of plant life on earth. The problems we face are beyond the tidal movement, and this fact has allowed the Bush Corporate Agenda to dominate the media and evade the real issue.

That real issue is the destruction of life, the encroachment of mankind, its un-civiliztion of the globe through weapons, wars, wiles, waste, worm-less farming, wandering cities and suburbs, deforestation, synthetic chemicals, and waterless landscapes.

To think in terms of Global Warming alone is a self-ensnaring trap, when the real danger is in ignoring every other Environmental issue that fits into the Whole. That man was "evicted from the Garden" really makes sense, in that we have had nothing but trouble ever since, looking at the world piece-meal rather than as a single Whole, Indivisible Ecosystem.

Tree by tree, insect by insect, flower by flower, and acre by acre we have destroyed the Garden, and now is the time to look around at what we have done. Now is the time to change, or we never will.

Thomas A Nagy, Global Cooling Initiative

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

To Asteroid Miner
Posted by: jonnymil on Dec 20, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear is not only NOT the only option, it cannot, must not be considered an option AT ALL!

The goal has to be sustainability, and a product which produces radiological waste with a half life of tens of thousands of years is as clearly unsustainable as can possibly be imagined.

Furthermore, the nuclear power industry, owned and operated worldwide by the same folks who gave us fossil fuel dependency, is a completely unprofitable industry without massive government subsidies. I won't argue about whether or not that kind of governmnent money invested in renewables would make a difference. And your points regarding the immediacy of the global warming problem we've created are indeed moving, but the facts on nuclear power must needs make it the "line in the sand" we begin to draw. It does not help the problem, it only makes it worse. Did you read the AlterNet article this week featuring Amy Goodman's interview of Harvey Wasserman?

Other commentators have mentioned the need to move toward sustainability by curbing our population growth and reducing our activities which increase demand for oil (and other fossil fuels). And they are right. It seems that any way we want to look at the problem(s), the future looks bleak. But ending forever the activity of splitting atoms will greatly contribute to any successes that come on the environmental forefrunt.

Finally, sure, we can blame the Canadian or Albertan governments, but shame on BP for reneging on their auspicious problems anyway!

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