Topic
Behold the latest mystical and ecstatic pronouncements of Keystone XL acolytes.
Gather round southern neighbours! This stuff is miraculous.
While a decision is likely still months away, here are some U.S. pipeline power brokers to watch.
Former premier Lougheed is right. Piping raw bitumen to US is a lousy deal for Alberta's people.
"At length corruption, like a general flood,
Did deluge all, and avarice creeping on,
Spread, like a low-born mist, and hid the sun.
Statesmen and patriots plied alike the stocks,
Peeress and butler shared alike the box;
And judges jobbed, and bishops bit the town,
And mighty dukes packed cards for half-a-crown:"
-- Alexander Pope
It has been an extraordinary couple of weeks for bitumen mania and related delusions as Canadian politicians and oil executives rally around the Keystone XL pipeline the way drunken bankers once talked up the ill-fated South Sea Company in the 18th century.
Canada's Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver who hawks bitumen better than a seasoned tulip speculator, even dubbed the tarry junk crude a "greener alternative" in a Chicago speech.
The very next day Oliver told a Houston crowd they had but one choice: Americans could buy "low-cost oil from a friend and ally with a robust environmental protection regime" or purchase expensive oil from unsavoury people elsewhere.
Other bitumen champions hailed bitumen mines as a steaming example of "responsible resource development." Why the resource will even improve the energy security of North America!
In particular Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall gushed liked a ruptured Enbridge pipeline in Washington, D.C., about bitumen's sordid charms which, of course, include more dollars and jobs for Americans than Canadians.
Al Monaco, CEO of Enbridge, the very firm that produced the continent's most expensive oil spill with diluted bitumen and then responded like the Keystone Cops, cheered on the mania with a call for a "balanced national discussion" on the immediate construction of more pipelines.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford crossed the border too and promoted Keystone XL as a glorious petroleum windfall for all. Oddly her rapturous presentations did not explain why the bitumen republic of Alberta has recorded five sorry deficits in a row and saved nothing for the future.
Given the hubris of bitumen's cheerful advocates, naive Americans might well conclude that a scandal-free Pope will also emerge from the end of the Keystone pipeline only to plop contentedly into the lap of a Valero refinery on the Gulf Coast. Bitumen, it seems, can deliver miracles.
Heresies
But Canada's slavish promoters omitted the troubling facts as hawkers do. They said nothing, for example, about bitumen's poor quality, unending carbon liabilities, soaring costs and appalling energy returns. They also lied about Canada's pathetic environmental record.
The first big omission, of course, concerns bitumen's role in climate change. The Canadians, for example, did not mention how the great ice fields covering the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, the largest collection of ice outside of Greenland and Antarctica, will soon lose a fifth of their volume due to the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, the deeper that industry digs into the tar sands and the more shale gas the industry burns to upgrade the stuff (one-fifth of Canada's annual gas consumption), the smaller the continent's glaciers will become.
Bitumen, which now accounts for 10 per cent of Canada's warming emissions and explains the government's determined muzzling of climate scientists, can only contribute to climate instability and uncertainty. It is a dead end and part of the larger global assault on Creation.
Moreover Canada's environmental record reads like a con game with failing marks on energy intensity, smog and waste generation. Even the Conference Board of Canada recently gave the nation a mark of "D" on climate change.
Thanks to rapid tar sands production, Canada "remains one of the world's largest per capita GHG (greenhouse gas) emitters and ranks 15th out of 17 OECD countries on GHG emissions per capita." And contrary to Oliver's bitumen appeals, this dismal record is not improving.
Natural Resource Minister Oliver also fudged the facts on Canada's environmental regime. It is Third World. The right-wing petro state of Stephen Harper, acting on instructions from aggressive pipeline lobbyists, has now dismantled three of the nation's most important environmental laws to ease the construction of bitumen pipelines.
Damn those fish
The Navigable Waters Protection Act has become the Navigation Protection Act. The Orwellian transformation effectively removed 2.5 million lakes and waterways from environmental protection. The government also gutted the Fisheries Act and Canada's Environmental Assessment Act. As a consequence, Chinese funded pipelines don't have to worry about destroying fish habitats or doing annoying impact studies.
And for good measure and to show the government's disdain for environmental science, Harper's team disbanded the Experimental Lakes Area, a federal research group that once made Canada a champion of freshwater protection.
Canadian pipeline executives also failed to declare their conflict of interest with bitumen mining. They love the ultra-heavy hydrocarbon because the difficult hydrocarbon requires twice as much pipeline infrastructure as light oil. That's right: bitumen is to pipeline companies what gamblers are to casinos: a way to get richer.
The junk crude is so thick and heavy that transporting the stuff takes 30 to 50 per cent more pipe in the ground. Industry not only needs one line to export diluted bitumen but another to import the higher-value light hydrocarbons needed to liquefy the tar for export.
Sensible public policy that demanded bitumen be upgraded and refined into synthetic fuel, gasoline or diesel within Canadian borders would, of course, end Canada's great pipeline mania. But TransCanada and Enbridge now hold Ottawa captive and have rewritten the nation's laws.
Then there is the issue of cost. The crowd in Houston probably snickered at Oliver's preposterous comments about bitumen being "low-cost." Wayne Kelley, a straight shooter at RSK Limited, recently noted an investment of $8 billion in the Middle East yields one million barrels of oil a day. That's low-cost oil.
In contrast, it takes $45 billion to mine one million barrels of bitumen a day and then tens of billions more to upgrade and refine it. That's the world's most expensive oil.
Energy returns and the return of reason
The real problem with high-cost bitumen, notes Tullett Prebon (one of Britain's largest financial players), are its lousy energy returns. Good light oil takes one barrel of energy to put another 20 on the market. That's a healthy energy return on energy invested (EROEI) and a good surplus.
Not so with bitumen. One barrel only yields five more in Alberta's open pit mines, while the awful steam plants offer returns as civilization-killing as corn ethanol: 1:1.
Energy returns of five-to-one would not only cripple the economy but also allow a huge wealth transfer to bitumen miners says Tullett Prebon. If the world ran on fuel made from dirty oil, the energy sector would absorb one-sixth of global GDP -- double what it now does. It would be like running the global economy on the equivalent of $280 a barrel for oil.
Devoting more capital to bitumen sprawl, of course, means squeezing and cannibalizing the rest of economy as well as shrinking food and water supplies, warns the terrifying 2012 Tullett Prebon report. "A declining EROEI could bomb societies back into the pre-industrial age."
Last comes the intoxicating B.S. on energy security. Since 2008 United States expenditures on gasoline have fallen like a stone while domestic production from the Bakken has soared. So moving bitumen to the Gulf Coast is really about finding foreign markets for a junk crude that foreign oil companies have overproduced due to Canada's "give it away" low royalties and taxes.
Charles Mackay, a sensible Scot, nailed it just right though three centuries ago: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Given the number of bitumen maniacs on the prowl, Canada's politicians show no evidence of recovery. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Read more: Energy, Environment,
24
Login or register to post comments
miguel
10 weeks ago
Snake Oil
Cures the common cold, and you can throw away your Viagra too.
bcwoodcarver
10 weeks ago
subsidies to the oil industry
it has been stated here by Mr Nikiforuk that the federal govmt. gives billions in subsidies to the oil industry. From what i can find, there are 0(zero) $ in direct subsidies. Am i wrong?
RickW
10 weeks ago
bcwoodcarver
http://action.davidsuzuki.org/subsidy
Every year, the Canadian government gives more than $1.4 billion in tax subsidies to oil, coal, and gas companies
R Hamilton
10 weeks ago
arctic ice volume
Thank you for this article - welcome respite from the battering we are being subjected to lately - the Conservative Broadcasting Corp. has really stepped up their efforts to manufacture consent for these terrible projects.
A quibble - Mr Nikiforuks comment on arctic ice volume doesn't fit with the latest research on ice volume loss - an 80% decline since the 80's. The following link provides some detail.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
thanks again
cyberclark
10 weeks ago
I guess there is enough poetic balance to go around!
The bitumen bubble is a term invented by the Conservatives in an attempt to cover the fact all their Conventional oil production is also discounted at the same rate!
Cheap oil? Yes! The Conservatives have been discounting oil by 30% for more than 15 years. Hundreds of Billions lost to Alberta!
To make crude from Bitumen they must first know what the end product must look like. Once established they can make the crude. The crude oil from the tar sands is darker in color (carbon).
It is fortified with Natural Gas from the High Level region. You may recall the Government shutting that regions oil in 5 years ago? No one knows how much compensation was paid to the producers (taxpayer pays).
The API or pouring temperate of oil sets it's mark Standard crude has an API of about 19 degrees. Crude made from the Tar Sands has an API of about 9 degrees.
If the customers in the US wanted an API 19 degree oil; they simply ask for it and more gas will go into the mix.
The Tar Sands crude oil is clean! It is environmentally safe! It has the sulphur and metals removed from it which, you cannot say about conventional oil! This crude floats on water! The only way it will kill fish is if some brainiac uses solvents to disperse an oil spill that is harmless but unsightly!
Yes it takes heat and energy to do this but with the price of gas at 3.00 and expected to drop from there; its a sweet deal.
What is wrong is the Conservative Government following Republican policies. And, the Wild Rose in waiting; conceived and born of the LDS church in southern Alberta totally indoctrinated into the US Republican way.
The carbon footprint of the operation is 1/1000 th or less of China's and somewhere in that region for the US! I can live with it.
Doing hatchet jobs on the industry to wave some populace environmental flag serves no one.
Hakuin
10 weeks ago
Tar sand oil is "clean and environmentally safe "
Because it floats? .... Oi vey
Bob L
10 weeks ago
Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent
I am currently reading Andrew Nikiforuk's award winning book "Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent". It is an unbelievable horror story on so many levels! Highly recommended!!!
Bob L
10 weeks ago
The Dirty Truth about Bitumen
1. Bitumen produces 3x the greenhouse gas as conventional oil. Any expansion will make it impossible for Canada to reach its greenhouse gas targets and would only add to a global climate change catastophe (scientists are saying now it will be impossible to keep temperatures from rising above the critical 2°C level).
2. To mine bitumen it takes an enormous amount of natural gas compromising Canada's future supply and water which threatens the future of the Athabasca River System the 3rd largest system in North America.
3. Fracking bitumen may even use more water
4. Unlike regular oil bitumen sinks making clean up almost impossible from bodies of water especially in cooler climates!
5. The toxic holding ponds are leaking contaminents into the ground water. Cases of cancer are showing up in people living downstream.
6. Waterfowl that land on the holding ponds are dieing in the thousands.
7. It has destroyed and continues to destroy a huge forested area. Reclaimation will be decades away ... if ever.
8. Government subsidies are taking much needed money away from much needed clean energy development.
Bob L
10 weeks ago
Risk of Cancer near Bitumen Refineries
A recent study in the United States found that persons living near a bitumen refinery had a higher than normal risk of cancer.
Bob L
10 weeks ago
The Dangers of Diluted Bitumen
Here is a good account of what can happen when there is a dilute bitumen spill
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-diluted-bitumen-oil.html?_r=0
Bob L
10 weeks ago
The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands
A byproduct of bitumen upgrading: petroleum coke
http://desmog.ca/2013/01/22/oil-change-international-coal-hiding-tar-sands
bcwoodcarver
10 weeks ago
RickW
I contacted suzuke over 2 weeks ago and have not heard back. As far as i can see the feds do not give any subsidies to the oil industry.
pwlg
10 weeks ago
a few responses to comments
bcwoodcarver this may help you with your search...
http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/kairos-study-reveals-billions-in-canadian-tax-subsidies-to-big-oil-come-at-the-expense-of-conservation-and-climate
Bob L:
http://www.suncor.com/pdf/2010_Pet_Coke_brochure.pdf
Bob, note sulphur content of petcoke. The high sulphur content should also be considered when evaluating environmental impacts of the tar sands. Also, note that Ridley Terminals in Prince Rupert is a federal crown corporation making it a convenient conduit for Harper, Oliver and the rest of the PetroGang to move the toxic byproduct from the ever increasing piles of bitumen coke forming in Fort McMurray.
pwlg
10 weeks ago
Nikiforuk should receive the Order of BC
Thanks Andrew for this series of articles.
"So moving bitumen to the Gulf Coast is really about finding foreign markets for a junk crude that foreign oil companies have overproduced due to Canada's "give it away" low royalties and taxes."
Exactly!
There is no more room for cracking bitumen or any other crude oil in the refineries of the US.
No new refineries have been built in the US for more than 30 years. In fact, oil companies have been closing refineries in order to keep retail consumer prices high.
Expansion is the name of the game but even with expansions of existing refineries the overall capacity has decreased by 15% over the last 30 years while population in the US has increased by 100 million.
California refiners have close 4 plants rather than comply with that state's "clean" fuel requirements.
Are you listening David Black? If the major oil companies can't see the economic rationale to build new so-called "clean" refineries just what is the reason the bank, stock and money manipulators on Wall Street have in promoting the Illusion in Kitimat?
Nikiforuk is correct, the main purpose of all the pipeline proposals to date is to export bitumen offshore by any means possible to boost the monetary returns to all the players and as Ms. Allan has pointed out in previous Tyee articles it also provides an added bonus to the subsidized oil companies by increasing the price we pay for petroleum products at home.
You couldn't invent a better carny game for the midway. Picture Oliver, Harper, Redford, Christy Clark, all sideshow barkers, hucksters, attempting to lure the hibernating public into their secretive tent making them believe that their petro-dream (oops, I mean nightmare) is in the best interests of Canada.
Rubes no more!
cyberclark
10 weeks ago
Bob L -The Dirty Truth about Bitumen
You are reading the wrong books Bob!
Oil from bitumen is a polished crude oil made to specification for the customers.
Natural gas was used until a few years ago to heat the bitumen to release the oil. Much different under ground process are used now hence the term "firestome" that was Klein's give away.
The producers of oil are subsidized yes. First you must consider oil is not their only business! They use electricity for heat ing and they are looking to build much larger generation capacity and export electricity to the US.
Alberta's new DC towers costing each home between 20 and 60 dollars a month are being built for this purpose! Should the taxpayer of Alberta be building roads into McMurray? It is an industry town! Both these things are subsidies.
Most natural gas used is to enrich the basic crude oil bringing up the HVB and LVB (Vapor base) the stuff you make gasoline and diesel with by adding different quantities to the oil. The customers in the US don't want a bunch of extra HVB; they are in the diesel and heating oil business.
Bitumen sinks yes, the crude oil derived from bitumen however floats. It is light crude with an api (pour point) running between 9 degrees C and 12 degrees) In cold water it floats higher.
Birds are dying by the thousands hitting the blades on wind farms. They are dying in the millions from hitting windows on tall buildings. I agree it is unfortunate but it is not an isolated situation.
The aria of the tar sands was never heavily frosted. Very little could grow there after all the Bitumen was on top of the ground! It was a sick muskeg leaching into the Athabasca River for thousands of years.
Clean energy? Perhaps you opt for nuclear? Extending licences for nuclear plants in the US is how the Americans lowered their footprint! Wind farms provide energy when the wind blows. It is not a stand alone sustainable source of power.
Consider parking your car and take your house off the grid? No candle though; thats petroleum based.
Bailey
10 weeks ago
um...
http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Guillotine
Hakuin
10 weeks ago
Good start Bailey
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.359397600741742.101471.299564920058344&type=3
Bruno96
10 weeks ago
Fund Raiser
Says much about the fund raiser Alison Redford held for Christy Clark in Alberta mid-January/2013.
Seems there are no defining lines between political parties in Canada these days.
cariboocooper
10 weeks ago
bitumen lobbying
mr. Harper
"The oil people are here to speak about bitumen and how good it is. They want to completley bs you about emissions, dangers, lack of financial benefits, and in general tell you what to do."
"Great! show them in. It sounds like they know more than me."
pwlg
10 weeks ago
oops...correction needed
cyberclark:
Bob L is far more accurate than your comments.
Having worked at several SAGD as well as at Suncor's Upgrader facilities I need to correct your statement that natural gas is no longer used.
At SAGD facilities natural gas is used to produce steam and at Suncor natural gas is used extensively.
Process byproducts are used in very low quantities as fuels at very few SAGD operations.
Perhaps this may help in changing your mind, from the National Energy Board...
"Natural gas requirements for the oil sands industry are projected to increase substantially to a range of 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1.4 to 1.6 billion cubic) feet per day in 2015. In response to higher and more volatile gas prices, producers are seeking ways to reduce their dependence on natural gas as the major sources of energy and hydrogen for their operations."
TransAlta operates a natural gas fired power boiler on Suncor's upgrader site to produce the steam and electricity required to upgrade the mined sludge to bitumen.
Most of the examples you elude to are not in large scale commercial production and if they are could you please list the various facilites and their locations and where no natural gas is used directly or indirectly in the extraction or production.
Even if electrodes are used to extract the tar where will the electricity come from?
Currently Alberta derives most of its electrical energy from coal fired power plants which produce far more GHG emissions than natural gas. All of the electricity generating power plants in the Fort McMurray area use natural gas as their fuel.
dave49
10 weeks ago
Welcome to a monoculture economy...
I can only hope some part of this bitumen export obsession utterly fails and convinces the Canadian electorate that King Harper should be moved off the throne...
Tahsis Tattler
9 weeks ago
Obfuscation
If you can't dazzle them with science then baffle them with bullshit!!!!!!
Andy Skuce
9 weeks ago
"it takes $45 billion to mine
"it takes $45 billion to mine one million barrels of bitumen". That would be $45,000 per barrel. Costs are high, but not that high; I think you meant "one million barrels of bitumen per day".
freebear
9 weeks ago
"Because it floats? "
What also floats? A duck.
So if the witch weighs the same as a duck...
Burn the witch!
Cyberclark: Did you work for the tobbacco companies in the past?