[yellowcanoe]

It's been rather hypocritical of some Americans to protest Canadian tar sands oil while at the same time the US was greatly increasing production of LTO through fracking. The tar sands account for around 2MBPD of world oil production and if all that production was shut in, it would have a significant impact on the world price of oil. If people genuinely don't like the environmental impact of the tar sands and oil production in general they need to find a way to get the world to consume less oil.

The recent drop in oil prices will do more damage to the rosy projections of future production from the tar sands then any amount of protests in the US. Tar sands projects had been coming in at much higher cost than originally planned and costs were continuing to rise well beyond the inflation rate. The drop in oil prices brings a reality check to oil companies and they are going to be much more conscious of costs in the future. The pace of development in the tar sands is not going to return to the level it was at a couple of years ago.

[ROCKMAN]

"It's been rather hypocritical of some Americans to protest Canadian tar sands oil". But isn't it hypocritical to protest the producers of any fossil fuel given that the overwhelming amount of GHG produced is created by the consumers burning them? Even with our above average IQ crowd here what the ration of fossil fuel producer criticism vs fossil fuel consumer criticism? Maybe 5 to 1? Or 10 to 1? How many folks here blame fossil fuel producers for climate change who themselves are a part of THE major source of GHG...the consumers?

[Lore]

"It's been rather hypocritical of some Americans to protest Canadian tar sands oil". But isn't it hypocritical to protest the producers of any fossil fuel given that the overwhelming amount of GHG produced is created by the consumers burning them? Even with our above average IQ crowd here what the ration of fossil fuel producer criticism vs fossil fuel consumer criticism? Maybe 5 to 1? Or 10 to 1? How many folks here blame fossil fuel producers for climate change who themselves are a part of THE major source of GHG...the consumers?

The best way to eliminate a problem is to go after the source. Slowly making the price of CO2 producing fuels too expensive to use in quantity means the sooner we can transition to less carbon producing alternatives.

It's kind of ridiculous actually for humans to use up their most dense source of energy in a few hundred year flash and then worry about what to do after it becomes too rare to use.

[ROCKMAN]

"The best way to eliminate a problem is to go after the source." Exactly my point: the source of almost all GHG is the burning of products of refined oil by the consuming public. Restrict their acquisition of those refinery products and the oil patch will have no choice but to leave those resources in the ground for future generations to enjoy at a slower pace.

[Graeme]

We should know that the source of the dirtiest hydrocarbons in Canada is their tar sands. Here is an analysis which puts Canada's contribution to ghg emissions and lives lost.

Canada’s GHG emissions cost the world 8,800 lives and $15.4 Billion every year

The Climate Vulnerability Forum, an alliance of 20 countries that are especially vulnerable to climate change, has teamed up with DARA, an international humanitarian organization funded by UNICEF, to bring us the Climate Vulnerability Monitor, one of the most comprehensive attempts to quantify the deaths and economic damage that climate change is already causing around the world. Their verdict?

[C]limate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries. Our present carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.

Climate change caused economic losses estimated close to 1% of global GDP for the year 2010, or 700 billion dollars (2010 PPP). The carbon-intensive economy cost the world another 0.7% of GDP in that year, independent of any climate change losses. Together, carbon economy- and climate change-related losses amounted to over 1.2 trillion dollars in 2010.

These are staggering figures. Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial revolution to present are about 2.2% of global emissions, and mix with the emissions from other countries, causing climate damages in communities around the world. If we focus on climate change impacts (400,000 deaths and US$700 Billion)*, Canada’s GHG emissions can be said to be responsible for 8,800 deaths and $15.4 Billion in damages each year.


The advice that’s given to people who have a problem they created for themselves is “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

It’s time for Canada to stop digging.

We need to stop causing further harm, and we need a discussion about who should pay for the harm that we can no longer avoid, and how. As a country, we need to implement and enforce a price on carbon that will shift us away from our fossil fuel dependence, and our role in causing harm to other people and substantial economic losses.

[url=http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/canada’s-ghg-emissions-cost-world-8800-lives-and-154-billion-every]wcel[/url]

[Keith_McClary]

52 million cubic metres of bitumen is approx 3.12 billion barrels.

It's about 6.3x . I think you added a zero.

[ROCKMAN]

"We should know that the source of the dirtiest hydrocarbons in Canada is their tar sands. Here is an analysis which puts Canada's contribution to GHG emissions and lives lost." Again, a very erroneous statement. Once refined the products made from the oil sands are identical to products made from any oil. The oil sands are not burned...the products made from the oil sands are burned. As far as the extraction process it creates just a tiny fraction of the GHG emissions generated by US citizens who burn virtually all the refined products made from the oil sands.

Sounds to me like someone is having a difficult time accepting the fact that they are an active participant in the creation of climate change. An oil consumption denier, so to speak. LOL.

[Graeme]

Are Tar Sands Dirtier Than Regular Oil?

Yes, they are [1]. Using the more appropriate “full fuel cycle” analysis, which includes all emissions from extracting the fuel out of the ground, to refining it and burning it in your automobile, tar sands produce 15%-20% more greenhouse gas emissions than regular oil. Less usefully for understanding the true climate impacts, the State Department’s analysis of the Keystone XL did not consider a full fuel cycle analysis, which is a big part of why it was more favorable towards them.

citizensclimatelobby

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?

Alberta's oil sands represent a significant tonnage of carbon. With today's technology there are roughly 170 billion barrels of oil to be recovered in the tar sands, and an additional 1.63 trillion barrels worth underground if every last bit of bitumen could be separated from sand. "The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone.

As it stands, the oil sands industry has greenhouse gas emissions greater than New Zealand and Kenya—combined. If all the bitumen in those sands could be burned, another 240 billion metric tons of carbon would be added to the atmosphere and, even if just the oil sands recoverable with today's technology get burned, 22 billion metric tons of carbon would reach the sky. And reserves usually expand over time as technology develops, otherwise the world would have run out of recoverable oil long ago.

The greenhouse gas emissions of mining and upgrading tar sands is roughly 79 kilograms per barrel of oil presently, whereas melting out the bitumen in place requires burning a lot of natural gas—boosting emissions to more than 116 kilograms per barrel, according to oil industry consultants IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. All told, producing and processing tar sands oil results in roughly 14 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than the average oil used in the U.S. And greenhouse gas emissions per barrel have stopped improving and started increasing slightly, thanks to increasing development of greenhouse gas–intensive melting-in-place projects. "Emissions have doubled since 1990 and will double again by 2020," says Jennifer Grant, director of oil sands research at environmental group Pembina Institute in Canada.

scientificamerican

[WildRose]

The decrease in oil prices this time around will significantly affect the amount of oil sands production that was anticipated. Whereas the projection was for some 6 to 7 million bpd of tar sands will the full-speed-ahead construction of new projects, seems we can now expect only around 2,700,000 for the foreseeable future. Companies now have to produce with what they have, can't go with the "get it out of the ground as fast as possible" plan that Harper and the PC premiers have have had for the oil sands these past years.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business ... story.html

From an environmental perspective, this is good news in the sense that there will be time for companies to focus on cleaning up their act. It would be to their benefit (and everyone else's) if they did so. Premier Notley has time to implement some climate change/emissions policies and the oil patch has time to implement better practices and technology. Personally, I'd like to see a diversification of Alberta's economy with alternative energy, smart steps to reduce consumption of oil, and solid environmental policy and regulation.

[ROCKMAN]

"If all the bitumen in those sands could be burned, another 240 billion metric tons of carbon would be added to the atmosphere and, even if just the oil sands recoverable with today's technology get burned, 22 billion metric tons of carbon would reach the sky.'

And again the same misrepresentation of the situation. The bitumen from the sands is not "burned". It is sent to refineries where it is processed into products with the various but same chemical composition as products refined from other oils. Thus the bitumen isn't converted into GHG. The refined products made from the oil sands production are burned by the consuming public. They are the creators of all that GHG.

This continual denial by the real GHG generators is becoming uncomfortably similar to those climate change deniers: the facts are what they are. Pointing fingers at others won't change those facts.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The best way to eliminate a problem is to go after the source. Slowly making the price of CO2 producing fuels too expensive to use in quantity means the sooner we can transition to less carbon producing alternatives.

It's kind of ridiculous actually for humans to use up their most dense source of energy in a few hundred year flash and then worry about what to do after it becomes too rare to use.

I agree 100%. Now, being pretty much the ONLY person I know of who openly states he wishes for a roughly $20 tax (raised gradually, to keep from destroying the economy in the short term) on each and every gallon of gasoline and fossil fuel equivalent, to greatly incentivize conservation and a move to green alternatives -- how in the real world with real voters and real politicians, do we even BEGIN to accomplish that?

(Hint -- the response from almost everyone is to either want to stone me or just say I'm insane. Most people don't want ANY gas tax rise, except for possible a little to be devoted ONLY to transpo infrastructure repair).

[ROCKMAN]

"Now, being pretty much the ONLY person I know of who openly states he wishes for a roughly $20 tax (raised gradually, to keep from destroying the economy in the short term) on each and every gallon of gasoline and fossil fuel equivalent." Not the only one: raising motor fuel taxes GRADUALLY starting 40 years ago would have achieved your goals IMHO. I'm not sure about $20/gallon but something meaningful.

I'm just glad to see someone else pointing out that the real source of the problem is the fossil fuel consumers and not the fossil fuel producers. We only look for the crap because the consumers pay us to do so. Little or no oil field paychecks = much less oil produced.

[Graeme]

Canada's Alberta pledges new climate regulations by month's end

Alberta, the Canadian province whose carbon-intensive oil sands are the largest source U.S. oil imports, said on Tuesday it would have new climate change regulations in place by June 30, when the current rules expire.

Shannon Phillips, the environment minister for the province's newly elected left-wing government, said in a statement that her first steps would include energy-efficiency and renewable-energy strategies.

The New Democratic Party, which ended 44 years of government by the Conservative Party in Alberta in an election last month, has been pressed to have a new climate change strategy in place before late November's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

"This government will take leadership on the issue of climate change and make sure Alberta is part of crafting solutions with stakeholders, other provinces and the federal government," Phillips said.

Under its current Specified Gas Emitters Policy, put in place in 2007, the province charges large emitters of greenhouse gases, such as oil sands projects, C$15 per tonne of emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow, however, reaching 249 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide emissions by 2012 on rising oil sands output.

reuters

Why Has Chinese Spending On Oil Dried Up?

The world’s biggest spenders on oil and gas assets have suddenly become extremely thrifty – and the world is taking notice.

The last decade saw China’s biggest national oil companies (NOCs) – Petrochina, Sinopec and China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) – buy international oil assets like no other. According to data from Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, the three Chinese NOCs made net purchases of foreign oil assets worth $104.1 billion between 2009 and 2013. To put this in perspective, the net purchases made by the three largest US oil companies during the same period were only $9 billion.


China’s retrenchment is on display in Canada’s oil patch. Petrochina faced criticism for investing in Canadian startups and ignoring the producing assets. CNOOC was ridiculed for cost-cutting and slashing its workforce in Ottawa after acquiring Nexen Inc., and Sinopec received flak after it backed out of its commitment to invest more in Sunshine Oilsands Limited.

oilprice

[careinke]

The best way to eliminate a problem is to go after the source. Slowly making the price of CO2 producing fuels too expensive to use in quantity means the sooner we can transition to less carbon producing alternatives.

It's kind of ridiculous actually for humans to use up their most dense source of energy in a few hundred year flash and then worry about what to do after it becomes too rare to use.

I agree 100%. Now, being pretty much the ONLY person I know of who openly states he wishes for a roughly $20 tax (raised gradually, to keep from destroying the economy in the short term) on each and every gallon of gasoline and fossil fuel equivalent, to greatly incentivize conservation and a move to green alternatives -- how in the real world with real voters and real politicians, do we even BEGIN to accomplish that?

(Hint -- the response from almost everyone is to either want to stone me or just say I'm insane. Most people don't want ANY gas tax rise, except for possible a little to be devoted ONLY to transpo infrastructure repair).

I would go for that as long as the revenues replaced other taxes, like property or income taxes.

From what I understand, British Columbia has done this (not $20) and it seems to work.

[kanon]

Rockman, it is the system. The consumers, the real burners of fossil fuels, have little choice but to continue and increase their consumption wherever possible. Few people will volunteer to make the status sacrifice to lower consumption and those few would be persecuted anyway. If one could actually get an accurate picture of the Tar Sands oil production, one would see a version of the "system" with all its processes and relationships out for display. See all the "business" being done using the energy to do the work. Notice how everything is arranged to make using this energy more convenient and reliable. Notice also that no one is allowed to deviate from the accepted patterns. The consumers would be busy with their mindless oil-burning consumption and either marveling at the wonder or fretting about the waste. Whether or not it was "economical" would hardly be a concern.

If you are worried about being blamed for climate change, knowing that fossil fuel use worldwide is the cause, and knowing that the environmental disruption may well upset our system past the point of ruin, then realize the serious blaming will begin after the ruin is obvious, but before it is fatal. Just know when to change careers. When millions or billions are wandering aimlessly in search or anything for sustenance; when the food stores are depleted and heat, floods, or drought have ruined the last crop, the elites can look back and reaffirm that it was the consumers fault.

[jedrider]

Someone please refute this article for me, thanks. Surely, the energy to produce Tar sands Oil must be greater than to produce Corn ethanol? I suspect the something is being neglected, such as the carbon from corn is climate neutral (except what is used to produce the corn ethanol) while that of tar sands is not as it is fossil carbon OR the energy cost to produce the tar sands has been completely underestimated??

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-02/corn-ethanol-is-worse-than-keystone?cmpid=yhoo

I guess we are Catastrophists here, like being a Cassandra or the Boy who called 'Wolf'.

Author of "Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong."

He should know better that catastrophists are NEVER wrong, but their time, perhaps, hasn't come.

[kanon]

I don't know, but I do not find it surprising. It is a whole other topic, but CO2 is only one aspect of the environmental harm from the corn ethanol subsidy program. I think it is quite fair to compare corn ethanol to tar sands oil. How Corn Ethanol Is Worse For Climate Change Than The Keystone Pipeline

[ennui2]

Money is the ultimate measuring-stick. If it doesn't make money, industry will stop doing it. If it's been some sort of artificial bubble all this time, then it will pop and correct itself. But if the other shoe doesn't drop, then I would say it definitely has a positive EROEI.