Recent Blog Post

  • What the leaders need to understand about Canada’s shifting economy

    As Canadians are becoming all too aware, the spectre of a recession, no matter the definition, looms large during an election campaign. Despite such prominence, the recent debate made it abundantly clear that none of the candidates understand why the economy stopped growing in the first half of the year and they have even less [...]

    Share
    Read More...
Buy it Now

Gulf Oil Disaster Doesn’t Make the Tar Sands Green

Posted by Jeff Rubin on June 9th, 2010 under SmallerWorldTags: , , ,  • 12 Comments

It’s funny that it’s taken the worst ecological disaster in US history to suddenly make other forms of oil extraction and processing look green. Only months ago, the carbon trail from the massive planned expansion of tar sands production made Canada a pariah at the world environmental summit in Copenhagen. But now tar sands producers and others are promoting tar sands oil as an ecologically friendly alternative to the environmental risks of another deep-water oil spill.

How low the bar has fallen.

There’s nothing clean about the production of synthetic oil from tar sands. The production of a single barrel of synthetic oil pollutes some 125 gallons of fresh water and emits over 200 pounds of carbon dioxide, principally as a result of the combustion of the natural gas, over 1,000 cubic feet of it, needed to generate the heat to separate the oil from the sand and then process it.

Currently, Canadian tar sands produce roughly one and a quarter million barrels per day, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) is projecting ultimate production at around 4 million barrels per day. Do the math on carbon emissions and water pollution, and you begin to get a sense of what has made the tar sands the most recent bête noire of the world environmental movement.

Perversely, these same tar sands may stand to benefit the most from what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. It might seem odd that the world would turn to what is effectively a massive strip-mining project with a huge carbon emissions trail in response to spilling almost 40 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, but that’s where the next leg of the global oil-supply curve lies these days.

Of course, the other problem with relying on the tar sands to replace deep-water production is cost. Even if tar sands producers don’t have to pay for their CO2 emissions, or for the fresh water they pollute, they still have to pay for digging the oil out of the ground, heating it, and then processing the bitumen into a usable motor fuel. The very oil prices that are needed in order for tar sands to replace deep-water production are the same ones that will take millions of North American drivers right off the road.

Sure, when oil prices soared to $147 per barrel, there was more planned capital spending in the Alberta tar sands than in any other oil patch in the world. But when oil prices crashed during the recent recession, some $50 billion of planned capital spending was suddenly slashed overnight.

The tar sands aren’t a greener alternative to deep-water oil. They’re just a more expensive alternative. And the more that synthetic oil from tar sands replaces deep-water production, the more you’ll pay to burn it.

Share
  • David Lourie

    I just read the introduction to “Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller”
    Some thing that is concerning me is that we are impoverishing citizens to pay for infrasructure that fewer and fewer people will have the disposable income to enjoy. The same infrastructure will very likely become redundant in the near future.
    Capital is also a limited resource. States, countries, communities struggling to pay back loans may find that the infrastructure is obsolete before the loan is paid off. When they could be investing in appropriate technologies. Im sure you would have examined the opportunity costs.
    Here in NZ we have a reactionary right wing, development at any cost government. The leaders of the ACT coalition party support a group called The Center for Resource Management Studies. The leader of this group travelled to the US to give a lecture titled 'Climate Change the Last Gasp of Smart Growth' at a conference held by The American Dream Coalition. It worries me that the unfettered free market ideology places the responsibility of how resources are managed onto consumers who are driven by marketing campaigns and bargin hunting..
    The American Dream Coalition judging from its website is an anti planning, pro automobile industry lobby group. Is it possible to expose and publicly discredit these organisations that have the funding to subvert foreign governments to increase their dependence on oil?. Our local governments are being forced to stream line development applications that encourage urban sprawl and building a major urban/industrial development on a low lying coastal peat swamp. The opportunity costs, plus the clean up costs in the future along with the costs of coastal retreat, the human cost and the environmental costs will ham string near future generations.
    In order for us to make decisions to benefit the communities of future generations, organisations such as the American Dream Coalition need to be taken apart in the full glare of the media before they do any more damage.
    da_lourie@hotmail.com

  • Jlow5

    I agree it is time we realize the environmental cost of our hydrocarbon addiction. I just saw a movie on the destruction of the US water supply as we go after natural gas. In order to get the remaining energy scraps we are going to really do in the environment. The solution is an alcohol and electricity based future for transportation. Otherwise our world will not only get smaller but you won't be able to drink the water.

  • Awill2net@gmail.com

    The production of ethanol is a more energy intensive industry the the oil sands. The dead zone in the gulf is only one of the enviornmental disasters related to ethanol production. Electricity is a secondary energy product. Mostly generated from coal. Do I need to say more? The term tar sands is a misnomer. Tar is generated from coal.
    Natural gas is the one bright spot in energy that may prevent us and our children from freezing / cooking in the dark over the next century.

  • Jmelanson

    LUSH cosmetics launched an edgy environmental awareness campaign this week, speaking out against the environmental hazard “happening in our own backyard.” They are talking about the oil sands operations in Fort McMurray, Alberta. At Breast Cancer Action Montreal, we are encouraged to see corporations take a stand about these important environmental issues which we have come to understand have serious links not only to breast cancer but also to other important health concerns. Brandi Halls, Lush’s campaign organizer, was quoted as saying, “As a company, we really believe in protecting the environment, people and animals.”

    LUSH promotes itself as an Eco company with a social conscience that sells fresh handmade products. They say they invent their our own products and fragrances, making them fresh by hand using little or no preservatives and packaging, and that they use only vegetarian ingredients. They also say that they believe words like fresh and organic have honest meaning beyond marketing. Sounds like the kind of company we all want to support.

    LUSH also says that they believe in making effective products from fresh, organic fruit and vegetables, the finest essential oils and safe synthetics. But what are these ‘safe synthetics’ and by whose standards are they considered safe? Sadly, when you begin to look under that ‘green veneer’ you find toxic chemicals lurking.

    When checking out their products on their website, we found ingredients linked to cancer, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and known human immune system toxicants. Many of their ingredients are restricted or banned by European Union standards. If LUSH wants to protect the environment, people and animals, then why would they choose to use these toxic ingredients? The message just doesn’t jive.

    Breast Cancer Action Montreal has been speaking out about the environmental links to cancer for years. The Canadian Cancer Society recently updated its website to include the link between toxins and cancer. It stated that:

    The principle of Community Right to Know is that we are all, as individuals, entitled to information about chemical hazards present in our environment. We have the right to know about:

    · chemicals in our communities

    · harmful ingredients in products

    · the health impacts of our occupations and workplaces

    http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20us/CW-…

    Even President Obama’s Cancer Panel has taken the position in its latest report that chemicals threaten our bodies and has decided to re-examine the negative effects of environmental toxins.

    If LUSH is prepared to send its employees to the streets, wearing nothing but a barrel, we would like to see them truly walk the walk and clean up the products in their own back yard.

    For more sources, I have provided the following website links:

    http://www.femmetoxic.com/

    http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetic…

    http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=pe…

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/scienc…

    http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/reports/Just…

    Janice Melanson

    Executive Administrator/Directrice Administrative

    Action Cancer du sein de Montréal

    Breast Cancer Action Montreal

    514-483-1846

    http://www.bcam.qc.ca

  • Alan Septoff

    For more information as to why and how tar sands oil is so dirty check out:

    http://dirtyoilsands.org

    A Canadian-U.S. coalition of community and environmental groups, representing millions of people, is behind it.

  • oil dude

    There is a misconception on polluting water SAGD re uses 90% of water used

  • Chris

    Oil sand extraction methods such as Petrobank's THAI eliminate the use of water and natural gas once the initial combustion phase is completed.

  • Denny

    Oppenheimer oil analyst, Fadel Gheit recently stated that speculation and manipulation were the primary reasons for oil trading near $80 per barrel. No explanation was given for why BP and other oil companies are choosing to drill a mile or more beneath the Gulf of Mexico water in an area prone to hurricanes. Curiously, Mr. Gheit did recommend Devon Energy partly because of its growth in the Canadian oil sands while at the same time citing $60 as a fair price for a barrel of oil. But as Jeff Rubin points out, Devon and other oil sand operators cannot make a profit at that price.

  • 1Eco_Indigo_1

    Jeff

    I listened to your interview on financial sense the other day. Yes, all the things you say will likely happen if the current paradigm does not change, but please don't forget Industrial Hemp! This plant could provide the U.S with its energy needs, and is cheap and easy to implement….tomorrow!.

    We know what the problem is, and have analysed it to death, we know where we are going if we do not act. Lets act and spread awareness of the industrial hemp plant as a source of renewable transport fuel. Just common sense.

  • 1Eco_Indigo_1

    Sir

    I agree with your point that there isn't sufficient capital to rebuild or bring in a new infrastructure. My view is that we rejuvenate our existing infrastucture and physical assets with industrial hemp based materials.

  • 1Eco_Indigo_1

    Jeff

    I listened to your interview on financial sense the other day. Yes, all the things you say will likely happen if the current paradigm does not change, but please don't forget Industrial Hemp! This plant could provide the U.S with its energy needs, and is cheap and easy to implement….tomorrow!.

    We know what the problem is, and have analysed it to death, we know where we are going if we do not act. Lets act and spread awareness of the industrial hemp plant as a source of renewable transport fuel. Just common sense.

  • 1Eco_Indigo_1

    Sir

    I agree with your point that there isn't sufficient capital to rebuild or bring in a new infrastructure. My view is that we rejuvenate our existing infrastucture and physical assets with industrial hemp based materials.

copyright © 2009 Jeff Rubin. All rights reserved.