Oil Sands Keep on Trucking

By Eric Wesoff

While the U.S. Congress fiddles and de-claws any effective measures from current energy, carbon, and climate legislation – the U.S. State department has approved a Presidential Permit to Canadian company Enbridge for the $3.2 billion 1,000 mile Alberta Clipper pipeline, which will carry oil-sand derived crude oil from Alberta to Wisconsin. A Presidential permit triggers an environmental review of the proposed project

Oil sands or tar sands, are considered "unconventional oil." These deposits are referred to as bitumen and occur naturally in the U.S., Venezuela, and to the greatest extent in Canada. They are dense, difficult to mine and extract, and not friendly to existing pipelines. Alberta, Canada's Athabasca Oil Sands is the largest reservoir of crude bitumen the world, comparable in magnitude to the world's largest reserve of conventional petroleum.

Mining these deposits is economical only when the price of oil is high.

And like all mining operations, oil sands operations have a strong impact on the environment:

• The Canadian oil sands lie under boreal forests which are decimated by mining operations
• The extraction process uses a host of toxic chemicals.
• The residue or tailings form vast lakes of toxics near waterways.
• The numbers differ whether you believe oil companies or environmentalists – but the water intensity of developing these unconventional oils is very high. Oil Sands Watch, a conservation-minded group, claims that approximately 12 barrels of water are required to produce each barrel of oil from bitumen. Up to 70 percent of this water is reused, but that still means two to four barrels of water are used to produce each barrel of oil from oil sands mining. Greenpeace gives the number as 349 million cubic metres per year, twice the amount of water used by the city of Calgary.
• And in the end we burn the stuff to power our transportation.

Excerpts from the State Departments press release:

• The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

• Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

• The administration believes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies and a strong international agreement.

We have to balance our national security determinations and the threat of peak oil with the long term green house gas impact of tar sands. Unfortunately our security and short term energy jones is always going to win out. A strong tax on carbon would slow the momentum of tar sands. This pipeline isn't a slum dunk – there is already plenty of environmental group oppostion to the permit in the works.

The only good point I can point to about tar sands is they employ really cool trucks to transport the stuff. If you know any other good points about tar sands – chime in.

Comments

[one eye:]

I'm trying to find an article that was written back in June about Clinton Trying to Block Oil Sands imports on the grounds you stated above.

If I find it, I'll post the link here.

I thought that Unconventional Oil was already blocked if extraction was not environmentally friendly. Some sort of legislation previously passed but I really can't recall the details.

Sep 03 05:07 PM

[Mayascribe:]

GreenTech Media: A couple weeks ago I posted an instablog titled, "Will Oil Sands Be America's Trump Card?"

In researching the processes of extracting the oil from the sand and then melting away the bitumen using a high pressure steaming technology, I learned that it took about 150 gallons of water to produce one barrel of water. Given there are 42 gallons per barrel, the two to four barrels of water you mentioned in your article is in line with my findings.

Further, PetroChina just bought a 60% interest in the Mackay and Dover Oil Sands Project for C$1.6 billion.

In the Instablog, the various production costs are also broken down. The major players are also listed. If you're interested, take a peek.

Avoiding the ecology concerns (which I have), the bottom line is that the US and Canada have a lot of (expensive) oil.

Good article!

Sep 03 05:39 PM

[jimboy:]

I think the article is missing any reference to the huge amount of natural gas used to make oil from tar. I lifted this quote from a Reuters article:

"Natural gas is a key power source for oil sands projects. It is used as fuel to heat the steam used to liquefy the tar-like bitumen for thermal, well-based projects. It's also a source of heat and hydrogen in mining and upgrading projects, which turn bitumen into synthetic crude."

It's another environmental negative and also goes to show that there is less and less "easy" oil out there. It's going to take a lot of energy, water, investment to keep it flowing. BP's big new find is 2 miles under the sea!

Sep 03 05:56 PM

[Mark Bern:]

Yes, there are environmental issues with oil sands; more so than for conventional crude. But conventional crude outside the Middle East is getting expensive to find and extract (except in the US off shore and Alaska where it's off limits).

But those who are all excited about electric cars need to stop and think about where the electricity comes from: coal-fired power plants! So as we deploy more electric cars we will burn more highly polluting coal to create more electricity. So, should we halt the electric car initiatives? Of course not.

I suspect that the reason BO is in favor of this project is that, other than those mentioned in the article, at least its messing up the environment somewhere outside US borders. But, if you truly want to protect the environment you don't just shove the dirty work into some other country. It still harms the environment.

I'm not making a stand on the environment here. I'm just saying that BO isn't an environmental president. He's a hypocrite. If he's willing to destroy the environment totally in Canada (or allow it to be destroyed for US gain) then he ought to allow controlled drilling in ANWR and in the US offshore regions where the impact would be decidedly less.

Sep 03 07:56 PM

[tripleblack:]

OIl shale, tar sands, deep sea deposits...

As usual, the problem is not really scarcity, but cost.

Presuming that the current appx. $70/bbl rate for oil is high enough to make this sort of project feasible...

Or is it?

I would personally like to know what the overhead on that oil really runs. Are the Canadians (and now us) sinking a lot of money and effort into a project that will only pan out if oil hits $175/bbl?

Or if the natural gas needed to fuel the processing stays around $2.85?

Like many "alternative fuel" technologies, this one sounds like it will work, but is it really competitive? I'm personally tired of hearing heaps of glowing praise from the government about sources of energy that NEVER include terms like "cheaper" or "highly competitive in the free market".

Lacking those phrases, its my opinion that we are hanging our goals and standards too low, and that we are wasting valuable time and resources chasing moonbeams best left in the laboratories until we understand them better.

Sep 03 09:05 PM

[one eye:]

There was talk of Building a Nuclear Plant to provide the heat needed and one of the CanRoys was building a pilot plant which would not use NG but I didn't keep track since I didn't own it.

This is from more than a year ago, which now seems like a lifetime.
No details just a recollection, PGH might have been the CanRoy.

I still own three of them. HTE, PVX and PWE.

Sep 03 09:54 PM

[one eye:]

two links, Our Vaccilating congress at work:

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68f...

www.civilianism.com/fu...

Sep 04 01:24 AM

[Mayascribe:]

Mark: You have a writerly way of making simplicity simple.

Sep 04 01:35 AM

[Road Runner:]

I have to suspect that the environmentally hostile process of getting oil from oil sands is allowed is because it is in Nowhere, Canada.

Sep 04 11:03 AM

[Jimbo:]

Canadian Provinces seem to be fully mindful of environmental issues and are dealing with them. There seem to be stringent requirements to restore areas where tar sands have been mined. Several companies have developed alternative means of extracting crude, including in situ steam from natural gas and nuclear. There is supposed to be a small nuke reactor under development that will fit on the trailer of an 18 wheeler flat bed. Keep in mind that the Chinese are now buying tar sands properties. They will also buy all the crude from sands that we wont buy. The transition in energy is going to take a long time and will depend on innovation and patience from all of us.

Sep 04 11:33 AM

[a. palmer jr.:]

Why shouldn't the US environment be messed up? We're the ones putting 40000 miles a year on our SUVs and big trucks. We use more oil than the rest of the world and yet our environmentalists don't want to drill wells off our shorelines or do anything to disrupt the nature or wildlife around the United States! Well, that's nice if you can get it, but if I were from another country that is in an environmental mess because of the US I would be furious!

Sep 04 11:51 AM

[a. palmer jr.:]

Another thing I might hit on...If they're using all that natural gas to heat the tar sands, why not just burn the natural gas in our cars instead? I hear there's quite an abundance of natural gas.

Sep 04 11:54 AM

[oilsands:]

Right on Roadrunner.
Trippleback, oils sands produce OIL. That is not an alternative fuel.
Apparently, most of the folks who have commented are unaware that a plant producing oil has been in operation for some time. And yes, it is a very expensive, very wasteful operation. It also decreases or dependence on the middle east. Comparing oil to other forms of energy is usually done while ignoring the enormous tax subsidies given to BP, Exxon, et al. Take those away and the price at the pump suddenly makes other approaches sensible. The quickest and easiest is natural gas, already in use by UPS and I believe taxi fleets and other fleets.
Mark Bern, the argument about environmental policy under Obama is a bit premature. He will be busy for some time trying to keep the nation from collapsing. Importing oil like there is no tomorrow was a major facet in our present crisis. As to moonbeams, a rural school district in Illinois bought and put up a wind generator because it is making money for them. We can't afford not to harness the free energy around us.

Sep 04 11:56 AM

[T Bartley:]

All of the other countries that export oil to the US have dictatorial goverments that are not particularly friendly to the American way of life. The threat to security is real so is the threat to the environment. We need to address the one that is most likely to kill us first. Since most of that oil goes for transportation, how about an oil tax with the money going to provide more plug-in vehicles?

Sep 04 01:13 PM

[Boiling Point:]

I wonder if they ever consider the environmental impact of the wars that have been fought over conventional oil and the cost of such campaigns.

Sep 04 06:05 PM

[Road Runner:]

Even though natural gas is dirt cheap right now and will remain so for many years, I still believe that building a nuclear power plant to replace the huge amount of natural gas used to extract the oil is a very good idea. It drastically reduces greenhouse gases. It heads off an environmentalists public attack that could leave a long term bad impression of oil sands. And, it uses the Uranium that Canada has plenty of.

Win. Win. Win.

On Sep 03 09:54 PM one eye wrote:
> There was talk of Building a Nuclear Plant to provide the heat needed
> and one of the CanRoys was building a pilot plant which would not
> use NG but I didn't keep track since I didn't own it.
>
> This is from more than a year ago, which now seems like a lifetime.
>
> No details just a recollection, PGH might have been the CanRoy.<br/>
>
> I still own three of them. HTE, PVX and PWE.

Sep 04 09:13 PM

[one eye:]

The Canadians have to come up with a better solution than the use of NG in the Oil Sands process. If more Oil is extracted the current way, more NG will be used for that purpose. Which will mean less NG coming into the USA, present NG prices have curtailed increased production in Canada as well as here.

Sep 06 06:54 AM