Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClinton Asked to Keep Canada Sands Oil Out of US
WASHINGTON - An environmental group on Wednesday asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deny permits for pipelines that would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the United States.
![[(Image ForestEthics/SierraClub)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/gview.png "gview.png")
ForestEthics said production from Canadian tar sands generates up to
fives times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, which
it said conflicts with the Obama administration's pledge to tackle
global warming.
"Oil from the tar sands is one of the world's dirtiest," the group's executive director, Todd Paglia, said in a letter to Clinton. "For the U.S., continued dependence on tar sands oil would impair plans to reduce our carbon footprint in the short and long term."
Canada is the biggest foreign oil supplier to the United States and Canada's oil sands are the largest crude deposits outside the Middle East.
Nonetheless, the group urged Clinton to deny permits for pipelines that would move the oil to U.S. refineries, particularly the Alberta Clipper pipeline. The State Department has the authority to approve pipelines that would cross the U.S. border.
Enbridge Energy Partners LP's 1,000-mile (1,610-kilometre) pipeline would be able to carry 450,000 barrels of tar sands crude oil a day from Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The oil would then be sent to U.S. refineries to be processed into petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
The U.S. portion would be 326 miles long and cost $1.2 billion, and if approved, would be operational in mid 2010.
Enbridge spokeswoman Denise Hamsher said the State Department's decision is based on a pipeline, not on oil production that occurs in Canada where it does not have jurisdiction.
"What would the Midwest do without that supply?" asked Hamsher, who pointed out that 1 million barrels a day in Canadian sands oil is already exported to the United States.
State Department officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said earlier this month that technology will help solve the environmental problems connected with Canada's oil sands production.
However, ForestEthics said technology won't be able to overcome the human health hazards associated with oil sands production.
"In Alberta, where most of the Canadian tar sands operations are currently located, there are elevated rates of cancer in downstream communities," the group said.
The group protested outside the State Department on Wednesday by giving passersby the chance to smell glass vials of the tar sands that are labeled "dirty oil by any other name would be as risky."
ForestEthics joined with the Sierra Club to raise their concerns about Canadian tar sands to U.S. lawmakers by taking out a full-page ad in a prominent Capitol Hill newspaper.
The political-based cartoon shows a young girl worried about a huge pipeline, labeled "World's Dirtiest Oil" at the U.S.-Canadian border, and asking Secretary Clinton: "Is this my clean energy future?" The ad can be seen at the group's website www.ForestEthics.org.
"Secretary Clinton now has an opportunity to show that America is a global leader in the clean energy economy. It's simply not in our national interest to allow this project to move forward," said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope.
(Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
24 Comments so far
Show AllHere a simple dynamic that shows how much energy can be changed via lifestyle changes.
Let me preface this by saying I am not holding Canada up as any sort of model of energy efficiency. This simply for the purposes of example.
A local City designer who moved up here from Detroit was wondering why Canadian Cities so much more "livable" then comparable US cities.
He determined that the more HIGHWAYS built, the less livable a city became. He found that the density of Canadian Cities population wise was more then twice that of comparable US cities.
The Americans wanted more then twice the space. So they spread out more. They built more Highways/freeways. They got more sprawl and ever longer commutes. Where more and more taxes raised by cities in the US went into the highway system, Canadian Cities having LESS miles overall of highways could use taxes in other places like parks/schools and the like.
The average Canadian drives one third the distance that an American does to get to his place of work AND are twice as likely to use transit.
He also determined that there less overall crime in Canadian Cities because their was a greater sense of Community due to higher density.
We do not have to reinvent the wheel to cut down on energy usage. Rather then trying to envision a world of electric cars and how THOSE will be powered, we should try and envision one where the need of ANY sort of car is less.
Having Suburbs where one drives 2 hours to get to the place of work is inefficient. Cities losing a tax base as people flee to the suburbs while at the same time having to maintain roads and highways INTO that city so that those people in the Suburbs can work is giving those persons a free ride.
We have to rethink how we model our cities and economies BEFORE we start looking for new cleaner sources of power.
Who scheduled the kids for a field trip with Hillary?
Geez, but this deal is already done and that's that; making oil companies stop importing oil is just pissing in the wind for these well meaning people.
And I would say this will be nothing compared to when the once frozen artic tundra thaws out and all that methane is released into the atmosphere, possibly quite violently.
And 'telling a clinton to not do something'? May as well ask g.w. obama to reinstate the constitution and all those regulatory statues that were gutted or struck down that maybe would have prevented shit like this from happening; always 5 steps behind the 'big boys'.
I suppose we still have the "invisible hand" of the market place. Now we also have the "invisible hand" of technology that will solve everything. What technolgy? When? Where? Shouldn't we wait for that new technolgy before the tar sands are exploited? Shouldn't we wait for clean coal technology? Wouldn't it be a waist if the last lump of coal were burning just as clean coal technoloty arrived? Save the coal until clean coal technology is here! Save the tar sands until clean tar sands technology is here! Don't put the cart infront of the horse.
Technology is the God of the business elite.
For Mr. Chu to assure everyone that "technology will take care of the mess" is like for him to say "Jesus will return from the dead and save us from our wickedness."
It's so easy to invoke the name of technology when you want something for yourself.
Pipelines would increase the development of tar sands development in Alberta, which I believe is the world's worst polluter. The generation of electricity has to shift to renewable energy sources. If we can't get enough from renewables, we must do without. Try to think how you can reduce your electrical demand.
Why even drill all that oil in Canada? Hemp is legal to grow and cultivate. Canada, I beg of you to grow hemp for fuel and put the USA to shame so that our ignorant electorate will put away their "reefer madness" support and support Ron Paul's and Dennis Kucinich's braveheart attempts to pass the Hemp Farming Act.
Here's an idea, Canada can stop shipping tar-sands oil and the U.S. shuts down its coal mining operations and its coal power generating plants. The U.S. can also stop buying cheap crap from China produced with coal powered electricity.
I think the tar-sands are an abomination, but maybe Americans need to look in the mirror or West Virginia every once and a while too.
Maybe this isn't a road we want to go down but maybe instead of selling tar-sands oil, all that wasted water used in processing the tar-sands oil, should be shipped to the States instead. I wonder if that would be worth more than the oil.
Desperate measures in desperate times?
Absolutely spot-on.
Furthermore, with the promotion of the electric vehicle in the US, an even larger number of mountain tops will need to be removed to get enough coal to recharge their batteries, with the carbon dioxide from burning the coal going straight into the atmosphere at a greater rate than if we burned upgraded oil sands in our vehicles.
The first step the US needs to take is to cut oil consumption associated with automobile and air traffic by at least a third over the next five years. Then, neither electric cars or oil imported from Canada will be needed for awhile.
Any oil pipeline built will be from Alberta to the west coast for shipment to China.
A fleet of Electric cars replacing 73% of the current gasoline powered fleet wouldn't require the building of even one new coal plant. They could be charged with the existing infrastructure. In fact most of the cars would be charged overnight when there is so much spare capacity that it is just wasted. They would also substantially reduce greenhouse gasses like CO2 over gasoline vehicles even in states like North Dakota which get 90% of their electricity from dirty nasty coal. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/11/plug-in-hybrid-faq/ The grid will only get cleaner too. In Texas we already get 8% of our electricity from wind and that is still expanding inspite of the economic depression.
When light rail is more available there will be less reliance on cars period but consider that Houston, the country's fourth largest city took over 30 years just to lay down 7.2 miles of light rail track. Fortunately we are set to quadruple that by 2012. Still it took 50 years to destroy cities and trolly transit and it will take as long to reestablish it. Until we get there we will need the electric car and the plug-in hybrid electric car.
You are touting spare capacity, some of which is there, but--I'm referring to the extra coal that would have to be burned to produce the electricity necessary to drive a say, 2000 lb sub-compact vehicle for 40 miles, using one gallon.
Of course, when I made the comparison, I was talking vehicle miles per gallon (=115,000 Btu). For a typical crude, by the time it gets to the filling station in your area, 160,000 Btu may best represent that 1 gallon actually burned in the car, when ocean transport, refining, storage and local fuel distribution are included.
The carbon footprint for a 40 mpg, (2000 lb, 4 passenger car) for which it is conceded that equivalent of 160,000 Btu of gasoline is required (1.3 gal), would be slightly under 8 lbs of carbon which is emitted into the air as CO2. With the 9 additional gallons in the tank, it could go another 360 miles.
How much carbon would be liberated by burning enough coal to create enough electricity, to charge the batteries enough to move an EV of equivalent size and capacity 40 miles (after which it would have to be recharged or have its batteries switched)? How much weight in batteries would be required? Show your work/assumptions, please.
>>>AVE_fan wrote: How much carbon would be liberated by burning enough coal to create enough electricity, to charge the batteries enough to move an EV of equivalent size and capacity 40 miles...? How much weight in batteries would be required? Show your work/assumptions, please.
AVE_fan, I don't think we can get into even back-of-the-envelope calculations on that without assuming what type of batteries we're talking about. The energy density of batteries has been increasing every year, while the cost might not have dropped that much in comparison - likely due to lack of mass production.
As a really rough comparison, assuming the number you quoted (115,000 Btu/gallon of gasoline),
40 mpg means 40 miles per 115,000 Btu of energy from gasoline.
1 kWh = about 3412 Btu.
So, 115,000 Btu = 33.7 kWh
40 mpg is then equivalent to
40 miles per 33.7 kWh, or 1.187 miles per kWh.
Now, the equivalent numbers for electric vehicles are quoted anywhere from 3 miles per kWh to 15 miles per kWh. Without going into what kind of vehicles these are, or what batteries are used, it's clear that even at the low end, electric vehicles are more efficient - at the level of the individual vehicle itself.
Now, if you want to look at the overall efficiency, gasoline engines are only of the order of 30-40% efficient at most, and for the vehicle itself, the number would be MUCH lower. Even if you assume a generous 70% efficiency for oil refining and transportation, overall efficiency would be even less.
In contrast, even assuming a lowly 40% efficiency for a coal power plant (a very conservative number for combined cycle plants), another 90% for transmission and another 80% at the vehicle, once again, electric vehicles powered by coal-generated electricity would be superior. And, if we use renewable sources instead of coal, the situation changes drastically.
That said, I would NEVER advocate large scale electric vehicle use powered by coal. In fact, wherever possible, use of personal vehicles must be avoided in place of public transport.
OK, having written this, I just realized I haven't compared the carbon emissions.
Your number of 8 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline doesn't look right to me. It's more like 19 pounds (or 8.6 kg roughly) of CO2 per gallon. Assuming this is equivalent to 33.7 kWh, 19 pounds CO2 per gallon of gasoline is equivalent to (19/33.7 = ) about 0.56 pounds CO2 per kWh.
The reason I converted the energy from gasoline to kWh is so I can then compare a number I have - which is about 200 grams CO2 per kWh from a coal powered plant.
200 grams/kWh is the same as 0.44 pounds CO2/kWh from coal.
But the 40mpg car gives only 1.187 miles per kWh. If we compare that with 3 miles/kWh of an electric car, then again the CO2 emissions from a basic electric car powered by coal-based electricity would be less.
Some of these numbers can be debated. But overall, I think there is a case for electric vehicles. I don't want to debate these numbers because I have no vested interest in one over the other. I did this just for the heck of it. Besides, if you reply, the width of your comment would be even smaller than mine :)
Once again, my personal emphasis would be on public transport and renewable power.
I actually did the calculations using a spreadsheet and an efficiency estimation of 4 miles/kwh available as energy already stored in the battery. Of course, when including losses before the electricity gets to the battery, it would be only about 3 miles/kwh of electricity generated. In your case, I ALSO estimated to emit carbon at the rate of between 7 and 8 lbs C per trip (40 mi). That would be 8*(32+12)/12, or ~30 lb of carbon dioxide.
However, the environmental damage is much greater for carbon mining than regular oil.
I agree that each person should NOT be carrying around a 2000 pound vehicle with him everyday and that using public transportation and ride-sharing, should be the goal. Single-occupancy vehicles and their drivers could be more highly taxed to discourage their presence on the roads which just clogs up traffic even more.
I also have an improved appreciation of just how dirty BOTH coal and tar sands are...
which increases the need to develop the AVE ASAP. http://vortexengine.ca
Harper would like to prohibit any information dissemination about oil sands pollution . . . for national security.
Go for it. Our spineless Prime Minister won't stop or control it. However, I don't mind selling you the diamonds.
These projects take more heat energy from natural gas in recovering the oil than is produced by the resultant oil.
Heat you home with natural gas and drive a fuel efficient car - problem solved.
If we are silent, even stones cry out.
spinwing
"These projects take more heat energy from natural gas in recovering the oil than is produced by the resultant oil."
False.
False? Well, technically, maybe. But it would come pretty close - to produce all the steam from natural gas and river water - then injecting it to produce a really thick stuff - which is not even equivalent to crude oil. While there are a few different processes used,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Extraction_process )
the bottom line is that a clean fuel (natural gas) is burned to produce a dirty fuel (bitumen, crude oil) - which then has to be refined like any other crude oil that's pumped straight out of the ground in a conventional oil well - which also requires energy. And we are not even talking of the diesel used by all those monster trucks digging up the tar sand in the first place or the resulting lakes of polluted water.
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/
Cool! Now if we could treat oil as we did "blood diamonds", there would be change for sure!
"WORLD'S DIRTIEST OIL"
I disagree. The world's dirtiest oil has to be the slimy stuff coming out of Iraq, with a very high blood content (over a million dead, millions of wounded and refugees).
I think we should pull out of Iraq and siphon the sandy oil from Canada with zero casualties.
"...zero casualties"
only if you don't count the folks dying of strange cancers just down stream of the mines, that is.
You are correct.
Still, I think bombing civilians in their sleep is a lot worse than slowly poisoning people downstream, especially since the bombings are followed by slow poisoning of people downstream (depleted uranium, etc). The only difference is that they are poisoned on top of bombing injuries, dispossession, hunger, poverty... if they survived the bombing.
But yeah. You had a valid point.
Future deaths from Global Warming will make Iraq seem like a tea party.
Precisely!
I am totally open to constructive persuasion. I keep an open-mind. I value learning more than I do ideology. I think that you make some valid points, there. I just think that priority one should be to stop the violence. First of all, the violence does nothing to mitigate global warming. We have the wars AND are destroying our habitat. Perhaps it would make sense to destroy our habitat WITHOUT the everyday killing and maiming.
I get it that we all want an end to the violence. We are on the same "side"... a very good thing.
Peace!