Tar Sands Hell 3

from rabble.ca: Unethical oil

excerpt:

The tar sands cover an area of land the size of England, which has been divided up and leased to the world's biggest oil companies... The tar sands use more water every day than a city of two million people and consume enough natural gas to heat six million Canadian homes. Until the oil boom, the tar sands were too expensive to be economically viable. But our global addiction to oil has us scraping the bottom of the barrel. The tar sands generate 40 million tonnes of CO2 per year, more than all the cars in Canada combined... As the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, the tar sands are the main reason Canada continues to block meaningful global climate regulations. The Canadian government ignores the warnings of the scientific community by aiming for abysmal targets that will leave us at nearly double the science-based target that we need to meet to keep the increase in global temperature below 2 C and avoid catastrophic climate change.

note: the comment section below the article disputes the car emission figures.

Thanks. I'm glad you were able to find those links!

Um, the area of England is 130,410 sq. km.

The area of New York state is 141,299 sq. km.

So according to you, the article actually underestimates the size of the mineable bitumen!!

Yeah, and if you express it as a percentage of the emissions in the entire solar system, it's an even smaller number.

The fact is that Canada's emissions are relatively large in global terms. We have only .5% of the world's population but we emit 1.3% of the global carbon dioxide equivalent. You and your planet-destroying industry want to minimize the scope of your destructive activity, but the rest of us know that those emissions have to be stopped if we want to save the earth.

Roscoe there you go again being an apologist for the oil industry.  Your posts are predictable and now to the point of amusing.  

The tar sands are good!! Shale gas development is good!!

Blah blah blah I love the oil industry.

You know I'm not making up the statistics, because I cited my sources.

Clearly the Alberta government needs to get its story straight on coal.

Can you at least provide a link to where I can see this pie graph and decide for myself whether "utilities" is synonymous with electric power generation, or whether it includes natural gas?

fatfingered the post button

http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/publications/cc/COM1374/ec-com1374-en-s3.htm#tbl...

Bitumen sands (a more accurate term than either oil or tar sands) development are the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada, and are expected to be over 90 MT CO2 equivalent by 2020 under a "Business as Usual" scenario. Aside from the increased incidence of certain cancers downstream (relative to the general population), the lack of effective monitoring makes it difficult to say what the other environmental and health impacts are.

It is completely and utterly ridiculous for anyone to make a blanket statement that environmentalists are ignoring coal.

Not just climate change, but the environment in general.

In a word, arbitrage.  The problem the oilsands have is that their exports to the US or anywhere are stranded in Cushing OK. Its costing Canadians a $20 discount to world prices. Access to the Gulf will allow upgrading and global export.

The big constraint against building upgraders in Alberta, or even the rest of Canada is the lack of trades people and engineers to construct them.

Gateway fits into the plan as an alternate to exporting through the US. I tend to agree for a number of reasons that it is a ploy. Funding of environmental groups by US organisations is also a ploy. A ploy to forstall both Keystone XL and Gateway to ensure oilsands product remains a captive in the US market.

The Chinese investment in the oilsands isn't directed toward exports to Asia as much as they are toward arbitrage of global oil prices. Simply put, the Chinese concerns that have a share of production can simply trade this share for oil product that is closer to destination. Its called arbitrage and occurs every day.

Another reason for Chinese participation in Alberta's oilsands is simple shit disturbing to keep the Us on their hind foot and increase the ability of the Chinese to interfere in US domestic policy. Its not only cyberhacking the Chinese are good at.

It’s Really Step It Up Time on the Tar Sands

by Ted Glick / August 22nd, 2011

The 15-day-campaign at the White House to stop the Keystone XL pipeline has begun, and thanks to the U.S. Park Police, it’s taken a totally unexpected turn.

In negotiations with the police prior to the action that jumped off today, the police were very clear that what would happen after people were arrested is that the vast majority would get what’s called “post and forfeit,” where you put up $100, get released from jail after several hours and you don’t have to come back again. It’s basically like a traffic ticket.

But this is not what they did.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/08/it%E2%80%99s-really-step-it-up-time-on...

eta: Stop the Pipeline! sit-in at the white house.

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/

Harper stooge fools nobody in quest to promote ethical oil in the UK

London, October 20th 2011 – Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Minister, met with staunch opposition at the London School of Economics (LSE) whilst promoting Canada as the next ‘Global Energy Superpower’. Protesters presented an alternative perspective to the one-sided lecture by asking difficult questions throughout.

LSE students and activists presented Joe Oliver with the "Greenwash Propagandist of the Year Award" for his efforts to contort the science, dismiss the human consequences of tar sands extraction and to re-brand the world’s most destructive project as secure, reliable and sustainable.

“This lecture today was an inappropriate attempt to use an educational venue to promote the Canadian Tar Sands industry,” commented People and Planet ‘Tar Sands Free Universities’ Campaigner Liam Barrington-Bush. “Canadians should know that their ministers are embarking on an ongoing mission to undermine peer-reviewed science and efforts of European climate legislators by greenwashing the reality of tar sands extraction.”

White House Action November 6

excerpt:

WASHINGTON, DC - Actor David Strathairn has released a powerful new video inviting concerned citizens to surround the White House on Nov. 6 to show President Obama that he has the people's support if he stands up to Big Oil and denies a permit for a dangerous proposed oil pipeline. Exactly one year from the election, thousands of citizens will surround the White House carrying signs and banners with words from President Obama's 2008 campaign about the need to end 'the tyranny of oil.'

The event comes after scores of other protests about the Keystone XL pipeline, including a two-week sit-in at the White House in which 1,253 people were arrested. TransCanada wants to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to carry dirty tar sands oil 2,000 miles from Canada to Texas. The pipeline threatens to pollute some of our country's most valuable and sensitive land and water resources, including the Olagalla aquifer, which supplies drinking water for millions of Americans and 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States.

I think you mean Megan Leslie. Mulcair said in September that "...no one in their right mind would suggest shutting down the tar sands, it's too important to the economy." Do a google.

Quote:" is he talking to the bitumen?"
"I think that's worth mentioning in an Environment thread."

I wouldn't frame that one, MS.

You and Boomer have both seen something now of his position on the political economy of Canada, an eastern economy bound to the petrodollar. And he is the only one speaking to that.Duncan Cameron says something about that being a "half truth" that is given credence in Quebec. But prof. Byers on the west coast finds Mulcair's analysis just fine.

Then there are his environmental concerns. You say that Leslie has called for shutdown of the Tar Sands, Boomer? Didn't know that...but if Mulcair was speaking to her idea, then he was correct in saying that "no one in their right mind would suggest shutting down the Tar SAnds..." It would not be taken seriously, and would only act to close the minds of folk who are looking for a slowing of production - and pollution - activities, at least while some mechanism for measuring damage to the river system can be put in place.

But there are lots of videos supplied now to see him in action.

From Nicky in leadership thread #30

The Georgia Straight on Topp and Mulcair:



http://www.straight.com/article-517316/vancouver/thomas-mulcair-faces-up...

Have a boo, MS, get to understand the economics of the situation of the Tar Sands for the rest of us.

You're making shit up. I never said Leslie said anything of the sort. Mulcair did.

Ah yes, from TAr Sands to Libby. Thought that might catch your attention, MS.
I'll try to find that other link where Mulcair speaks to the question of a petrodollar and the difficulty of eastern industry exporting products because of it.You obviously dimiss out of hand his position where "Mulcair talks only about how federal environmental laws apply to the tar sands and he says they should be enforced."

------------------------------------------
And Boomer, I must have taken your post the wrong way: "I think you mean Megan Leslie. Mulcair said in September that "...no one in their right mind would suggest shutting down the tar sands, it's too important to the economy." Do a google."

So you're saying that she is the NDP environment critic...quite apart from what "Mulcair said in September that..".? Well yes, of course she is. But when I use capitals for inflection as in "You'll notice that Mulcair is THE environment critic, the ONLY ONE speaking directly to the Tar Patch - going beyond criticism of the blessed XL pipeline of TransCanada and challenging the CPC base in Alberta?"

So who was Mulcair speaking about regarding "no one in their right minds...?" Why did you insert that?

Where does Megan Leslie stand on the Tar Patch, etc. ? Has she come close to Mulcair's position, singling out the Tar Patch for both a violator of federal laws - overlooked by the Cons - and on the economic scene, a cause of concern for eastern Canadian industry? I'll bet NS is letting that photo speak for him on these questions. :)

Nero couldn't hold a candle to your penchant for semantic fiddling while the place burnt. :)

But of course, he would not shut down the Tar Patch. That's why he was invited to speak there a week back. The shuttiing down bit snuck in there from something Boomer offered...and that's where things got confused.
But NS, why don't you just stick to your own goddam offerings, pretty pictures, etc.? Yours is a black and white world, good and bad, right and wrong, and has little to do with the real world of Homo sapiens and the surely imperfect world of politics, played out with all the faults that Hedges laments.

Stand together against the tar-sands scourge

by Robert Redford, November 21, 2011

Environmentalists say plan to pipe crude across Alberta and load it onto supertankers bound for Asia could lead to 'catastrophe'

from guardian.co.uk ...

UK secretly helping Canada push its oil sands project

Tar sands issue needs closer examination

Two things to say about the Gitxsan/Enbridge deal.

1) The news release makes it clear that Enbridge is LENDING the Gitxsan Nation money to purchase their ownership stake. So this is essentially a leveraged investment. What happens if there is another drop in commodity prices and the ownership stake becomes worth less than the loan? It's just like being underwater on a subprime mortgage, except it's an entire First Nation indebted to a corporation. What would be the consequences of this coming to pass?

2) I saw Nathan Cullen last night at a Vancouver talk, and he is of course quite familiar with many members of the Gitxsan community. I asked him for his take on this announcement, and he told me that he had elders and community members calling into his constituency office, upset that apparently a decision had been made on their behalf without any consultation whatsoever. Cullen essentially said to "wait for the other shoe to drop". There is already backlash but it just hasn't hit the mainstream media.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/money/bc+first+nations+community+split+over+su...

In announcing the agreement, Chief Elmer Derrick heralded his community's "trusted" relationship with Enbridge, and he estimated the deal would be worth at least $7 million for the Gitxsan.

But shortly after the announcement, a group claiming to represent other hereditary chiefs, including Geri McDougall, and four Gitxsan bands issued a news release denouncing the agreement.

The news release came from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Gitxsan Treaty Society and the B.C. Treaty Commission over complaints about ongoing treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial governments.

The release said members of the Gitxsan nation weren't consulted about the Northern Gateway agreement, and argued it was wrong to sign a deal before the environmental impact assessment process is finished.

"Elmer Derrick and the Gitxsan Treaty Society/Gitxsan Economic Development Corp. does not speak for all Gitxsan," the news release said.

"The representatives say that Mr. Derrick has embarrassed and shamed the Gitxsan people by undermining the 61 First Nations who are opposed to the project. The representatives say, 'We stand in solidarity to those opposing it.'"

"A startling new study from the Center for Global Development shows that full development of the Canadian Tar Sands would have a devastating effect on global food production, especially in climate vulnerable continents such as Africa. 

"A loss in agricultural productivity due to climate change will affect more than 3 billion people around the world. Because of the massive carbon emissions from the Canadian Tar Sands, full exploitation of the resource would lead to a 5.6 percent loss in productivity, with 25 countries experiencing losses of 7.1 percent. Countries with especially damaging impacts include the already drought stricken Ethiopia, Sudan, and other Horn of Africa nations, as well as major population centers like India." --Jamie Henn

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/03-8

This is what Ezra Levant and his ilk call "ethical oil."  

And it's the weakest of the many critiques. Who wants to argue that Canada should be in the business of processing bitumen into oil? We don't need more oil production. We need less. We need to stop the mining and processing of fossil hydrocarbons, for the sake of the planet. We must begin the transition NOW to a low-carbon economy.

Arguing over whether bitumen should be processed in Canada or elsewhere is like arguing over the length of the rope we want to hang ourselves with.

Now the Cons (Joe Oliver on Question Period today) are attacking American environmental lobbyists, calling them radical environmentalists active in Canada,  and saying environmental lobbyists will now have limited access to the northern gateway pipeline hearings. Oliver calls the northern gateway pipeline a bonanza for aboriginals, as they will have equity and job opportunities like never before. The prick is obviously lying through his teeth.

Then he went to say the oil sands will produce three trillion dollars of revenue, of which governments will get hundreds of billions of dollars to use in social programs and aboriginal funding.

Okay, let's say governments will get a thousand billion dollars (one trillion). Who gets the other two trillion dollars???  The oil companies???

ETA: a friend in the USA writes about this: "That sounds like a great idea - a liberal social engineering tax on conservative projects that despoil the environment. You canucks are geniuses."

ETA: 'Radical' environmentalists slammed by Tory minister

Some of the comments that follow the CBC article are interesting. I like this one: "It really looks indefensible for the Ministry of Natural Resources to be out shilling for the tarsands and pipelines. Isn't it the job of Natural Resources to, you know, actually *protect* our natural resources, instead of selling them out to the highest bidder?"

So can we expect to be able to shut out radical foreign pro-oil activists from the assessment process too?

Whoever he was, he isn't the NDP Environment Critic, at least not federally.

hey boomboom, can you tell me what that PandP stands for, and is there any way I might find it on the net? I'd love to see it, looks interesting...thanks!

http://greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2012-01-09/open-letter-joe-oliver

Elizabeth May wrote an excellent letter.

Inspired by Joe Oliver.

Harper interfering with Northern Gateway review: Liberals

Makes me wonder what a federal government other than Conservative (ie: NDP or NDP/Liberal coalition) will do after the 2015 election - overturn whatever decision Harper makes on the Northern Gateway and Keystone XL?

Good timing, eh!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/enbridge-reports-leak-from-us-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin/article2298173/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/pipeline-rhetoric-is-a-radical-attack-on-due-process/article2297894/

Excellent, Lefty! I hope the NDP win by a landslide in BC. Just wish it was sooner rather than later. Has Dix commented on the Northern Gateway/Oliver letter yet?

I haven't seen direct comment from the BCNDP on the letter. They are generally opposed to the pipeline, both on environmental and labour concerns. The BC Liberals have been  hemming and hawing, no doubt because they don't want to alienate neither the centrist environmentalist flank nor the right-wing pro-all-development flank. Rob Fleming, BCNDP environment critic, commented on the pipeline in general late last year.

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/10297-tar-sands-pipeline-not-wort...

“The pipeline would carry over 500,000 barrels of raw tar sands  crude each day. The pipeline goes over mountains, across farmland, over the  Fraser and Skeena rivers, and straight through the Great Bear Rainforest to  the Pacific where it will be picked up by supertankers trying to navigate our inland coastal waters,” said New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming. 

“The opportunities for disaster are many, and the B.C. Liberals should re-assure British Columbians that it will not go through.”

...

Fleming said there have been many disasters in the oil industry  recently, and this report clearly spells out how the tar sands pipeline  project is high risk.  

“British Columbians don’t want to see rivers and lakes killed,  fisheries destroyed or towns and farmland contaminated,” said Fleming. “While Alberta oil companies have a lot to gain, the small benefits to British Columbia are far outweighed by the enormous risk to our northern industries, fisheries, communities and ecology.”

Fleming said the report highlights an incident in Michigan last  year where another Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured, dumping three million  litres of crude into the Kalamazoo River. The area and surrounding wetlands are expected to be contaminated for many years.

“There is a reason why First Nations oppose the pipeline and  associated tanker traffic. There’s a reason why the Union of B.C. Municipalities voted against it. There’s a reason why British Columbians are  against it,” said Fleming.  

Fleming said that the report also underlines the need for a  commitment from the B.C. Liberals to put pressure on the federal government to  create a meaningful national plan on climate change.

Come to think of it, I heard on CBC News that the consultation process is supposed to take 18 months. That means it closes out circa June or July 2013 before a single shovel breaks ground. Coincidentally, the BC fixed election date law states that we're to have our next election in May 2013. So any provincial showdown over the pipeline is sure to set the tone for an election.

Peggy Nash calls out Stephen Harper on his smear campaign

"Harper's latest smear campaign against credible environmental organizations is an attempt to distract Canadians from the real issue," said Nash. "A majority of Canadians agree that the control of Canada's natural resources should not be ceded to big business, yet that's exactly what the Harper Conservatives want to do."

The proposed Enbridge pipeline project would ship raw bitumen crude to Kitimat, BC over 1200 kilometers of mountains and rivers and through 100 First Nations territories for shipment to Asia by supertanker through treacherous coastal waters. The Harper Conservatives voted down an NDP bill that would have legislated a ban on tankers along the north coast.

"Protecting coastal communities should be a priority for all parties," Nash continued. "Their livelihoods depend on a healthy ocean, but the Harper Conservatives insist on protecting their friends in the oil sands instead of this precious natural heritage."

"And Harper has the nerve to call environmentalists ideologically driven."

Polls show that the majority of British Columbians are opposed to the Enbridge pipeline and more concerned about foreign control over the oil sands than the US funding of Canadian NGOs Harper's PR machine has been touting.

"In solidarity with the 100 First Nations and coastal communities impacted by this reckless project, I will continue to challenge Harper's blatant disregard for Canadians' wishes, and will fight for environmental regulations and strengthening of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act," affirmed Nash.

WTF is up with that?

He actually refers to "Imperial" China - a term that's about 100 years out of date.

ETA: Nikiforuk actually seems to be promoting the "ethical oil" canard in reverse; the Canadian fossil fuel industry should be developed to serve "North American" markets (i.e., you-know-who), and not those evil Chinese.

Harper government “sidestepping” FNs opposed to pipeline in PR war: chief

  | 11. Jan, 2012 by APTN National News |

By Jorge Barrera
APTN National News

quote:

First Nations currently form the bedrock of opposition to the pipeline. The majority of the pipeline in B.C. would travel through the traditional territories of these First Nations. Most First Nations in the province have never signed treaties, meaning they’ve never ceded their traditional territories.

“They are sidestepping First Nations,” said Nadleh Whut’en First Nation Chief Larry Nooski.

Nooski said Oliver is instead focusing on a softer target, namely environmental groups that get funding from the U.S., to drum up public support for the project.

“That is why he hasn’t directly gone against the First Nations,” said

Nooski, whose community is part of the Yinka Dene Alliance. “He is trying to scare up some boogeyman up there so the general public won’t look to see what is actually going on here.”

About 130 First Nations oppose the pipeline and the tanker traffic along B.C.’s coast it would bring. Sixty-six First Nations have signed a declaration opposing the project.....

Ruh-roh. BC Finance Minister Kevin Falcon lines up beside Joe Oliver...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-finance...

B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon went off script this week, deviating from his government’s carefully neutral stand on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

Premier Christy Clark has refused to be drawn into taking a position, stating that her government will await the outcome of the National Energy Board process before arriving at any conclusions.

But this week, Mr. Falcon joined the Harper government in attacking critics of the project.

With the pipeline regulatory hearings just getting under way this week, the federal government has ramped up a campaign to brand opponents as radical environmentalists backed by foreign interests, accusing some environmental organizations of seeking to hijack the hearings and kill the project through tactical delays.

“Well, I think they've got a point,” Mr. Falcon told reporters. “I think we have to be very worried about the fact that foreign money is going into lobbying efforts against British Columbia and Canada's economic interests.”

----

That's funny, because I thought that environmental damage was against our economic interests too, and plenty of foreign money is going into lobbying efforts in favour of such damage :P

Paul Dewar released an energy policy paper today. It does not deal with bitumen exports or pipelines. Perhaps Linda Duncan is going to help him establish a position on that. He does call for withdrawals of corporate subsidies.

WOW...

That is... just... the most brazen conserva-bot I have ever seen. But you have to admit, she really has the FOX News strategy down. Repeat the same message as many times as possible, and any point that catches you off-guard is a conspiracy theory.

Some highlights from the comments:

They could have replaced that lady with a parrot that says "Foreign Special Interests". She's obviously been ordered to make sure she included a few key fear phrases in her "debate".

Please explain this: When you click donate on the ethicaloil [dot] org website your payment goes to "Ethical Oil Institute". This Business is registered as a non-profit which shares the same address (600 - 12220 Stony Plain Road, Edmonton) as McLennan Ross LLP - A firm specializing in Oil Sands Litigation.

I have watched the "debate" and find it hard to believe that Enbridge or any other oil company will would pay her to be a spokes person on there behalf with her "I know you are but what am I" debating style. With the amount of money at stake you would think Enbridge would support someone that actually prepare for the debate If I were Enbridge I would pay her not to speak in public!

No campaigns against Enbridge could possibly hope to get this golden 10 min worth of publicity. Thanks, Kathryn, for doing such an effective job.

That was some of the most embarrassing television I've ever seen. To be asked NINE times whether you're funded by Enbridge and not provide a response is, at the very least, asinine debating strategy and, at worst, a cover up. If Ethical Oil is indeed funded by Enbridge, then there is nothing ETHICAL about the organization.

Gotcha! "Ethical Oil dial-a-quote Kathryn Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Stephen Harper’s former strategic planning manager." from the Ottawa Citizen- Google it. Kathryn Marshall worked for the Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank. Critics of Fraser Institute such as David Suzuki have also named Exxon, Koch and Scaife as the Institute's donors.

MEDIA LITERACY MOMENT: Here is an example of a PR hack at work. The key startegies are 1. define the focus and scope of the story regardless of what questions you are asked 2. Use language that insights fear and otherness to describe your critics (in this case "foreign") 3. Don't bother with truth, reason or the general rules of language or interviews

I saw that segment on P&P. Kudos to Evan Solomon for keeping up the attack.

And getting back to the Keystone XL Pipeline:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/18/pol-keystone-xl-pipelin...

The court did not actually order Kent to issue an emergency order. What it did do was set aside his decision not to issue an emergency order because his explanation for not doing so was inadequate, and sending it back to Kent for reconsideration.

I only read that article briefly, but my understanding of its spin was: All the economically recoverable tar sands oil is of a much smaller order of magnitude than all the recoverable coal. If you calculate how much the climate is affected by *all* the sands oil we're ever likely to recover, versus *all* the coal, then coal comes out the greater villain.

Both are very dirty sources of energy. I don't think either should be let off the hook, but this is a sneaky way of trying to pass the buck. Moreover the definition of commercially recoverable deposits changes year to year as technology gets (worse)better.

I don't know what your agenda is here, but I don't much care for it. This is oil company propaganda, pure and simple. Just because coal may be worse than oil for emissions, it doesn't excuse the mining of oilsands. In fact, the emissions produced by mining and processing bitumen into usable petroleum products vastly exceed the emissions produced in the mining of coal, and that difference exceeds any difference in the emissions caused by the combustion of either fossil fuel.

Whether the bulk of the emissions of any fossil fuel come from the "tailpipe" or the extraction from the earth is irrelevant - both the extraction and the combustion of fossil fuels cause harm to the environment and force climate change. Without the extraction there would be no combustion, so the oil companies can't play Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the environmental damage caused by their product.

"The oilsands are the fastest-growing source of GHG emissions in Canada," said the memo to Wouters. "According to Environment Canada's emissions trends, emissions from the oil-and-gas sector could increase by 30 per cent between 2005 and 2020, driven by a more than 200 per cent increase in emissions from the oilsand sectors. By 2020, oilsands GHG emissions could total 92 million tonnes a year, up from about 31 in 2005. This increase of 61 million tonnes is greater than the projected emissions growth for all other sectors combined."

Jesus. Makes you wonder what else the government is sitting on.

A friend wrote to me after I posted that link on Facebook:  "I notice it says absolutely nothing about the impact on tourism. I have heard several people say that they will not be holidaying in Alberta - too much pollution - too much fracking - too much environmental degradation."

I don't know what was in Weaver's head, but not to include production because it is double counting seems ridiculous. Coal-fired thermal electricity produces more GHG emissions in Alberta now, but not when tar sands production increases three-fold.

CFL