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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
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.
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.
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.
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.
People that love pollution, will someday be the ones to cry cuz there no place to hide and stay warm.
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.
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!!!
'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?
For those who love pollution.
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas....wha
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
Dear Sarah,
You go girl!
Yeah, Sarah... go home (and stay there).
She's a big nothing. A nobody!
how stupid do the canadians have to be to allow the US to rape their greatest natural resource-pristine land
raping the land? Where do you live, in a hut without electicity, water or a paved road leading to it?
We need to be exploring all methods of energy. This is one source.
pipeline away......
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.
i have heard the same thing-Exxon doesn't want the headache or cost
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
