iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Michael Brune

Michael Brune

Posted: June 17, 2009 11:00 AM

Palin's Pipeline From Hell


There's a stealth dirty oil mega-project sneaking into the United States. It's arriving piece by piece, pipeline by pipeline, refinery by refinery, and permit by permit -- but it's a singularly immense monstrosity conceived by Big Oil. It's called the Canadian Tar Sands, or as the oil industry prefers, Canadian Oil Sands.

And it's being brought to you by Sarah Palin and ExxonMobil.

Yes, the former beauty queen who inspired thousands to chant "Drill Baby Drill" last summer apparently also believes that a Mine is a Terrible Thing to Waste. Under Plan Palin, ExxonMobil and TransCanada would construct a 1700-mile natural gas pipeline from the Arctic, heading south.

But this gas won't be heading straight to the Lower 48, perhaps as a temporary alternative to America's greenhouse gas-belching, coal-fired power plants. No such luck. Instead, the pipeline will run to Alberta, where, based on current projections, about half of it is likely to be siphoned to help produce the dirtiest oil on earth.

There's a tricky thing about producing oil from the tar sands: the oil there really isn't oil. It's called bitumen, and it's so thick and heavy -- tar-like, if you will -- that it can't be drilled in conventional ways. About 20 percent of this bitumen is dredged up in some of the largest strip mines on the planet. Creating enough waste to fill Yankee Stadium every two days. As I wrote in my book, Coming Clean,

"To get oil from Canada's tar sand, more landscape must be excavated than was moved for the Great Wall of China, the Suez Canal, the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and the ten largest dams in the world -- combined."


The other 80 percent is buried too deep for strip mining. In these locations, massive quantities of natural gas are piped in to make steam. The steam is injected into the ground, liquefying the bitumen. Although this operation is undoubtedly an engineering accomplishment, it's also kind of, well, stupid. Eric Reguly, a reporter for the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail described burning natural gas in the tar sands this way, "Burning a clean fuel to make a dirty fuel is a kind of reverse alchemy, like turning gold into lead."

Commenting on the tar sands three years ago, Al Gore said, "It is truly nuts. But you know, junkies find veins in their toes. It seems reasonable, to them, because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives."

It's also a climate disaster. Producing oil from Canada's tar sands creates up to three times more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil. Dr. James Hansen, the country's leading climate scientist, says that if we still hope to avoid catastrophic climate change, there's simply no room in the atmosphere for the carbon from tar sands and other non-conventional fossil fuels. Development of the tar sands is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and will make combating climate change in North America virtually impossible. That might not be a concern to Ms. Palin, but it should be to the rest of us.

This article was co-written by Michael Brune and Kenny Bruno. Bruno is Campaign Coordinator for Corporate Ethics International.

Follow Michael Brune on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bruneski

There's a stealth dirty oil mega-project sneaking into the United States. It's arriving piece by piece, pipeline by pipeline, refinery by refinery, and permit by permit -- but it's a singularly immens...
There's a stealth dirty oil mega-project sneaking into the United States. It's arriving piece by piece, pipeline by pipeline, refinery by refinery, and permit by permit -- but it's a singularly immens...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:36 PM on 07/15/2009
Comparing tarsand oil to the cleanest, nearby conventional oil is phoney math. When it is compared to Middle East oil etc it's no where near up to 3 times as dirty.

Oil is not the problem, dirty coal is. Oil is in a death spiril and will die out on it's own. Once we replace dirty coal with clean electricity cars will have moved to it as well and away from oil/gas.
photo
Oldsop
Libertarian...mostly
10:04 AM on 07/15/2009
Yes and the sky is falling, the sky is falling. pfffft.
And btw, I don't think the Canadians are too keen on their country being referred to as "Hell."
Anyone notice that the author is far left of even the Sierra Club; he is associated with the extremist rainforest action network.
09:21 PM on 07/14/2009
This article ignores the enormous technological strides that have been made over the years in extracting oil from the tar sands. Mining bitumen and converting it to synthetic crude is still a dirty, energy-intensive process - but vastly less so than it used to be. The industry has reduced cost-per-barrel by more than half - and environmental impacts have fallen as well. Far less water and natural gas is needed to produce a barrel of useable oil than 20 or even 10 years ago.

Many new processes are being developed, including closed, recycled water circuits, low-emission chemical processes and steam-free underground air combustion. Improved methods of bitumen upgrading have been introduced. Large-scale carbon sequestration is also on the drawing board.

The environmental impacts of tar sand development is massive, and has been treated largely as an externality. The damage to the Athabasca River watershed is very serious. But there is a real potential for cleaner, greener energy from this unique resource.
05:55 PM on 07/14/2009
Cheap journalism.

Using Palin's name to sucker people into reading an article that trashes the Canadian star sands. Reminds me of those nuts in the movies that gets sick to the stomach at the thought of missing a war. How many lives have been lost in the Middle East in the quest for oil? And you say Canadian oil is dirty? Cut your dependence on oil and you can quit worrying about the Canadian star sands.
04:27 PM on 07/14/2009
People that love pollution, will someday be the ones to cry cuz there no place to hide and stay warm.
12:45 PM on 07/14/2009
What nonsense. Developing the Canadian Tar Sands plus our own in Colorado and Wyoming will make us energy independent. There is more oil in those Sands then the entire Middle East. Its what we need to get FREE from those folks spending our money. This is an actualy solution to our oil problems and of course, American technology will made the process as efficient as possible. Boone failed us with the Wind Project and that Electric Car takes more gas to run then a gas car. Wake UP.
07:31 PM on 07/14/2009
You believe the lies, how sad. Using a good fuel source to get a subpar fuel source is dumb, didn't the gold in to lead analogy make that plan enough.

You want to be energy independent, how bout getting serious about sustainable energy?? Cuz what are you gonna do when you use all the natural gas just to get all the bitumen?? Then you'll have to do sustainable energy ANYWAY!!!!

You are the junkie described in the article, looking for a vein in your toes. own it. And how do you get an electric car that uses more gas?? Maybe if it plugs in and uses electricity generated by gas, BUT THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON TO GET SOLAR AND WIND INTO OUR ELECTRICAL GRID!!!
11:13 AM on 06/18/2009
'greenhouse gas pollution'- I love it

Apart from mentioning Al Gore- is there anything else you can say to discredit yourself more?
Are you exhaling pollution?
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, so water is pollution now too?

Why does it seem to be a requirement to be scientifically illiterate to be an environmentalist?
07:26 PM on 06/19/2009
For those who love pollution...such as yourself...what does science have to do with anything you believe??? It certainly doesn't enter into Palin's plan for the pipeline. Real Science is something right wing fascists spit on. I find it oh so amusing to read your tripe about environmentalist's being scientifically illiterate. It's obvious that you don't care what happens to the environment and you don't know anything about science.

Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas....what a joke! It's a feedback, not a forcing. It doesn't push anything either way. CO2 increases do force global warming. GET A CLUE!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YankinCanada
Two opposing idealogues walk into a liberal bar...
02:29 PM on 07/14/2009
Sorry folks, the debate is over.

Science won.

You can rail and whine and deny all you want and if it helps you shift and grow up, please continue.

Greenhouses are killing us.

Things are going to change, the Oilsands are teachurous and will kill us in the end.

Continue all the name calling all you want because thatès all you have left.
08:44 AM on 06/18/2009
Bruner, how you can take this natural gas pipeline from the Northern slope of Alaska into a side trip to global energy fantasy, I don't know. This pipeline is an amazing achievenment. It has been contemplated for over thirty years and Governor Palin accomplished it in two years. It will bring natural gas to the lower 48 meeting much of the US supply for decades. It will be the largest project in the history of North America

This is not a project to sneer at Bruner, it is a project to cheer at! Palin does it again!
photo
moAb
"when bad men combine, the good must associate”
10:59 PM on 06/19/2009
The lower 48 have a lot of natural gas already. In fact there have been several huge new finds in just the last decade. It makes no sense to pipe natural gas to the lower 48 when we A. have the gas here already and B. actually need more pipelines built in the lower 48 to deliver to various markets. As to using natgas to make oil from tar sands...it is stupid, unless you are simply trying to bully govt. and the populations of Canada and the US into buying into a massively expensive unneeded project that is all about Sarah and her 'partners' getting rich off the rest of us.
12:33 AM on 06/21/2009
There is an enormous amount of stranded natural gas in Alaska- it makes perfect sense to build a pipeline to the lower 48. By the time it is built our situation could be entirely different particularily if Obama wakes up and embraces natural gas as a vehicle fuel.
01:54 PM on 07/14/2009
"Amazing achievement"? Really? How? The pipeline is only in the planning stages and may never get built as planned. Quitter Palin has not accomplished anything, other than to award a contract to a foreign company to plan a pipeline and that company will get to keep the $500 million incentive money even if the pipeline is never built. You're living in Palin's fantasyland. Even if built, the pipeline will run to Canada first and they'll be free to use it to produce oil from their tar sands and then sell that oil to whoever they want at whatever prices the market will bear. We will receive no direct benefit from that pipeline for year and years, maybe even a decade.
12:24 AM on 06/18/2009
Dear Sarah,


You go girl!
photo
Shrank
We are sorry, your micro-bio is not PC
12:48 AM on 07/15/2009
Yeah, Sarah... go home (and stay there).
10:12 PM on 07/16/2009
She's a big nothing. A nobody!
10:37 PM on 06/17/2009
how stupid do the canadians have to be to allow the US to rape their greatest natural resource-pristine land
06:09 PM on 06/19/2009
raping the land? Where do you live, in a hut without electicity, water or a paved road leading to it?
03:37 PM on 06/17/2009
We need to be exploring all methods of energy. This is one source.
07:49 PM on 06/17/2009
pipeline away.......feel free...........give an alternative first then and only then will i agree to change
01:24 PM on 06/17/2009
This is a interesting article since I read the other day that executives from trans canada oil are saying this pipeline is basically not happening any time soon,That ols structures from a pipeline already there are corroded and will need overhaul before they even think about her pipeline,I might be wrong,maybe you can find the article,I read it Sunday.
10:37 PM on 06/17/2009
i have heard the same thing-Exxon doesn't want the headache or cost