Gentlemen, start your SUVs

The dirty truth about Canada’s famed oil sands. 3

[W]hen Canada announced in 2004 that it has more recoverable oil from tar sands than there is oil in Saudi Arabia, the world yawned. There is estimated to be about as much oil recoverable from the shale rocks in Colorado and other western states as in all the oil fields of OPEC nations. Yes, the cost of getting that oil is still prohibitively expensive, but the combination of today's high fuel prices and improved extraction techniques means that the break-even point for exploiting it is getting ever closer.
--From "The Oil Bubble," Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 8, 2005

Actually, with oil prices nestled comfortably above $60 per barrel, the oil giants are tapping Canada's famed tar sands, as this interesting NYT piece by Clifford Krauss shows.

"Deep craters wider than football fields are being dug out of the pine and spruce forests and muskeg swamps by many of the largest multinational oil companies," Krauss reports. "Huge refineries that burn natural gas to refine the excavated gooey sands into synthetic oil are spreading where wolves and coyotes once roamed."

Note well: They're burning natural gas to get at this stuff.

Krauss adds:

About 82,000 acres of forest and wetlands have been cleared or otherwise disturbed since development of oil sands began in earnest here in the late 1960's, and that is just the start. It is estimated that the current daily production of just over one million barrels of oil--the equivalent of Texas' daily production, and 5 percent of the United States' daily consumption - will triple by 2015 and sextuple by 2030. The pockets of oil sands in northern Alberta--which all together equal the size of Florida - are only beginning to be developed.

Be sure and click on the article's multi-media link comparing the environmental depredations of producing a barrel of artificial oil from sands with those of conventional crude production.

The only way this process can make economic sense for the oil giants is if they succeed in externalizing these costs -- i.e., shuffling them off of their balance sheets.  

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Remco Posted 12:34 pm
    11 Oct 2005

    NuclearExtracting oil from the tar sands and shales may be one of the best uses for nuclear power, enormous amount of heat is required to do the extracting and typically the sands are far from population centers.  These two facts may be the best way to proceed for a planet with billions of people hell bent on survival.  
  2. jdhlax Posted 1:51 pm
    11 Oct 2005

    That's One Of The Most Anti-Environmental CommentsI've read here.  So, Remco, you think it's OK to 1) mine uranium and 2) create radioactive waste that will last virtually forever in order to 3) destroy entire ecosystems so that idiot humans can 4) continue to massively pollute our atmohphere?  And BTW, I haven't listed all of the environmental harms that are and would be caused by these activities, just the worst and most obvious ones.
  3. Tom Philpott's avatar

    Tom Philpott Posted 2:15 am
    12 Oct 2005

    Hell bent on survival?I don't know, Remco. Creating a bunch of radioactive waste to release a bunch of greenhouse gases and noxious chemicals  doesn't sound like what people "hell bent on survival" would be getting up to. Maybe, instead, we all just use less energy?

Add a Comment

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.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement