Dear Americans;
Big oil and the government of Canada are making promises that should alarm every citizen. They have declared that the controversial $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline will bring you jobs, economic security and more 'friendly' oil. Moreover, they contend that the proposed pipeline's environmental impact (not to mention that of the world's largest, dirtiest energy project, the Alberta tar sands) is of little concern. These promises are too good to be true, but like so many foreign oil vendors, Canadian politicians ignore the facts when the money's green.
As Canadian journalists raised and educated in the United States, we have an abiding respect for the American people and our shared land. And we want you to know that Canadian oil, the world's most expensive hydrocarbon, will not make Americans more secure, nor will it fuel an economic revival (for you, anyway).
Let's deal first with the lie that the U.S. urgently needs more Canadian oil. Right now, the U.S. imports about 2.5 million barrels a day from Canada and half comes from the tar sands. Do Americans really need the additional million barrels this pipeline promises to deliver to Texas refineries?
The answer is no. Between 2008 and 2009 U.S. oil demand dropped by a million barrels a day. After a slight recovery in 2010, demand dropped again. According to Mastercard data, gasoline sales for July were the lowest in six years. Furthermore, experts predict permanent declines in demand due to the recession (a direct result of high oil prices), conservation, better fuel standards and efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. Energy Dept. says so, and so does the International Energy Agency.
Shrinking demand tells us that the Keystone pipeline is not about America's best interests. It is about moving landlocked Canadian bitumen to U.S. coastal ports. Given that most Gulf refineries have all the oil they can handle, the surplus will be shipped out on supertankers. "There will be too much oil, it's got to go somewhere, and it's going to China," says Denver-based Philip Verleger, one of the country's most respected petroleum economists, who has called the pipeline "a tar sands road to China."
Next comes the issue of security -- a truly cynical claim. The tar sands, which have generated enough toxic mining waste to flood Staten Island or Washington, DC, is already an environmental nightmare. Just last May, Alberta suffered its worst bitumen spill in nearly 40 years -- more than a million gallons. Last year, a bitumen pipeline leak in Michigan fouled the Kalamazoo River and increased the price of oil by $10 a barrel in the Midwest.
Nor does Canadian oil ease pain at the pump. Currently, it costs about $8 billion to draw a million barrels out of Saudi deserts, and nearly $35 billion to produce the same volume in the Gulf of Mexico, but Canadian oil costs between $40 and $45 billion per million barrels, according to Global Oil Trade: The Relationship Between Wealth Transfer and Giant Fields. Because oil is a fungible good, Canadian production has significantly raised the price of oil.
Last but not least is the science. When NASA's James Hansen, one of the world's foremost climate researchers, was arrested protesting the Keystone pipeline, along with more than 1,200 fellow citizens, Americans should take note. Dr. Hansen knows Alberta bitumen is junk crude with a carbon footprint 17 to 23 per cent greater than light oil, and that by 2020, the tar sands will be producing greenhouse gases equivalent to the state of Minnesota (about 90 million tons).
When Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a climate change skeptic and the son of an Imperial Oil accountant, says he's cleaning things up, ask how. You won't like the answer. Even Environment Canada admits to the practice of GHG dumping. As more and more "bitumen from the oil sands is being shipped to the United States," says Environment Canada's 2010 report to the U.N., "it appears that emissions associated with the upgrading and refining of bitumen were increasingly avoided in Canada."
In sum, the Keystone pipeline will not serve American interests but delight the Canadian government and its oil lobby. In addition to draining your pocketbooks and further compromising your environmental health, it will enrich Canadian politicians who don't believe in climate change. Your own Thomas Jefferson said it best: "Dependence begets subservience and venality."
And that's all Canada's bitumen will promise you.
Oil sands oil has a smaller carbon footprint than oil from California, Venezuela, and Nigera.
And then there are those human rights abuses.....
That adds 58 bucks to every barrel of oil imported from the mideast, a cost that is not needed with the oil sands oil.
You tell a few more lies as well, which is odd, because if the oil sands really were so bad you should be able to just tell the truth.
While the oil sands oil might have a bigger carbon footprint than light crude, it has a smaller carbon footprint than the oil from California, Venezuela, and Nigeria.
90 million tons of C02 from the oil sands, by 2020?
Why not use today's emission numbers/
Not big enough to be scary enough?
Gee, there is one coal fired plant in the home state of the discredited Hansen that puts out almost 40 million tons of C02 all by itself.
Shut down a couple of coal fired plants and you would eliminate more C02 than if you shut down all the oil sand operations.
And quoting Hansen?
That's a laugh, you must be getting desperate!
You sir, are a joke.
Go after China where they are building two new old technology coal fired plants a week, or are you afraid they won't let you fundraise there if you knock them?
or about 5% of China's daily coal production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The tone of this article makes me think this is just more critics who have never been to see the Oilsands for themselves. At least James Cameron of Avatar fame went and spent three days there and saw for himself what was going on. He didn't rely on the constant repetitive dirge that masquerades as knowledge and keeps getting recycled about the Oilsands. He came away with an understanding of what's actually going on . Too bad others aren't as smart as him.
Secondly, the difference between Brent crude ( what Europeans pay )and West Texas Intermediate(what North Americans pay is currently $28.70 / barrel. This means that Canadian oil producers, and various levels of government, are losing tens of billions of dollars in revenue, because of "stranded oil" in Cushing Oklahoma. The Keystone pipeline solves this problem , by delivering oil to US gulf refineries.
The correct CO 2 comparison is not oilsands oil vs. light sweet crude, instead , it's between Oilsands oil and heavy oils from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which is where these refineries presently are sourced.
As a Canadian I want a fair price for Canada's resources, and even if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, other pipelines will be, opening up markets in Asia.
Brinkley4 is correct that more Canadian crude oil imported into the US will displace imports from Saudi, Venezuela or West Africa. This is a good thing for US oil security as well as US/Canadian trade relations.
Regarding the argument that Canadian crude is more expensive to produce than Saudi or US Gulf production, it is only logical that new sources of crude production are the next most technically difficult to extract. The cheap Saudi oil discovered in the 1930s is obviously going to be cheaper, as will USGC production which began in the 1950s. The next large discoveries to be exploited will likely be more expensive still. The economics behind this will insure that we have access to oil supply, but likely at higher cost which will incent reduced demand.
The Hansen reference is simply just pasted on with no convincing evidence attached.
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=2419105C-1A64-67EA-E4564591D0CF1371
Cheap power: An Overnight Revolution
There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/
Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf
By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
In regards to the US needing more oil, looking short term that may be correct, but a country needs to look at the long term and have a secured source of oil. Even if it doesn't need the extra oil, the US can shift from middle east oil to Canadian oil sands which is a politically stable country and ally.
Most oil is not light crude, many countries produce heavy crude which is close to oil sands, so its convienent to show this delta.
An area not covered is the cost of buying dictator oil. Where women and minorities are treated worse than second class citizens. Where an oil spill apparently never occurs, since no one can report it. Where these dictators are known sponsors of terrorism. Where is the cost of that factored in here?