Another Pipeline Proposed For Midwest From Tar Sands

[RestoreGore]

http://skybluewaters.org/blog1/2007/09/06/another-pipeline-to-proposed-for-midwest/

Another pipeline proposed for midwest
Posted on September 6th, 2007 by Tom Elko

Yet another pipeline, proposed to traverse the Midwest from Canada’s Athabascan Oil Sands, has been given preliminary approval by the U.S. State Department. With destinations to southern Illinois and Oklahoma, TransCanada Corp. of Calgary, Alberta is hoping to add the $2 billion Keystone Pipeline to the Great Lakes Pipeline and the MinnCan Pipeline projects already under way.

These are all new pipelines which will be constructed in addition to existing pipelines. The extra capacity is derived from massive oil sands in Alberta, so large that they have made Canada second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of crude oil resources. The process of extracting the crude is more expensive than tapping into underground reserves, but recent technological breakthroughs, coupled with price increases, have made the oil economically feasible.
~~~~~~~

And according to the AP piece linked in this entry, the State Dept. claims NO GROUPS are standing up to it. I simply cannot believe this. They are talking about building another pipeline that will bring in oil from TAR SANDS in Alberta. We are talking more pollution, more environmental devastation, and an exacerbation of global warming with us continuing to be on the tit of EXXON and companies like it. And as Al Gore so aprly stated, even drug addicts will find veins in their toes in order to get their fix. This really angers me, and the fact that no group is standing up to it angers me more if true.


This entry from my blog a dew months ago was in response to an article in the Edmonton Sun in which Klein trashed Al Gore's remarks regarding the oil sands extraction process in Alberta.

I think people need to see the truth behind the environmental degradation being caused by this that will not in the longrun sustain our planet, but is only an addiction that is costing people their planet. Many will get rich off of this process, but it will not be the people. The cost in continuing to contribute to the climate crisis we face will be immense if the people (particularly in Canada) do not speak out regarding the methods employed by the same status quo to continue this addiction by looking for any way to get their fix.

Like all projects surrounding oil, the potential for the development of this industry has been touted only by those who stand to profit most from it: oil companies, governments, and the media which serves them. However, there are environmental repercussions to oil sands extraction that contradict the moral courage we need to face the climate crisis head on.

Oil sands extraction is not one of the methods that will lead to our planet being sustainable for the future, and oil sand extraction is as Al Gore pointed out, just a way for a junkie to look desperately to get his fix. It is sustainable and alternate energy sources that will ultimately save this planet, along with all of us breaking the addiction we have to oil.

In this entry I hope to give information about what oil sand extraction is, and the environmental implications it has on land and especially groundwater and water resources.
~~~~~

Some background:

The boreal forest of Alberta, Canada has remained a wilderness since it's creation from the receding glacial tundras that bore it, but has recently seen rapid resource development, mainly in oil sand extraction which has led to the land being stripped, rivers such as the Athabasca being polluted and diverted, and a true biogem being systematically destroyed for profit in order to sustain an addiction that will only continue to harm the environment and contribute to the climate crisis we face in this world. Just as we should be reflecting upon our moral obligation to save our world from our behavior, the Albertan government seeks to only add to that immoral behavior by contradicting the Kyoto pledge of its government to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions at the expense of this magnificent and necessary link in the biosphere chain.

The boreal forest region covers 48% of Alberta, Canada and endangered species such as the whooping crane and woodland caribou make this wonderland their home and look to it for their survival. It is also a beautiful place of rolling landscapes, huge rivers, and heavily forrested bogs that account for 25% of the Earth's remaining forests, and covers 1.4 billion acres. Forty percent of North America's water fowl and 300 different bird species also depend on this magnificent land for their survival. And this is now what is being done to it:

Oil sand extraction:

"We appreciate the fact that Canada's tar sands are now becoming economical and we are glad to be able to get the access toward two million barrels a day."-George W. Bush, March 23, 2003.

Powers in this world are now salivating to be able to tear apart the boreal forest to satisfy their lust for greed. And make no mistake about it, it has nothing to do with caring about the people or other species because if it did alternate sources of energy that are safer for the environment and cleaner and more economical to use would be the order of the day, not the "new world order" of the Bushes of this world that seek only to destroy it for their own benefit. But then, getting his fix seems to be something Bush is accustomed to in his life.

Making crude oil from tar sands is a dirty wasteful business. It takes two tons of oil sands ore to yield ONE barrel of oil. Put that into perpsective of these people wanting two MILLION barrels a day, and then it is not hard to see the environmental degradation this process is causing. The oil sand is composed of silt, sand, clay, water, and bitumen. On average, bitumen contains 83.2% carbon. At two million or more barrels a day burning, you figure out the environmental impact of that. And there are two methods by which this noxious smelling concoction is brought to the surface.

It is either through strip mining it or situ recovery methods which are used to access deeper deposits. It is an arduous process that uses much water, which then results in groundwater being polluted and river water being diverted as large amounts of freshwater are required to flush bitumen from the sand to make crude oil. It also is increasing greenhouse gas emission in Alberta, which are spilling over. It is also such a complex process that I went searching for a source that could explain it all from beginning to end, and I found one. This to me is the most thorough and comprehensive source out there now to describe this process and the environmental and climate change effects it is having on our world. I HIGHLY recommend you read through this:

Oil Sands Fever

Then when you have the truth about the wastefulness of this procedure in regards to our future sustainability, read these:

Troubled Water, Troubling Trends

SUNCOR Fails to Show Environmental Leadership

Oil Sands Production Costs Skyrocket

Oilsands Sector Shudders

And, from Wikipedia:

Tar sands development has a direct impact on local and planetary ecosystems. In Alberta, the strip mining form of oil extraction completely destroys the boreal forest, the bogs, the rivers as well as the natural landscape. The mining industry believes that the boreal forest will eventually colonize the reclaimed lands, yet 30 years after the opening of the first open pit mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta, no land is considered by the Alberta Government as having been "restored."

Furthermore, for every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 2 and 4 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds that have flooded about 50 km² of forest and bogs. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta also threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the reference year (1990). In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990.

end of excerpt.

And all I can say to this is WHY? WHY do people who KNOW what these processes do to our planet CONTINUE TO DO IT, when proven alternate methods that sustain ALL living creatures are available? Why do governments that claim to be there for the good of the people do NOTHING but work against their good? I look at what will be done to the boreal forest of Alberta and surrounding areas should this continue, and I weep.

Al Gore was once again correct. THIS process is not only detrimental to Alberta and surrounding regions, it is detrimental to our planet. It is time for the Canadian people to stand up to their government that is trying to Bushify their country and say NO to oil sands development.

The American people must also speak out for the boreal forest, and against anymore attempts to suck the life out of this planet for greed. Unless we do, we are only accomplices in our own suicide. And no, I do not believe that is too strong a description of our fate unless we wake up.

I cannot think of a better to conclude this;

Qwatsinas , Nuxalk Nation:

"We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren and children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who can't speak for themselves such as the birds, animals, fish and trees."

Ancient Indian Proverb:

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."


Athabasca Tar sands from archives Canada
Photo now in public domain.

[Javaman]

1. A superfund site in the making. nt

[4dsc]

2. They want to build a green refinery too

$8B green refinery would employ 1,800 in S.D.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/13/news/latest_news/7c3944108b8586ee862572f90065c2de.txt

ELK POINT, S.D. - A Texas-based energy firm planning to build the first U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years said today that Union County is a finalist for the $8 billion project.

The refinery, which Hyperion Resources Inc. described as a "green energy technology center,'' would create as many 10,000 construction jobs and employ 1,800 after its completion in four years.

Hyperion also is considering "alternative sites'' in at least two other Midwest states, project executive Preston Phillips said at a late afternoon news conference at the county courthouse. A final decision should come by the first half of 2008, he said.

[malakai2]

3. Well yeah, WE know and WE care, but...

There is the problem of people not giving up that to which they've grown accustomed. So in this case, we can cite fact after fact, show photo after photo, even force people to tour the place as it's being used for oil production, and unless they are the sort that would frequent this forum, they won't care. They'll simply state that we NEED gas/oil, and rationalize this as a necessary evil, because, as they'd say, we can't do without it. I have relatives who I'm fairly certain would trade years of their lives for the assurance that they would never be "forced" to buy a small car, because dammit, they worked hard and DESERVE their 8 cylinder SUV for several frivolous daily trips here or there, and they DESERVE the cheap gas to go with it.

That view is shared by many Americans, maybe even a majority...and although many people like the concept of driving less, or being more efficient with energy sources, most will not sacrifice in practice because sacrifice is uncomfortable. Or more like me, they see the sacrifices they do make entirely consumed by the lummox across the street with a 45 foot RV that he takes on weekend trips, SUV in tow, because it's somehow more convenient than driving a smaller car on fewer trips, and staying in a hotel or a tent when he does travel. The challenge is reaching those people (the ones who stumble onto this forum and think "What a bunch of crazies," or "What a bunch of Cassandras") in a way that will elicit actual critical response on their part, forcing them to consider that discomfort in small sacrifice now is better than true pain in massive sacrifice later. I don't know how to do that, I'm not sure we'll ever reach a point where it could be done. If it were possible, Easter Island would still be a subtropical paradise, Lebanon and Syria would still be covered in Cedar forest, Haiti would look like the Dominican Republic, the Grand Banks would still be a world-class fishery, and so on.

I think we'll still be trying to wring a few more drops of oil out of this rock after it's bone dry, whatever the environmental cost. Those relatives of mine, they are so intractable in their position that no amount of reason will ever convince them that they have a responsibility to everyone else that transcends their objectivism. If I can't even get them to reconsider, what good can we hope to accomplish with a couple hundred million other people in North America alone who will never even hear what we have to say?