Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM John Vaillant
 
GET UPDATES FROM Andrew Nikiforuk
 

Canada's Oil Sands Boondoggle

Posted: 10/15/11 10:08 AM ET

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.

 
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 job...
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 job...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:06 AM on 10/18/2011
Mid east oil producers import and burn coal to free up more oil for export to the US and eastern Canada.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:05 AM on 10/18/2011
There are individual coal fired plants in China that out out almost as much C02 as all the oil sand operations combined.
Oil sands oil has a smaller carbon footprint than oil from California, Venezuela, and Nigera.

And then there are those human rights abuses.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:01 AM on 10/18/2011
Well Andy, why don't you mention the $58.00 per barrel that the US navy costs to protect mideast oil?
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?
02:48 AM on 10/17/2011
Oil from the tar sands is only needed by the oil companies who are digging it out and the government which doesn't allow cabinet ministers to talk to the press. The PM Harper, takes three questions when he can't avoid the press. He has no interest in stopping the destruction of an incredible and vittal part of the world. It takes four gallons of water and as many BTU's as the oil will generate to make it. It is a horror story which makes China's coal plants look good. And China is going green at a great rate. The pipeline will add to the horror. It endangers water and water is more valuable than gold. People should think of the future generations who will curse Canada. They already have to deal with the problems which were created by ignorance. To keep on developing the tar sands and ship it through a pipeline which will leak - that's a given is far worse than flying towo planes into two sky scrapers. We do not need more oil. We need more efficient cars like the Volt which is coning to a town near you. Given that the oil companies receive a subsidy, take the subsidy from the oil companies and apply it to the people who will buy a Volt.
12:53 PM on 10/17/2011
"Oil from the tar sands is only needed by the oil companies " Yes, they store it Oil Museums, saying, Who uses this stuff anymore? Silly Us. !!!
04:55 PM on 10/17/2011
brinkley4 - drug dealers deal drugs to druggies. It's really profitable. MacDonald's sells sort of hamburgers to people who think sort of hamburgers are great. Oil companies sell to suckers like you. I guess you don't believe in addicts getting off drugs. Myself, I don't buy illegal drugs and nbody I know does. It is a loser thing. And it does endanger me that they are allowed to. But you driving to the store for a two four or a can of coke hurts all of life.. But hey. Its not against the law. And neither is tobacco. Oil use per capita in North America has fallen. Oil use in Europe per capita has always been lower since it costs more and their old cities aren't built for cars. Your rights end where my nose begins and I am tired of the dirty air I breathe so you can drive to the corner store.
08:52 PM on 10/16/2011
Canada's global GHG contribution is about 2% compared to China's 26% and the US's 24% . the Oilsands contribution to Canada's total is 5% , which works out to 0.1% of global GHG contribution .
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.
02:52 PM on 10/16/2011
Canadians can keep their dirty oil!! If Canadians want to mine, then they better refine it - dont pipeline the stuff through American soil!
02:15 PM on 10/16/2011
This article contains errors , on several points. Firstly, any temporary reductions in US demand is only one factor in the global demand picture for oil. Global demand will continue to increase in future.
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.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Dobbins
I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb
10:32 PM on 10/16/2011
This is indeed a poorly written article.

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dobermanmacleod
Immortality first, and everything else second
07:43 AM on 10/16/2011
Sorry to double post, but I thought you might want to read this latest article about LENR (low energy nuclear reaction). If you dig it, spread the word, and kill the Oil-sands (and dirty coal)

http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=2419105C-1A64-67EA-E4564591D0CF1371

Cheap power: An Overnight Revolution
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dobermanmacleod
Immortality first, and everything else second
07:41 AM on 10/16/2011
Oil-sand investors are going to lose their shirts. Oil-sands needs at least 80 $/barrel to be profitable, but the following CLEAN energy is a fraction of that. As hard as this is to believe, using low energy nuclear reaction (no radioactive fuel in, no radioactive material created) nickel is HALF A MILLION times as energy dense as oil. This technology will be hitting the market soon - you may hear about it the end of this month from the mass media:

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
02:50 PM on 10/16/2011
this technology will NOT be hitting the market any time soon as there is at present no viable cheep source of hydrogen gas as a basic requirement to run this system. And when a cheep source of this gas is found there are much better and simpler proven methods of producing energy from it than this system .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
markspence
01:53 AM on 10/16/2011
I rather doubt the United States is going to start exporting petroleum to China. Oil brought to the Gulf Coast via the pipeline will displace oil currently being supplied by Venezuela and Mexico. The good thin g is, for every dollar we send to Canada for the oil, we get back 90-cents. For Venezuela, we're lucky to get back 10-cents.
12:44 PM on 10/15/2011
I'm not an expert in oil, but the story has a few holes. First off is the number of jobs the pipeline would create is significant, especially in these economic times. Something not even covered in the article although mentioned and cast aside.

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?
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
12:44 AM on 10/16/2011
The bigger issue here is climate change. The sheer volume of oil to be burnt through this development rivals the entire amount of Saudi oil ever burnt. This will increase global emissions and climate temp. The parts per million (PPM) of global climate change emissions that climate scientists say is sustainable is 350 PPM. It is now at 480 PPM and rising. We need to draw back from continuing the current escalation, and vetoing XL is an indispensable part to the process for doing so. We also need to do far more to support alternative energy, and far less to promote oil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Flacracker
no tea for me, buy American
11:32 AM on 10/15/2011
Look, if they want to ship this crap to China why not just build a dedicated rail line to the BC ports and leave us out of the whole stinking mess?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
03:51 PM on 10/15/2011
Koch brothers have been digging for oil here is Canada for 20 years. This is an American adventure.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:06 AM on 10/18/2011
They are small potatoes in the oil sands.