Tar sands/ Oil sands: Pros and Cons You might not know this, but Canada has oil reserves of 170 billion barrels, more than Iran and Nigeria combined. This fact is not widely known since much of that oil has been considered not economically recoverable, lying deep underground in a mixture of bitumen, a thick, tarry substance, sand and water known as oil sands or tar sands. Development of these tar sands, located near the Athabasca River, by Suncor Energy, began in the 1960s but has been conducted at a relatively small scale because of the costs involved. Only recently, with declining supplies and increasing prices have attempts begun to try and ramp up production, especially after PetroChina acquired a 60 percent interest in two major wells in Alberta in 2009. This was followed in 2010 by Sinopec paying $4.65 billion for a 9 percent stake in Syncrude Canada Ltd. Chinese investors find this resource to be attractive, since Canada is considered to be a low political risk when compared with, say, the Middle East. As of 2010, the three biggest of many players were Syncrude Canada, Suncor, and Albian Sands, a joint venture of Chevron, Shell Canada and Marathon Oil. BP also has a substantial stake, with a 75 percent interest in Terre de Grace, which it also operates. Projections made after slowdowns in offshore production show that as much as 36 percent of American oil could be coming from Canadian oil sands by 2030. According to oil expert Daniel Yergin, Canadian oil sands have gone from being a fringe energy source to being one of strategic importance. Sounds good so far, but not so fast; there are numerous major environmental problems and risks associated with this technology. For starters, extracting this oil requires a good deal more energy than conventional drilling, which means more greenhouse gases before the oil even reaches the pump. The net energy return on energy invested ratio of tar sands oil by the time it is converted to gasoline is roughly half that of the equivalent process for conventional crude oil. It is the largest source of carbon emissions in Canada,
making Alberta, with only 10 percent of the population, the highest emitting province. The Canadian government has invested heavily in the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for the tar sands recovery process, but this technology is yet unproven. The process requires also vast amounts of water and chemicals to wash the sands. Anywhere from 2 to 4.5 times the amount of water is required for each barrel of oil produced. The discharge that accumulates in highly toxic waste ponds pose a huge threat to wildlife. In one incident, a flock of 1,600 ducks mistakenly landed in one of these ponds and they all died. Now, propane cannons, using even more energy, are used to frighten away wildlife. Tailing pools now cover 50 square miles adjoining the Athabasca River, in the middle of the world s largest intact forest, a key absorber of CO2 and wildlife habitat. The projects have also been a mixed blessing for the numerous First Nations people living in the area. While it has brought a significant number of jobs and economic activity, the developers not only pollute the area, but they don t take First Nations interests into account, destroying hunting and fishing, habitat and bringing a number of health risks to the region. Recently, a number of environmental groups and 23 First Nations groups have asked for a moratorium on new tar sands development. They are also asking to halt the Keystone XL pipeline which would strongly encourage further development of the Tar Sands, by allowing the oil to be shipped from Texas to China, where most of it will be used. Pros Very large supply. Second largest oil field in the world. Economically recoverable at today s oil prices Will help keep oil prices relatively low Enormous growth potential. Less than 5 percent has been produced.
Big economic driver in Alberta. Jobs for Native Americans. Stable source country (a rarity for oil) GHG emissions could potentially be minimized through CCS Cons Enormous GHG emissions. Oil sands are already Canada s largest source of CO2 emissions. Relatively low net energy return compared to other sources Alberta, with only 10 percent of the population, emits the most GHG emissions of any province. Provincial government has been slow to respond. Large amounts of water required: roughly 3:1 Water pollution. Roughly 3 million gallons of toxic runoff per day. Fifty square miles now covered in toxic pools Destructive to major boreal forest, an important carbon sink Widespread habitat destruction, both on land and water Destructive to ancestral lands Requires expensive and risky pipeline to reach faraway markets In summary, tar sands oil has a cost/benefit profile that is similar in many ways to coal, except that coal is used for electricity while oil is used for transportation. At the present, there are probably more alternatives for electricity than there are for
transportation. This could begin to shift if we see tractor-trailers trucks being converted to natural gas, as T. Boone Pickens predicts. Of course, the current historically low natural gas prices, combined with high oil prices has, at least for the moment, rearranged the whole energy picture. The similarities between tar sands oil and coal are the large supply on the one hand and the massive environmental problems on the other. I would have to say that, as bad as the environmental impacts of coal are, these tar sands might even be worse, despite what the developers might say. There is no question that the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline will encourage expansion of this resource, while bringing questionable benefits to the US, since most of the oil will be shipped to China. Mostly though, I think the whole conversation is really about price and Americans desire to live in a world where gas is cheap and no one bothers them to worry about global warming. That world may have existed in the 1950s and 60s, but it certainly doesn t exist anymore. A scientific panel said Tuesday that weaknesses in measuring pollution from the Alberta oil sands must be corrected. Pollution is one argument against the oil sands development. Global News takes a look at the pros and cons involved in developing the oil sands. Pros: The oil sands have made Canada the Number One foreign supplier of oil to the U.S. This has become a major factor in the close economic partnership shared by the two countries. The oil sands provide Canada with a relatively secure source of energy. While Canada s oil supply isn t unlimited, Canadian reserves are the second-largest on the planet. The oil sands have spurred massive economic growth in Alberta. Despite the recent economic downturn, the Alberta oil sands continue to generate huge profits and provide thousands of jobs.
Although many new projects have been postponed, other producers in the area are moving forward with expansions. Operators are expected to increase production to two million barrels of oil a day by 2013, up from 1.2 million barrels a day this year. A large part of the Alberta oil sands mining operations involves clearing trees, brush, topsoil, sand and clay that sit on top of the oil sands deposit. But steps are being taken to mitigate the effect this has on local animal species. The topsoil and muskeg are stockpiled so they can be replaced and the rest of the material is used to reconstruct the landscape in areas where mining is complete. Cons: As far as extraction methods go, the ones used in the Alberta oil sands are among the most carbon-intensive. When compared to the average crude oil processed in the United States, greenhouse gas emissions from the Alberta oil sands are approximately five to 15 per cent higher because the oil is too deep to be extracted using traditional methods. The Athabasca Delta, where the oil sands are located, is a breeding ground for hundreds of species of birds. But these breeding grounds are destroyed to clear the land for oil production. Although many of these materials are stockpiled to be replaced when mining operations are completed, for many of the current species, it may be too late. Some environmentalists worry that clean-burning fuel from the Mackenzie Gas Project (a natural gas pipeline system set to be built along the Mackenzie Valley of the Northwest Territories) will be diverted to oil sands refining operations. The construction of the pipeline itself destroys forest, but such a move could also fuel further development of the tar sands. These factors could combine to actually increase Canadian greenhouse gas emissions. Reserves are limited. In total, global reserves sit at around 1.3 trillion barrels, equivalent to about 40 years of reserves at current consumption rates.
Some critics believe that our dependence on the oil sands (they account for 47 per cent of the total amount of oil produced in Canada) is simply putting too many eggs in one basket.