Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Time for tar sands

The mag exalts Canada's potential to become the Saudi Arabia of the north

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 7:57 AM on 28 May 2008

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

earthmoverI consider Time to be one of the more forward-looking periodicals when it comes to the environment. But the editors messed up in this week's edition. The June 2 Time carries a breathless feature about the potential petroleum bonanza in Canada's tar sands.

The article's authors are so giddy with the testosterone rush of big-ass earth-moving machines that they forgot what a multifaceted disaster this "bonanza" would be. The magazine quotes tar men in Alberta as they marvel at their own ability to move mountains ... literally.

At one open-pit mine, a manager brags that his operation moves enough dirt every 48 hours to fill Toronto's 60,000-seat SkyDome. "A year from now, that mountain won't be there," he says, referring to a wall of black soil. Some of the biggest trucks on earth, 20 feet tall, carrying 320 tons of dirt in each load, crawl through the "stark landscape of jack pine, spruce and poplar forests" like Tonka toys built for Paul Bunyan.

How intense is the mining?

It takes two tons of tar sands to produce one barrel of oil, and oil companies are extracting 1.3 million barrels of crude every 24 hours. Much of the world's petroleum, about 2 trillion barrels, is in tar sands. It is an alluring prize; as conventional crude becomes more expensive, oil from tar sands becomes more profitable.

"The mega-projects across Alberta's oil sands rival some of the humankind's greatest engineering achievements, including the pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China," gushes Time. "Canada may become the new Saudi Arabia, the last great oil kingdom, right on the U.S. border."

Let's pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and think about this great engineering achievement. The "stark" landscape Time describes is Canada's boreal forest. The Natural Resources Defense Council describes that major ecosystem this way:

In the far north latitudes, just below the treeless tundra of the polar region, a forest of evergreen trees encircles the earth: this is the boreal forest. The last frontier of northern forest wilderness in Canada, the boreal forest is North America's greatest conservation opportunity. Although most of the world's original wilderness forests have been logged or developed until just about 20 percent remains, approximately 80 percent of the Canadian boreal forest is still unfragmented by roads. Mostly in public hands, over half of Canada's boreal has yet to be allocated to industrial use. This situation is quickly changing, however, as the boreal forest comes under imminent threat from industrial logging, hydropower, mining and oil and gas development.

Like the Amazon, the boreal forest is of critical importance to all living things on earth. It is home to the one of the world's largest remaining stands of spruce, fir and tamarack. The thick layers of moss, soil and peat of the boreal are the world's largest terrestrial storehouse of organic carbon and play an enormous role in regulating the Earth's climate. Boreal wetlands filter millions of gallons of water each day that fill our northern rivers, lakes, and streams. As a vast, intact forest ecosystem, the boreal supports a natural web of large carnivores, such as bears, wolves and lynx along with thousands of other species of plants, mammals, birds and insects.

"Canadians cannot forget they are custodian to one third of this essential global resource," the Atlas of Canada warns. But good custodianship isn't compatible with Canada becoming the Saudi Arabia of the north. As the NRDC explains:

The tar sands found deep beneath Alberta's vast old-growth forests are made up of 90 percent sand, clay, silt, and water and 10 percent bitumen, a tarlike substance that can be converted to oil. Currently, most tar sands production relies on open pit mines, some as large as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. Because less than 20 percent of the oil-producing bitumen deposits are close to the surface, the rest of the deep reserves must be extracted by injecting steam underground and pumping out the melted bitumen. The amount of natural gas used daily during these processes could heat about four million American homes. Once separated from the sand, clay and silt, the bitumen is still of low grade and must undergo yet another energy-intensive process to turn it into a crude oil that more closely resembles conventional oil.

Alberta tar sands
Alberta tar sands.
Photo: NRDC.
Oil from tar sands has two especially sensitive liabilities: It uses a lot of water and it produces a lot of carbon emissions. Water is becoming an increasingly critical resource worldwide. It takes several barrels of water to make one barrel of oil from tar sands. And tar sands production emits three times more carbon than regular crude oil. It already is undermining Canada's ability to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. The Pembina Institute estimates that tar sands production in Alberta is producing 40 million tons of greenhouse gases a year, with projections of 142 million tons by 2020.

Time concurs with NRDC about what's driving Alberta's mining. It's the U.S. oil addiction -- and specifically, one of our principal dealers, ExxonMobil. Canada provides 20 percent of U.S. oil imports, our biggest source. Much of that oil comes from tar sands. Plans are to pipe tar-sands oil to refineries in Minnesota, Ohio, and North Dakota. ExxonMobil is a major force behind the plan. Some $124 billion is expected to be invested in this scheme from 2007 to 2012. That same investment, redirected to solar energy, would put America firmly on the path to an economy free of fossil fuels by mid-century.

As Exxon pushes for the biggest oil boom in North American history -- and as the melting Arctic ice opens access to vast new oil and gas fields -- it's hard to imagine a more dramatic and critical fork in the road of human progress. One path offers dazzling new riches for oil companies and provides tantalizing new frontiers for wildcatters. But it leads us to an even deeper addiction to finite fossil fuels and to the quickly approaching point of not return on global climate change. Think of this year's floods, tornadoes, and wildfires on steroids.

The other road takes us to a future in which our energy is inexhaustible, our economy is secure, drilling and digging have been phased out in favor of green industries and jobs, and global warming is stabilized.

We have very little time to choose. Unfortunately, the allure of black gold and big trucks appears to be taking us down the wrong path.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

A simple graphic

http://greyfalcon.net/tarsands.png

Might want to toss this up on the article.
(It's from the Pembina Institute too)

-David Ahlport

They weren't totally biased...

...the Time article did mention some of the environmental objections to the project.  I think they were just takin' an in-depth look into both it's potential and it's drawbacks.

I don't think it was meant to be any kinda endorsement.

A safe way

A safe way to harvest tar sands and sour oil and coal?  Convert it to natural gas underground, with natural bacteria.

Underground gas farms.  Much cleaner than other fossil fuels, in the collection and use.

But with rising oil prices tar sand and coal conversion to liquid fuel have become profitable.  But the very rise in fossil fuel costs (and water shortage) is robbing profit from these operations.  What to do?

Use wind power to separate the oil from the sand or coal with microwave plasma torch drilling.  Instead exxonmob is talking nuclear powered tar sand mining and refining.  So add radiation to the mix of toxins and GHG.

Another exxonmob president will not be good for anything.  McCain, he's the exxonmob candidate.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Embarrassed to be Canadian

Expansion of the tar sands projects is truly a crime against humanity.

I'm taking time off work in August to join a protest in Alberta organized by the Sierra Youth Coalition. Remember Al Gore saying he wanted to see people making more direct protests? We gotta do this.

Canada's Toxic Tar Sands

Environmental Defence (Canada) published a disturbing report on the oil sands projects in February of this year. Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth

Saudi Arabia analogy

It's truly a symptom of our oil addiction that suddenly comparisons to Saudi Arabia are a good thing. A few years ago, Saudi was an authoritarian regime whose textbooks taught children to hate America and produced Osama bin Laden. Add a couple of bucks to the price of gas and suddenly Montana's the Saudi Arabia of coal and Canada's the Saudi Arabia of tar sands. This is what we're aspiring to?

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Don't just single out ExxonMobil

BP also has a major investment in Canadian tar sands.  Beyond Petroleum!

Harvest? What harvest?

A safe way to harvest tar sands and sour oil and coal?  Convert it to natural gas underground, with natural bacteria.

Apart from the scary geoengineering scenario this invokes, please let's stop using "harvest" as a euphemism for everything we want to take, steal, kill or extract. Harvest comes after the dedicated work of preparing, planting, tending and protecting. It's part of the cycle of feeding the earth and being fed by it in return. Vacuuming fish from the oceans is not harvesting, pushing over mountains to sift out anthracite is not harvesting, and sucking bitumen from below the boreal forest will never be harvesting either. Debasing the language like this shows contempt and disrespect for those who truly tend the earth and thereby earn the right to bring the harvest home.

Let's not do it.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

"harvest"; bipolar ethics disorder

Oooh SpaSh, Amazing is a friend of mine, so I receive the sting of your rebuke if anything even more strongly than he will.  But your point about the metaphor, that it is unhappy and even dangerous, trailing a history of sorry abuse, is clear; and surely he will get it at once.

Your other point, about geo-engineering, is of course over my head.  Well, that is, in principle geo-engineering proposals are scary; but whether what Amazing was describing amounts to geo-engineering is unclear.

As for bipolar Canadians: Yes indeed, the Canadians are on the whole remarkably enlightened, true world-leaders, in some regards.  E.g., my husband and I were married in Montreal in July of 2005; and two other guys in our neighborhood tied the knot later the same summer in Vancouver.  But then on the other hand, when it comes to other kinds of issues, they seem helplessly shackled by their extraction industries, whether those industries are involved in mowing down forests, scooping up tar sands, bashing baby seals, directing polar bear hunts, securing the Northwest Passage, or sitting pretty on the (occasionally) sunny shores of the Arctic Ocean.  Truly an enigma.

As for bipolar editors of Time Magazine: Tasermons Partner may be right, to suggest that Time was fair to those expressing environmental reservations regarding petroleum extraction from tar sands.  One wonders, though, why that should be considered journalistic objectivity, to present as a serious argument in a debate the thrill of an eight-year-old boy, at the spectacle of humongous trucks tearing apart a whole chunk of the world.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It's about time!

Congratulations Canis!  New York is finally doing the right thing, now let's hope the rest of the nation follows.

Well space we might need the natural gas from underground fossil fuel deposits, but probably not.  It would be better for the GHG balance to use natural gas coming from these sources already than simply let it leak into the atmosphere.

In the case of the tar sands where the extraction is deadly to the environment in terms of GHG and water use and toxic contamination, gas farms would certainly be prefferable.  The same with coal mines.  

Point taken about the term "harvest".  But in this case it fits, these gas "farms" would cultivate natural bacteria in the coal seam or tar sand deposit.  As far as constituting geo-engineering, it's hard to tell.  It would depend on how big the farms were.  

But I could see where it could be a disaster on a massive scale put into the hands of the same operators, the exxonmob.  Just about anything could be, given this level of evil.  The tar sand devestation is a prominent feature in space photos now.  I guess it already classifies as geo-engineering.

Renewables and conservation would be enough to supply human energy needs without fossil fuel with a favorable climate like we now have.  But if a volcanic, meteor, or nuclear event brought on a "nuclear" winter, in which several years without a summer occur, the solar energy component will not be there.  These fossil deposits could be a safety backup fuel source, converted to natural gas, to get humanity past a catastrophe.

Geo-engineering, can it be done safely?  I think it could in the case of wind/wave powered pumping of ocean water into the arctic and tropical air.  In winter this could cause a lot more ice to form in the polar regions.  In the tropics it could promote solar reflective cloud formation and rainfall in desert regions, greening large areas.  The solar reflection, from ice and clouds, and the added rainfall greening deserts would help with the GHG climate problem.

As a rule though, I think geo-engineering is foolish diversion from real climate and energy solutions.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks