- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
America's Claim on Our Tar Sands
Must Alberta feed the US oil addiction?
President Bush: admitted addict.
[This is the second of two parts. The first, on the environmental impact of the tar sands project, ran yesterday in The Tyee.]
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 neighbourhood -- 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 seven per cent of U.S. daily consumption. Canada exports 66 per cent of its domestic crude oil production, and since 1995, the United States has received 99 per cent 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 of 'black gold'
The vast bulk of Canada's tar sands is found in the province of Alberta. The tar sands deposits underlie more than 140,000 square kilometres 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 second 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."
Bottom of barrel
Producing oil from the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. Tar sands consist of a mixture of 85 per cent sand, clay and silt; five per cent water; and 10 per cent crude bitumen, the tar-like 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. 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 kilometres and as deep as 90 metres. 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 per cent 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.
The coming tar sands rush
Major global powers are positioning themselves to ensure access to oil from tar sands. To date, four of the five largest publicly traded oil companies in the world (Royal Dutch/Shell, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and TotalFina) have invested or committed themselves to invest billions of dollars in tar sands development. National oil companies have also staked their claim, ranging from Norway's Statoil to China's Sinopec.
Tar sands speculation, investment and development have grown dramatically. The oil industry's production target of one million barrels per day was achieved in 2004, 16 years ahead of the ambitious schedule for growth it laid out in 1995. That year, the industry invested almost $9 billion US in Alberta's tar sands. More than $100 billion US of investment has been announced for development between 2006 and 2015.
The tar sands industry is now focused on quintupling production as quickly as possible. It is projected that tar sands production will reach three to four million barrels per day by 2015 and could grow to five million barrels per day by 2030, if not sooner. It is the prospect of this growth that has led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to label Canada an "emerging energy superpower."
The magnitude of the environmental risks and liabilities arising from Canada's tar sands rush is unprecedented in the history of North American energy production. Growing awareness about the global warming and environmental consequences of relying upon growth in tar sands production throws into sharp relief the perils of our addiction to oil in the 21st century. All North Americans, including future generations, have a stake in the outcome.
Conservation is the answer
To address the impacts of tar sands production, a novel suite of government policies and innovative technologies must be deployed that drastically reduce the environmental impacts by achieving "carbon neutral" (no net greenhouse gas pollution) production, ensuring that development doesn't proceed any faster than reclamation of the boreal forest and reducing dependence on scarce freshwater resources.
The most immediate opportunity to begin our rehabilitation lies in the more efficient use of transportation fuels. To do so requires tackling another sacred cow: the flagging North American auto industry, which is in trouble partly because it is producing the wrong vehicles for the times. The abysmal fuel-efficiency of North America's SUVs, trucks and cars has actually declined since 1986.
The governments of the United States and Canada must collectively commit to implementing regulations that will make North America a global leader in fuel efficiency. By deploying more efficient technologies today, we can begin to ease the demand for transportation fuels and slow the headlong rush into extracting oil from the tar sands. This will afford policymakers and the private sector the time needed to drive investment toward low-carbon and no-carbon fuels, and to evolve our transportation systems and urban design into a state that is compatible with a carbon-free future. North America stands at a critical juncture in its transportation fuel future.
As conventional oil sources disappear, we face a stark choice: we can develop new, even dirtier sources of transportation fuels derived from fossil fuels like the tar sands, or we can set a course for a more sustainable energy future by improving the efficiency of our oil consumption while aggressively transitioning to clean and renewable transportation fuels and sustainable transportation systems.
The environmental and global warming consequences of even one million barrels per day of tar sands production must serve as a wake-up call, and we must acknowledge that increased reliance upon this unconventional, high-impact fossil fuel is not a viable path forward.
Related Tyee stories:
- The Plan to Disappear Canada
'Deep integration' comes out of shadows. - Oil May Be Canada's Undoing
Political pressure bubbles and flows. - Harper's Green Mirage
PM weakly revived some programs he cancelled. But what about that dirty deal with Bush?



20
Login or register to post comments
G West
4 years ago
Of course we must
Perhaps the reader should check this out too:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1
James Burns
4 years ago
Tarred (and feathered)
That Macleans cover is interesting, that mag is usually a pathetic excuse of corporate media hackery. But I guess even Macleans has been having a hard time ignoring the horrors Iraq.
As for tar sands, I've said many times before that the best solution to the problem of oil is a regulated conservation strategy. Energy waste could be cut drastically. It would be an extremely cheap process compared to any other, and it would be far easier to implement than simply developing new energy technology. The problem of course is that doing it effectively requires government intervention (gasp!).
livanhardy
4 years ago
Fact check
I'm not saying that I disagree with your thesis, but an incorrect opening statement undermines your article. It is stated that the US is "absorbing two thirds of global oil production" which struck me as being way too high.
In the second paragraph, "Canada exported 1.5 million barrels per day to the US, about 7% of US daily consumption." This sounds more likely as it implies total US consumption of 21.4 MBPD. As current global oil consumption is 84 MBPD (according to a recent article in The Economist)this implies that US consumption is 25% and not 66% as you stated.
G West
4 years ago
n 2006, about 60% of the
n 2006, about 60% of the petroleum consumed in the U.S. was imported from foreign countries. Crude oil accounted for 82% of net petroleum imports and about 66% of the crude oil processed in U.S. refineries was imported.
The top five source countries and their percent share of U.S. total net petroleum imports were:
Canada (17.5%)
Saudia Arabia (11.9%)
Mexico (11.8%)
Venezuela (11.2%)
Nigeria (9.1%)
Lefty
4 years ago
Is it a valid claim?
Will they buy it or steal it?
Van Isle
4 years ago
Our political and business
Our political and business elite certainly do have colonial attitudes. How much of the tarsands is piped south and is refined in the US? How come it isn't refined in Alberta and both the provincal and federal governments can get some extra revenue from the process? How come we don't ask the Americans to pay in Euros (which is a more stable currency than the US dollar)?
Michael
4 years ago
Why not just higher gas taxes?
Why does the climate change crowd always push for regulation and carbon trading schemes which are far less effective and more complicated than a straight up gas tax? Gas taxes are politically unpopular and regressive but if you want something that will be effective and will go to work right now, nothing else comes close.
Dilbert has the best and last word on this subject:
[url=http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/Dilbert%20on%20oil.jpg]
KWD
4 years ago
Give me a ray of hope.
90% of the info contained in part 1 and 2 of the tar sands tragedy has been in the public domain for over two years. It was first published in November 2005 by the Pembina Institute. In that publication, “Oil Sands Fever”, Dan, along with Chris Severson-Baker and Marlo Raynolds listed a series of recommendations directed at responsible use, protecting the climate, protecting the regional environment and establishing an equitable fiscal regime.
Perhaps Dan could do a follow-up article that tells readers how many of those recommendations have been accepted and put into practice by federal and provincial governments.
My guess is that in the last two years none of the recommendations have been acted on.
Perhaps we would see a little action if an updated copy of “Oil Sands Fever” (which is an excellent expose of the oil sands) was delivered to every household in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan.
If the federal and provincial governments are truly serious about tackling global warming and environmental destruction they would probably help the Pembina Institute cover printing and distribution costs.
RickW
4 years ago
We are beginning to resemble........
........more and more the Eloi & Morlocks of HG Wells 'Time Machine'...........
IAMC
4 years ago
30 years
There hasn't been an oil refinery built in North America in 30 years.
There are 2 operating in Alberta ( 3 if you count the one in Lloydminster )
There is presently one more being built near Edmonton, and one more coming soon.
The US has dozens of refineries.
Alberta doesn't presently have the capacity to handle all that's coming out of the ground.
So, for now, we need to send crude to the USA to be refined.
Iran has only one rusted out refinery, so they can only supply 40% of their domestic needs.
Skywalker
4 years ago
So your point IAMC is?
If there was a restriction on how much Canadian oil could be sent across the line and the U.S. refineries ran out of crude someone might decide that a refinery in Alberta was a profitable venture and build a few? Do you think? As long as we are content to send crude to the U.S. how is it ever going to change. The oil companies won't buid another because the high prices we in Canada pay is jut great for thei profit line.
IAMC
4 years ago
As I said
There hasn't been a refinery built in North America for 30 years.
In the USA, it' because of the extreme opposition from special interest groups suing everyone in site.
This was way before Anthropogenic Climate Chane was ever heard of.
It was because of legitimate concerns about POLLUTION.
Not climate change.
This action almost seems responsible now, compared to this new women made climate change.
zalm
4 years ago
The Alberta government could help...
...by abandoning the subsidy to tar sands firms with its laughable 1% royalty and get a more likely royalty of 20-25%. Don't forget, this is the people's resource, something Chavez seems to be able to remember while Stelmach forgets. Anything to reduce the anthropogenic waste of natural resources, especially petrochemical feedstocks, which if we used them wisely instead of burning them profligately, could last us and our children thousands of years, instead of just the next couple of generations....
IAMC
4 years ago
Chavez
So Zalm thinks we should nationalize the oil patch?
Good luck selling this idea to Albertans.
Do you know something I don't?
Last time I checked, they were in favour of free markets.
Oil is a world commodity. Are you suggesting we build a fence around Canada, and become a socialist empire?
This always results poverty for the citizens and the economy.
G West
4 years ago
where did anyone say that Ron?
straw men Ron, straw men as always
RickW
4 years ago
America's Claim on Our Tar Sands......?
Maybe it's backed up by these fine folks:
http://thetyee.ca/Bigstory/2007/09/21/blackwater/
Why else would there literally be no opposition, save for some tepid tch-tchings from the whole spectrum of polticians throughout this great land?
ME2
4 years ago
Just wondering
I seem to remember that for many years the Feds pumped millions into development of the oil sands technology. In fact, for this we were supposed to be 50/50 partners.
I also seem to recall that Albertans sneered at the effort, with many saying it was typical Gov't "waste. So, I wonder how much risk money that Province advanced toward its success.?
What's your recollection, IAMC ?????
G West
4 years ago
Good poin ME2
A lot of that research funding was channeled through Petro-Canada, which, at the time, was still a public asset headquartered out of two towers which overlooked what Calgarians called Red Square.
They were definitely into 'sneering' at the time.
I doubt you'll get much reaction from Ron (IAMC).
ME2
4 years ago
there's oi everywhere
I also recall Suncor bragging a few years back that it was producing $12 bbl oil, and that it expected to reduce that figure. Given today's prices, it's little wonder the Oilcos are in a feeding frenzy.
Seeing the oilsands so profitable has spurred interest in oil shales and other mineralised carbon sources. An evening's surfing yielded these two represntative sites:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5167
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/14649/why-peak-oil-has-no-effect-on-oil-prices.html
And since this article is about "OUR Tar Sands", how come I feel I don't have the slightest bit of ownership in them ?
morechatter
4 years ago
What makes us different than Iran?
Lets face it what American wants America gets and right now its want oil and it does not care where it comes from. Of course oil companies dictate whats happening in world economies why not they have the power the money and the influence. Oh yes and i was a little shredder when working for a major oil company and sure did alot of interesting reading like them deciding what was going to happen in the Canadain economy and it did and it looks like thats what they are doing again running the world. So are we exempt Not! Maybe they are not aiming missiles at us but there is a war on the Canadian way of life and its poor and the outcome will be the same death to its people and their culture thanks to sell outs like Campbell and Harper.