Excellent analysis underpinned by astute observation. I'd have liked a bit more emphasis on the penultimate paragraph with a headline that would have brought it into better focus something like: How the US could pressure Canada into “greening” the Tar Sand project”.

http://environmentaldefencecanada.blogspot.com/…

What do you think about nuclear power as an alternative, Jeff? In Haiti, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson is a nuclear-powered aircraft supercarrier that is supplying 400,000 gallons of freshwater daily through desalination. We could replace our diesel ships crisscrossing the globe with nuclear ships, and power electric cars, trains and space heaters using nuclear. Gen-IV designs use alternate fuels like depleted uranium or thorium, and reduce fuel requirements by a factor of 160.

I respect your opinion because you were one of the first to recognize and talk about peak oil and its implications on the economy. Yet I am perplexed because surely you are intelligent and thorough enough in your research to know that anthropogenic carbon dioxide caused Global Warming is a complete Fraud.

Why do you continue to talk about carbon taxes? I also watch Matt Simmons and notice that he never says that Global Warming is a Fraud but instead avoids talking about it and says peak oil is a far more serious and imminent problem.

Ah, yes, … there is no turning off the tap! If only tarsands production was so simple, …

According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), last year’s average tarsands derived oil production of 1.4 million barrels of synthetic crude and bitumen a day will next increase to 1.7 million by 2015, 4.5 million by 2030 and a staggering 5.3 million by 2041. These are, of course, revised numbers since as late as January 2006; projections for 2012 were a staggering 3.0 million barrels, for example. The Alberta tarsands comprise of the second-largest known oil reserve in the world, comprising of 42 percent of Canada’s total crude output (Government of Alberta). And all of this production certainly has not come without its rewards; the tarsands are our #1 source of revenue, producing in excess of $7 Billion in royalties since 1990 (Government of Alberta).

And so, why not be optimistic? Alberta’s tarsands, free from its rocky encrustation, its light molecules of oil and gas long evaporated, are firmly in place in North-Eastern Alberta, all around the city of Fort McMurray. What is there is this thick, tarry sludge not fit for a northern lake water front. This thick, tarry sludge lay fallow for years until the Canadian Government started to aggressively subsidize its development. In 1995, the Canadian Federal Government announced that oil companies could write off 100 percent of their expenses. This represents a clear case of entrepreneurial spirit, turbocharged by public welfare.

Of course, that thick and tarry tarssands derived oil can not be conventionally carried down through a pipeline. Treatment first, with natural gas and other petroleum products, is mandatory, and not just with a little bit of it either, but with over five times more of these precious, conventional, petroleum products than, say, a regular-conventional heavy crude normally requires. Another important point to remember is that for each barrel of oil sands derived oil, no less than two tons of sand and clay must be mined, through open pit mining. This process contributes greatly to the fact that once one barrel of oil sands derived oil is … finally, “barreled”, the equivalent of two-thirds of its energy content was already consumed “barreling” it! And never mind, that about six times more carbon dioxide than producing a barrel of, say, conventional oil is produced in the process! But who keeps accounting for the emissions: carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, fine particulate matter?

Alberta produces one third of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and the tarsands are Canada’s largest growing source of GHGs (Best et al.). The Stelmach government’s recent plan on climate change is next to nonexistent: “… it does not even call for a levelling off of emissions until 2020, which will ultimately result in a paltry 14 percent reduction in 2005-level emissions by 2050” (Gillespie 71). Setting absolute limits on total emissions is the only method that will actually work, of course.

From about 1996, the start of major expansion of oil sands development, to 2011, about $100 billion will be spent by industry on the development of Alberta oil sands (Gillespie 67). Yet, the latest projections state that only about 1.7 billion barrels per day of oil sands derived oil will be produced by 2015 (CERI)! Imagine.

But, as I stated at the outset, “There is no turning off the tap!”, despite the fact that tarsands processing gorges on about one quarter of Alberta's fresh water — each barrel of tarsands derived oil needs about six barrels of water to flush it out. As Gillespie specifies, “The amount of water the tarsands plants use is equal to about 40% of Toronto’s [5.5 million people] yearly water consumption” (71). This massive water consumption is certainly having a recognizable effect on Alberta. A 2006 Alberta Government report warns that there simply may not be enough water available to meet the needs of planned tarsands projects, while maintaining adequate stream flows, even though the amount of water per barrel of oil is declining (Best et al.). This massive withdrawal of water is affecting aquatic species populations, mainly fish, and also the communities within the Athabasca watershed. To further exacerbate this problem, the government’s regulatory framework permits quantities of water withdrawals that do not adequately ensure conservation and protection of the Athabasca watershed.

In addition to the large water consumption, the tarsands plants burn up in the process about one-fifth of the entire nation's natural gas supply. This presents yet another problem as not only is the availability of natural gas diminishing, but it is getting costly too (LCA Oil Sands Project).

Furthermore, the tarsands developments are gobbling up the land at an alarming rate. Someone has to keep an eye on this development, if only for one reason, to reduce the environmental damage that tarsands development causes. However, not much is being done. Deforestation, habitat fragmentation, loss of species caused by exploration, open-pit mines, in-situ developments, urban development, forestry and road clearing are not being adequately managed (Best et al.). Development cannot under any circumstances be allowed to “run-free” as it will stop at nothing to use all of the land that it wants.

Reclamation is another issue. The Alberta government has always maintained that disturbances are “temporary”, that the sites will be reclaimed following project completion (Best et al.). However, I believe that provincial requirements for reclamation are inadequate in ensuring restoration of the ecosystem. Reclaimed land is not required to resemble the site that existed before development of the project (Best et al.). The sites need to be reclaimed to what they were before the development took place.
But, as I stated at the outset, “There is no turning off the tap!” – shoot, I'm repeatin' myself.

Anyway, … what I mean is, in a nutshell, that if the United States is planning to get all – most, of the oil from Albeta's tarsand, … they are dreaming!

C.

Works referenced in compiling above post:

Best, Jordan et al. Alberta’s Oil Sands: Key Issues and Impacts. 2008. Mapleleafweb. Web. 29 Nov. 2009.

Gillespie, Curtis. “Scar Sands”. Canadian Geographic 128.3 June 2008: 63 – 78. Print.

Government of Alberta. Alberta Department of Energy. Alberta’s Oil Sands 2006 (Updated December 2007). 2007. Print.

Government of Alberta. Alberta Environment. Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy: Responsibility / Leadership / Action. 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2009.

The University of Calgary. Life Cycle Assessment of Oil Sands Technology. 2006. Web. 27 Nov. 2009.

“anthropogenic carbon dioxide caused Global Warming is a complete Fraud”

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was several 1000 ppm 100s of millions of years ago. And temperatures were much higher than now, with no ice caps in the polar areas. That CO2 was geo-sequestered into coal, oil and gas. We are digging it up and burning it, and going straight back to the Jurassic. Go on my website and use the external link “the incredible journey of oil”

Germane to this thread:

We've only just begun
To slide
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way. – Carpenters

… down to, oh, ~U$40/bbl, I reckon?

.”.. Iraq faces a period of output growth unparalleled in the history of the oil industry: a quintupling of production capacity to nearly 12 million barrels a day by 2017, about the same level that Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer, is forecast to reach in the next few years.”

Iraq’s production bonanza may fuel a slide in oil
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/…

C.

We will not need the tar sands, and, Global Warming is a NON-Issue . . . because . . we have overwhelming reasons to get off of fossil fuels anyway – Affordable / viable quantities are about gone, and the pollution is killing us anyway, AND, WE HAVE THE CLEAN RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY TO DO SO – at about the same or lower cost, as well.

There are many good developing techs, but one company alone has the means for powering cars, AND homes with clean solar energy for similar or less than current costs. Right now they are offering a program using & saving 100% of your Federal income taxes – acquiring equity in their solar power plant at NO COST – no out of pocket expense. Installations are being built now. More Info here: http://www.tnns.org/energy

How true is this: “the USA has 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation”? This is according to the USGS release at : http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 Why is the public not hearing more about this vast reserve?