Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms
The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.
This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law--that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta. For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.
Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen--black, tarlike goo that is mixed with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.
It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes. Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.
Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in. Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands"). That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta--previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil--was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.
All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary. The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs.
Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket." There is a certain irony there: The United States invaded Iraq at least in part to secure access to its oil. Now, thanks partly to economic blowback from that disastrous decision, it has found the "security" it was looking for right next door.
It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R&D extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta.
Developing the sands is devouring trees and wildlife--the Pembina Institute, the leading authority on the tar sands' environmental impact, warns that boreal forests covering "an area as large as the State of Florida" risk being leveled. Now it turns out that the main river feeding the industry the massive quantities of water it needs is in jeopardy. Climate scientists say that dropping water levels are the result--fittingly enough--of climate warming.
Contemplating the collective madness in Alberta--a scene even the Financial Times has labeled "some dystopian fantasy"--it strikes me that Canada has ended up with more than Iraq's displaced oil boom. We have its elusive weapons of mass destruction too. They are out near Fort McMurray, in the jet-black goo beneath the earth's crust. And with the help of trucks, pipes, steam and gas, these weapons are being detonated.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which will be published in September. Visit Naomi's website at nologo.org.
© 2007 TheNation



14 Comments so far
Show AllThere are so many problems associated with the oilsands that this short but excellent article doesn't address. To link it's expansion to the war in Iraq is surley valid as higher oil prices are good for oil executives everywhere, not neccesarily all Albertan's or Calgarians.
Here are my major concerns:
- Extraction is a water intensive process in a province that hasn't got a lot of water. I belive it uses approximately 3-4 barrels of H20 per barrel of oil produced. The water coming out the back end of the process is toxic and has been polluting the Athabasca River for over 40 years. Native communities downstream like Fort Chippeweyn have been suffering high rates of cancer and other disease that have been known by both the provincial and federal governments for years. Anyone like the local doctor who try to speak out about it are quickly silenced.
- Currently at least 20% of Alberta's natural gas supply is being used to power the energy intensive oil sands development. (Upto 60% is shipped to the states, leaving precious little left for Canadians, which gets into the whole NAFTA can of worms, which as far as I understand Canadians have no right to cut back our production sent to the states once the taps have been opened lest we face lawsuits from the American companies for hindering their "right" to profit)
- Add to this that there have not been any major natural gas finds in the province for years. Currently, the natural gas industry in Alberta is almost at a standstill compared to the craziness of the last few years.
- If production intends to triple then the only option for powering the oilsands will be to go nuclear. I belive the Alberta and Federal government is keeping quiet about this untill it is too late, when it will be forced upon the public as the only means to continue our "prosperity".
- The idea that there is a boom in Alberta is largley a false economy as Alberta has one of the highest personal debt loads in the country. The only people truly prospering off of this are the executives of the oil companies that are driving their Ferraris around Calgary and tearing down 10 year old mansions to build even bigger and better ones, in turn driving up realestate prices for the rest of us.
- People moving to Ft.McMurray to find work, find that there is no where for them to live. Alot of the oilfield workers I've known can't wait to get away lest they get caught up in the rampant drug addiction in the area.
- The highway up to Ft.McMurray is known by locals as the death highway as it is only a two lane highway that sees a lot of workers travelling to Edmonton (500 km south) after their shifts driving their newly leased Ford F350's at over 100 mph empty beer cans flying out the windows competing with big trucks and often large loads that take a week or more to travel up the road in huge convoys. Despite the $5 billion or more surplus a year the Alberta government is making, they have refused for years to address this problem.
- This brings up the next issue of qualified workers which are extremely hard to find right now if not impossible. Witness the recent collapse of a tank which killed 2 workers and injured four others, still under investigation, but it's hard for anyone working in the industry to belive that it can't be atributed to lack of proper people.
- It's hard to fathom how production will be tripled with the lack of labour.
Just some comments from someone working in the industry.
Link Noami's always razor-sharp investigative journalism with a posting on commondreams explaining the ruination of mangroves in Vietnam/SE Asia to harvest shrimp, and then look at both of these policies of environmental plunder relative to the perhaps visionary initiatives espoused by Harvey Wasserman's portrait of Solartopia. Clearly the whole premise of cannibalizing non-renewal resources when we have the ways and means to at least BEGIN moving towards renewals AND learning to conserve is beyond counterproductive. An earlier posting about the present automobile engine never being seriously upgraded (for fuel efficiency) since its inception shows another arena for where conservation MUST hit the pavement in policy and practice. This is OUR earth, and every ecosystem connects to every other very much like a gigantic spider web. What happens when too many strands are suddenly cut? The entire THING implodes. Is that a price citizens should be willing to pay to enrich a few maniac oil executives? I mean Lee Raymond, retired or otherwise, could have played the part of that rotund THING in Speilberg's Star Wars.
Just another reason why industrial civilization is not sustainable. Any time you live a lifestyle that requires more than your immediate around can continue to give you, you will travel far and wide and resort ro whatever violence (environmental or personal) is necessary to obtain that which you want.
Meanwhile the Mother Earth Goose which produces these golden eggs of opportunity is being strangled to death. Pay now or pay later--the longer the repayment is delayed, the greater will be the compounding of interest penalties for such delay.
And Lee Raymond's compensation package in 2005 was only $400,000,000 - poor boy.
Siouxsrose you are thinking of Jabba the Hut.
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/jabbathehutt/
Excellent image for greedy plundering oil company CEOs.
One is struck dumb by the scale of latter day resource exploitation, the removal of mountain tops to take coal, the evacuation of the oceans by monstrous factory ships, etc. The sound and fury of mega-industrial operations dwarfs the rapacity of the 19th and early 20th Centuries and these rational resource exploiters, like Lee "Don't call me Harelip" Raymond are the first to protest that human activity is not having any destabalizing global effect. The idea that the earth is Gaia, a vast sentient organism in her own right is to them pure fantasy and mystical hokum, even though the science which has given them the means of their exploitation, is now lending credibility to that perception.
It seems futile to protest this exploitation. Stolid, bovine, brutal Lee Raymond is at the wheel of an unstoppable juggernaut that must finally exhaust the capacity of Gaia to recover. She will no longer support Our Way Of Life and we will perish. Even more sobering is the fact that each of us is implicated in this criminal entgerprise because, after all, this CEO of the most profitable corporation in all of human history as we know it is simply catering to consumer demand. We are consumers; therefore, we are hoist on our own petards.
It can feel futile to protest. In moments though, it feels good to muck with their "perception management" attempts to keep their ecoterrorism out of public consciousness. The fossil fuel cartel monitors and massages the media with a huge amount of time and money. Their PR personnel get irritated when concerned people get a letter to an editor published, or make comments about their evil deeds over talk radio and other forums. Sometimes I read trade journals of various industries, and they get stressed when people hand out flyers or join environmental groups.
They also can't stand the growing advocacy for sustainable energy, green building, organic food (which avoids the oil-based pesticides), and so forth. http://www.worldchanging.com
The movement against the sociopathic oil and coal industries isn't large enough, or effective enough, or loud enough to avoid all sorts of destruction of human and non-human beings. It's heart-breaking.
But, resistance can be healing, and sometimes more effective than we imagine.
http://www.crudeimpact.com
Preston, thanks.
Crow: Yep. Jabba (forgot the name) that's it. And Cruxpuppy: The onus on the consumer would be more true and worthy of condemnation had we not read in yesterday's own commondreams postings that there has been a conscious decision NOT to deploy greater fuel efficiency in the interest of pure greed. I live 7 miles from town. Occasionally I bike that distance, but it's not feasible daily. I live this distance because as a freelance writer in a media increasingly being condensed, it's (1) what I can afford and (2) I have found it harder and harder to live in urban centers where NOISE never stops. This is a subject that almost never gets mentioned on this site; and I suspect it's harder on women (?) then men, although the pervasive ads for "sleep medication" might suggest otherwise. I think there is a metaphysical truth behind the concept of a sabbath and the fact that today the "machine" and a great number of its motor-driven mantras go 24/7. There is no rest, and it's quite hard to find the fertile silence which nourishes the contemplative mind. And that's my point. Like standard education and the consumer-driven media that utilizes subtle rewards and punishments in its inducements towards a materialistic conformity, FREE thought is barely "allowed." Thoreau took to the woods to think more deeply, and that is what I have decided to do. Because media and its entertainment ganglia project such an unconscionable model of human beings and behavior, it's clear that the WORST in human beings is increasingly being witnessed. The number 40,000 to suggest road deaths does not bear witness to the RAGE that animates a lot of drivers these days and that they're either oblivious to--or all too willing to obliterate another human being just so they can get to their target destination 3 minutes earlier. It's all speed and GOD forbid anyone FEEL along the way, or take in inventory of the wasteland a great many natural treasures have increasingly become in this mammon-takes-all nexus we call modern America. My car is as gas efficient as is possible, and I wish I could bike EVERYWHERE but it's not possible. This is where those responsible for producing technology have a critical role to play.
Siouxrose-
you have referred a couple of times to posts in response to a commentary the other day by Jim Minick "The Value of Boosting Our Miles per Gallon", and specifically to my post in which I pointed out that monopoly control by the oil and auto cartels has resulted in the suppression of fuel vaporization technology that would allow the average automobile to get over 100 mpg. Those environmentalists who champion increased gasoline taxes, like Jim Minick, are naive.
Most people are dependent on the automobile for their livelihood. Those who could survive without it are the exceptions. The environmental disaster Naomi Klein describes in this report is directly the result of the suppression of fuel handling technology that would dramatically reduce demand without imperiling livelihoods built around the automobile.
Yes, the long term solution would be zero-emission vehicles. "Who Killed the Electric Car" is an excellant doc that clearly demonstrates the nature of the auto/oil monopoly power. The oil sands boom would never happen if the electric car were put into production.
In the short term, however, the internal combustion engine is what we have and depend upon and it can be made more environmentally friendly by implementing fuel vaporization systems which vastly increase efficiency. This means a huge reduction in emissions, too. That is what "efficiency" means.
The development of vaporization fuel delivery systems has been underway since the 1920's by independent inventors all over the country, and the world. It has been systematically suppressed by the monopoly. As I pointed out in my post to Jim Minick's commentary, there are over 900 of these devices under patent. Check http://fuelvapors.com if you care to have a look at the nitty gritty reality of this technology.
America may be the world's technical genius, but it has been many years since this native technical genius has been free. Monopoly power has taken control of all energy resources, transportation, and every other essential of our modern techno-based society. Innovation is strictly controlled or suppressed according to the whims of this monopolly power represented by people like Lee Raymond, who operate behind the scenes in the techno world of which most Americans are ignorant. The people are kept in ignorance because technology is "boring" and because information is sysmatically redacted.
The people have no control over the technology upon which their lives are built. They are systematically conned and manipulated and kept in ignorance. Once in a while some one like Jim Minick will ruminate on the technology he has and experience a moment of insight. Holy geez! he says, if all the cars got 43 mpg, the world would be a happier place! But he's looking at the world through a keyhole. If he would just open the door and his mind, he would understand that the environmental problems we face are a direct result of the suppression of the free market by an elite monopolistic power that has put us all in a straight jacket.
If the American technical genius were released from this straight-jacket, environmental problems would be solved within a matter of a few years.
Back in the '70's some oil companies were buying up companies and patents with processes for making fuel for vehicles to "go the extra mile". Then these companies "sat" on the patents so that their companies could sell more fuel.
I think it would be profitable, nay, patriotic, to have a conversation with some of these major companies.
cruspuppy: Thank you for again elaborating on this fuel matter, as the data is so very hopeful, if we could free the facts and applications from those profit-mongers holding them in a chokehold. Here's the common denominator: Unless these wealthy elites are happy to welcome the End Times scenario as all-out Middle East war and/or absolute climate upheaval (i.e. no sustainable harvest cycles, oceans already being depleted of fisheries, "food" laced with toxins) then we must presume they have a stake in the future for themselves and their offspring. Do they really think their wealth can protect them from rising seas, population angst, and nature dying? Profit is such a strange and impotent notion when all worth is forfeited.
lobster - suppression of alternative technology can happen in many ways. The monopoly will buy patents and processes and put them on the shelf, or it will engage in criminal activity ranging from violent coercion to murder. JD Rockefeller built Standard Oil by going after competition with offers they couldn't refuse. His behavior set in motion the anti-trust years, the break up of Standard Oil, but this did nothing to stop the concentration of monopoly power and create a truly free market for innovation.
Whenever an inventor defies the monopoly power, refusing to sell a patent, or cave in to the "anti-competitive" practises, this inventor is faced with the very difficult problem of finding a way to finance production, produce, and market the device. Most inventors over many years have taken the buy-out option. Those few who have refused the buy-out cave in under harrassment and violent coercion, threat to family, etc, the usual. The rare individuals with courage and strength discover that financing is the stumbling block.
See the film ( 1988 ) "Tucker, the Man and His Dream" produced by FF Copolla and George Lucas. This is the true Story of Preston Tucker and his "Tucker Torpedo". He managed to actually produce 60 of these vehicles in 1949 with fuel injection, front & rear disc brakes, seat belts, and other features that would have made his vehicle #1 in the market. The auto cartel of the time shut down his financing and used the courts to eliminate the competition. They did not want fuel injection, safety, and other improvements.
You don't have "conversations" with monopoly power. GM is more powerful than many small nations. Exxon Mobile strides the globe as a collosus. Ralph Nader wrote "Unsafe At Any Speed" in 1964, I believe because the Ford Pinto had a tendency to blow up in accidents. He had to organize a national political campaign because monopolies don't listen. Gangsters respond only to serious pressure. It take government power to force them to listen and to change, but they don't worry much about Congress these days because they own it.
They own the media as well and can thus control public perception. The auto/oil cartel is so powerful it can thwart any challenge to its hegemony all the while it portrays itself as a competitive industry. They maintain intelligence operations and make use of paramilitary services when necessary. Pinkerton, Wackenhut, and most notoriously today, Blackwater, among others, provide "security services".
Siouxrose - it may be plain to us that the gross exploitation of the earth and the "externalization" of economic costs is leading to an "End Times" scenario that will take out the wealthy and poor alike, but this environmental sensitivity does not seem to be shared by the rapacious elite.
Al Gore, who is part of this elite, is waging an educational campaign. The reduction of CO2 emissions means nothing less than the transformation of the industrial machine operated by this elite on our behalf, which is why in this land of the unregenerate robber baron there is so much resistance to change.
The elite does recognize the problem and the need for remediation, which accounts for the secret ( in plain sight ) chemtrail aerosol spraying that has been going on now for about 8 or 9 years on a global scale.
Aware as the global elite may be of the imminent crisis threatening the biosphere, they nonetheless lack an essential quality necessary for our survival and theirs, call it "the quality of mercy", call it an "I-Thou" relationship with nature, that would allow them to perceive the planet as Gaia, or a living entity in its own right. This is why James Lovelock is so pessimistic. Lovelock is the author of the "Gaia hypothesis", as you know.
They are barbarians that are incapable of this civilized capacity to intuit the sentient capability of Gaia. To them, the earth is a "resource" to be exploited more "wisely". Without this capacity of consciousness, this wealthy barbarian elite is driving us all into an inevitable global crisis, an "end times", a period of "tribulation". They have built underground facilities for "continuity of government". but such a life, devoid of the quality of life only a healthy biosphere can provide, is not worth living.
If Americans are going to support the US invasion/occupation of Iraq, they should be required to see some color pictures of at least a few of the hundreds of thousands of little children and women who have been killed and permanently disfigured in Bush's so called "war on terror".
The truth about the ugliness and horror of war SHOULD be reported by our so called "news" media. When the truth about it is widely known, the people will demand that diplomacy be used, not bombs and tanks and all that highly profitable horror crap that the misleaders of our F'd up establishment apparently hold so dearly.
WAR PICTURES
Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq
These photos are only of a very tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian Victims who have been terrorised, humiliated, injured, maimed and killed through British and American bombing of civilian areas in
various cities of Iraq. Due to insecurity, independent reporters could not and still can not reach many areas to photograph and report the atrocities. Several independent reporters and journalists were deliberately bombed to prevent them reporting the atrocities.
WARNING:
PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH WEAK HEARTS.
Robert Fisk: http://snipurl.com/h6tm
Mind Prod: http://snipurl.com/h6tp