Benefits And Negatives Of Oil Sands

Oil sands pipeline environment fears are overdone

By Christopher Swann

NEW YORK — Canada’s tar sands are getting U.S. environmentalists riled up. Despite a sanguine State Department report, there’s heavy opposition to a US$7-billion pipeline bringing oil from north of the border down to Texas. But oil sands are less dirty than their reputation, and the U.S. buys crude from worse polluters.

Critics see the proposed Keystone pipeline as the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet. Canada’s sands contain about 170 billion barrels of oil, placing them behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in terms of reserves. But aside from being potentially disruptive ecologically, the extraction process is relatively energy-intensive. Ramping up tar sands production could therefore accelerate global warming, according to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist who has resolved to join the protest against the pipeline.

It’s true that the State Department’s view that the pipeline won’t boost oil sands production is probably flawed. Infrastructure bottlenecks are, in fact, likely to be the main constraint on tar sands output.

Still, the environmental fears look overdone. Greenhouse gas emissions for the whole process from extraction to the final use of crude from Canadian oil sands are just 6 percent higher than the average in the United States, consultancy IHS reckons. Meanwhile, Americans seem to have few qualms about importing even dirtier crude from Nigeria, which supercharges emissions by burning off unwanted natural gas from its wells. And unlike Nigeria, Canada has been tightening its environmental standards.

The United States anyway already imports close to 1 million barrels a day of oil that originates from the sands. And the pipeline would bring considerable benefits. For a start, it would limit the nation’s dependence on less friendly oil suppliers. It would also offer an economic fillip, creating about 15,000 jobs next year, the Perryman Group estimates. Global warming and emissions concerns should be taken seriously. But if it’s about comparisons, then they need to be like-for-like. Canadian oil sands would still be economically competitive even with a chunky carbon tax, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Campaigning for pollution to be priced in this way would be a fairer and more comprehensive approach to controlling emissions than seeking to box in Canada’s oil.

Oil sands pipeline environment fears are overdone | Energy ...

By Christopher Swann

NEW YORK — Canada’s tar sands are getting U.S. environmentalists riled up. Despite a sanguine State Department report, there’s heavy opposition to a US$7-billion pipeline bringing oil from north of the border down to Texas. But oil sands are less dirty than their reputation, and the U.S. buys crude from worse polluters.

Critics see the proposed Keystone pipeline as the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet. Canada’s sands contain about 170 billion barrels of oil, placing them behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in terms of reserves. But aside from being potentially disruptive ecologically, the extraction process is relatively energy-intensive. Ramping up tar sands production could therefore accelerate global warming, according to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist who has resolved to join the protest against the pipeline.

It’s true that the State Department’s view that the pipeline won’t boost oil sands production is probably flawed. Infrastructure bottlenecks are, in fact, likely to be the main constraint on tar sands output.

Still, the environmental fears look overdone. Greenhouse gas emissions for the whole process from extraction to the final use of crude from Canadian oil sands are just 6 percent higher than the average in the United States, consultancy IHS reckons. Meanwhile, Americans seem to have few qualms about importing even dirtier crude from Nigeria, which supercharges emissions by burning off unwanted natural gas from its wells. And unlike Nigeria, Canada has been tightening its environmental standards.

The United States anyway already imports close to 1 million barrels a day of oil that originates from the sands. And the pipeline would bring considerable benefits. For a start, it would limit the nation’s dependence on less friendly oil suppliers. It would also offer an economic fillip, creating about 15,000 jobs next year, the Perryman Group estimates. Global warming and emissions concerns should be taken seriously. But if it’s about comparisons, then they need to be like-for-like. Canadian oil sands would still be economically competitive even with a chunky carbon tax, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Campaigning for pollution to be priced in this way would be a fairer and more comprehensive approach to controlling emissions than seeking to box in Canada’s oil.

Of mice and men

A People's History of the United States

Crime and punishment

Three cups of tea, one man's mission to fight terrorism and build nations-- one school at a time

War and peace