Trust Intelligence

My comment is that, if there was NO pollution, the environmentalists would be against coal mining because it makes the landscape less pretty, at least until the land is reclaimed. There are laws requiring that companies deposit money as they exploit the resource. That money is used to clean up the mess.

Human exploitation of the natural world changes it, just as elephants doing what elephants do changes the natural world.
And both elephants and humans are PART of the natural world. When termites and leaf miners eat trees, when elephants kill trees or when humans use trees to make toothpicks, it is all quite "natural".

When does protest become terrorism?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
REUTERS  BRIEF-Greenpeace says disrupts Suncor mining

Sept 30 (Reuters) - Greenpeace:
* Says 23 activists block equipment at Suncor's <SU.TO>
Canadian oil sands mine
* Says stopping conveyor that carries bitumen to upgrader to
"highlight the climate crime of tar sands operations."
* Move follows similar action two weeks ago at Shell <RDSa.L>
oil sands mine

30Sep09 15:56 GMT

A pipeline so big it'll move the markets

Published on Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009 8:00PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009 2:51AM EDT

The opening of a 3,456-kilometre-long TransCanada (TRP-T33.26-0.04-0.12%) pipeline is set to boost demand for heavy oil, an added bonus for an industry already enjoying surging crude prices.

It will take about three months to fill the Keystone line with oil, long before any of it is refined into finished products.

That process could add enough demand to briefly strengthen prices for heavy oil, the thicker crude produced in and around the Alberta oil sands by companies like Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., Baytex Energy Trust, Nexen Inc., Husky Energy Inc. and Imperial Oil Ltd.

The pipeline, the largest to enter North American service in years, will need about nine million barrels to fill, and will take about 6 per cent of Canada's heavy oil production in that time. It's enough that energy traders believe it will lift prices.

“The removal of that much heavy oil in one shot” means that “heavy oil differentials will likely tighten,” said Jared Layton, a crude oil specialist with Phoenix Energy Marketing Consultants Inc.

Heavy oil is a thicker form of crude that must undergo more refining steps than light oil before it can be separated into end products like gasoline and jet fuel. As a result, it generally sells at a discount, which is known as the “light-heavy differential.”

Already this year, declines in heavy production from Venezuela and Mexico have created enough demand to substantially shrink that differential.

The light-heavy differential has dropped from an average of 22 per cent last year to as low as 10 per cent this year.

Once Keystone starts taking oil, “it could tighten it up” even further, said Stephen Fekete, managing consultant with international energy consultants Purvin & Gertz Inc.

“If you fill it with heavy, then there's a shortage of supply, if you will, for heavy.”

Every $1 contraction in the differential adds about $340-million to the Canadian industry's top-line revenues, meaning any positive lift from Keystone would come as a helpful counterbalance to the loonie, whose rise has hurt the northern oil patch.

Oil marketers believe the Keystone line-fill, which they expect to draw about 100,000 barrels per day, will begin in November. TransCanada has been tight-lipped on specifics.

“We expect to commence line fill in Q4 2009, and in-service Q1 2010,” said company spokesman Terry Cunha.

He declined to comment on the mix of oil that will be used to fill Keystone, saying that's “up to the shippers to determine.” But marketers believe about 70 per cent of the line-fill will be in the form of heavy crude. That represents about 6 per cent of Canada's heavy production, enough that it could drive prices to a point where heavy “will be closer in line with light sweet oil,” Mr. Layton said.

The oil used to fill Keystone will flow to refineries in Wood River and Patoka, Ill., and Cushing, Okla., but the nine million barrels is considered “lost” since the pipeline will continue to keep that much oil out of the market until it is taken out of service decades from now.

The pipeline's effects on heavy pricing will, however, be determined in part by what happens to U.S. refiners.

“If they go into maintenance turnarounds” – which would decrease heavy oil demand – “it could balance itself out,” Mr. Fekete said.

Still, the industry has undergone a dramatic shift in the past year, on the expectation that heavy oil differentials will remain slim for well into the future. Suncor Energy Inc. and EnCana Corp. have both discussed plans to go “bitumen long” – selling heavy oil rather than building expensive plants to refine, or “upgrade,” it into light oil. Imperial Oil, similarly, plans to sell heavy oil, rather than refined or synthetic crude, from the first 110,000 barrel-per-day phase of its Kearl oil sands mine.

TransCanada has proposed an expansion to Keystone, called Keystone XL, which would carry oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Keystone XL would open up enough additional demand for Canadian heavy crude that TransCanada says it could boost revenues by $3.4-billion in 2013, the year it's expected to be in full operation. Enbridge Inc. has disputed that number, and in recent weeks has attempted to persuade the National Energy Board to stop the Keystone XL project.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in … le1322269/

Wiley

Alberta doctor made inaccurate claims about cancer rates near oilsands: report

By Gwendolyn Richards, Calgary Herald November 9, 2009
CALGARY — A doctor who said cancer rates were higher in a small aboriginal community downstream of Alberta's oilsands made misleading and inaccurate statements and obstructed Health Canada and the Alberta Cancer Board in their efforts to investigate his claims, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has concluded.

The report marks the end of an almost three-year investigation into the actions of Dr. John O'Connor, a Fort Chipewyan family physician who alleged residents had unusually high rates of certain cancers. At times he said there had been six deaths related to colon cancer in one year and that he had seen anywhere between three and five cases of a rare cancer of the bile ducts, the report states.

Reached in Nova Scotia, O'Connor denied he had stood in Health Canada's way as they tried to investigate the cancer claims.

"I don't understand why this conclusion was reached by the (college)," he told the Calgary Herald.

"I had no part whatsoever in obstructing. My role as a visiting physician did not allow me to . . . allow or disallow access (to patients' files)."

In January 2007, three doctors lodged a complaint with the college, saying O'Connor had obstructed the Alberta Cancer Board and Health Canada in their investigation into his concerns, and that his comments were inaccurate, harmed members of the Fort Chipewyan community and resulted in a loss of credibility for those health bodies in the eyes of those living there and in other aboriginal communities.

Dr. Hakique Virani, one of those three doctors who lodged the complaint about O'Connor, said they tried for 18 months to get O'Connor to co-operate with a cancer study undertaken by the federal body and Alberta Health and Wellness.

"It was the last resort we had," he said of the complaint. "We're satisfied with the findings of the report."

The college also stated Dr. John O'Connor failed to provide evidence supporting his allegations and to report all suspected cases of cancer to the Alberta board, despite having a "legal and ethical obligation" to do so.

O'Connor said he's happy the investigation is over and — despite having this hanging over him for almost three years — he's pleased cancers in the Fort Chipewyan community will continue to be thoroughly studied.

"From Day 1 I said, 'Could this be related to bad luck, bad lifestyles, genetics? Or could it be related to environmental influences?" he said. "I'm happy we can now move on and get to the bottom of what's happening."

Several meetings have been lined up to determine how to move ahead with monitoring cancer in the community, O'Connor added.

O'Connor's comments speculating on a connection between increased cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan — about 720 kilometres northeast of Edmonton — and the oilsands upstream garnered international attention.

However, the college concluded it could neither prove nor disprove the suggestion that O'Connor's public statements harmed the Fort Chipewyan community or diminished Health Canada's credibility.

The cancer study eventually found there had been two cases of the rare cancer and six cases of colon cancer — O'Connor had reported 12, the report said. The college's report also states there was a higher-than-expected overall rate of cancer, but that "could be due to chance."

"The report did find there may have been a slight elevation in the number of cancers," Virani said, but added that there could have been increased detection because of the study.

O'Connor acknowledged he made an error at the beginning when it came to the number of cancer cases.

He said clinical cases suggested strongly that there were cancer cases in the community, but they had to be officially diagnosed by oncologists and specialists.

"I said I diagnosed cases of cancer and I didn't," he said. "I corrected myself."

O'Connor does not face any disciplinary action.

Virani said he and the two other doctors, Dr. Wadieh Yacoub and Dr. Salim Samanani, didn't feel imposing a penalty was necessary.

"The point was for the truth to be known," he said. "We wanted to complete the cancer cluster study and we couldn't do that. . . ."

After the complaint was filed, some said they thought health officials were trying to muzzle O'Connor to keep him from speaking with the media.

Alberta Health spokesman Howard May said those allegations are not borne out by the facts.

"We've bent over backwards to do the opposite," he said.

Are we seeing an uncharacteristic bout of realism in the more extreme environmentalists?
Odd but true, for now.
++++++++++++++++++
Greenpeace, Sierra reverse nuclear policy
December 14, 5:05 PMVancouver Humanism Examiner
Dwight Jones

Two major environmental advocacy groups have reversed their policies on nuclear power amid its possible use within Canadian oil sands projects.

At a joint news conference in Calgary, Greenpeace Canada and the Sierra Wilderness Society have together announced support for nuclear power generation in defence of the Earth’s atmosphere, and its proposed use in Northern Alberta for extracting bitumen from vast oil sands deposits.

Greenpeace spokesperson Reiner Gerlach explained that “The coal ash disaster in the Tennessee Valley, that released 100 times more waste than the Exxon Valdez spill, has demonstrated that nuclear power is indisputably required for some decades, to give time for renewable energy technologies to scale up to actual needs. We cannot sacrifice the atmosphere in the meantime by burning so called ‘clean coal’, and Greenpeace now supports the replacement of all existing and planned coal plants with nuclear energy as a matter of urgency.”

Sierra President Alan Watts commented in the same release that “Sierra now recognizes that the Canadian oil sands can, from one perspective, be viewed as the world’s largest contaminated soil site, and it’s our obligation to clean it up. We fully advocate the use of nuclear power as the best way to extract the oil with the least burden on the atmosphere and global warming. Like Greenpeace, we do not want to put forward Luddite policies that in the end may condemn us to gradual asphyxiation from coal burning, or H2S from putrefaction of the oceans. Nuclear power is clearly safer now than it was five decades ago and we must assume this smaller risk, if we are to avoid a despoiling of the commons from burgeoning coal and oil projects. We cannot mindlessly wait on green energy technologies that might arrive too late”

The two groups have modified their policies on nuclear power to separate out the problem of nuclear waste disposal, which is now viewed as a “human character issue, not properly an environmental matter”. Gerlach stated that “the disposal of nuclear waste can be managed safely, and if we subsequently foul our own nests, we could not truthfully blame nuclear power generation for that failure. Nuclear waste products remain within our control, whereas coal ash and oil processing gases clearly are not.”

Deborah Jaremko
A breath of fresh air from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Written by Deborah on December 16, 2009 — Leave a Comment

Just as Canada’s oilsands is getting bashed and bashed and bashed some more at the climate talks in Copenhagen, research associate Shantel Beach of the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Hemispheric affairs released  this article, which I think offers a much-needed rational perspective on the industry.

Some quotes for you:

“If Obama enacts environmental legislation targeting Alberta’s carbon-intensive oil sands, he should be prepared to lose the many corresponding political and economic benefits his country has long enjoyed as a result of historic energy trade with Canada…All too soon, Washington may find that if it pushes too hard or too fast with carbon cutting legislation targeting the oil sands, its friendly neighbor might finally grow tired of being taken for granted when it comes to oil. Canada can, and likely will push back, especially because China is more than happy to step-in and purchase oil north of the 49th parallel if the U.S. chooses not to.”

“…in the month of September [2009], Canada provided more petroleum to the U.S. than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and Russia combined.”

“Contrary to the notion that the thirst for non-renewable energy is decreasing in the United States, oil consumption is actually on the rise. Reliance upon Canadian petroleum products remains a daily reality.”

“Despite their robust allegations that the oil sands contribute greatly to global warming, it is commonly acknowledged that the oil sands make up a meager 5 % of Canada’s overall carbon emissions, and on a global scale, they account for less than one-tenth of one percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. To put this number into perspective, oil sands emissions only equal about ½ of what New York City emits each year.”

“While popular media typically prefers to avoid reporting on international success stories, it becomes especially important to note that in 2007, Alberta became the first place in North America to legislate mandatory greenhouse gas reductions for large industrial facilities.”

“While it is obvious that Alberta must continue to strengthen its legislation, comparatively speaking, it has done a better job at enacting and enforcing environmental protection than other countries boasting comparable oil sands reserves. Countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have far less accountable legislative and judicial branches of government, and thus do not hold their oil sands industries nearly as culpable for environmental degradation.”

“If upon its ratification, U.S. environmental legislation is not flexible enough to allow for Canada’s oil sands industry to stay afloat, the effect on the Canadian economy overall will be devastating.”

“Due to the profitability of the oil sands and their contribution to the overall strength of Canada’s economy, it would be foolish to underestimate the lengths that Canada will go to in defense of their industry.”

Indeed.

Myths of carbon capture 'challenge' Alberta expert

Technique best suited to power plants and industry, not oilsands, says Stefan Bachu

By Dave Cooper, Edmonton JournalJanuary 2, 2010Comments (7)

The Alberta Research Council has given Stefan Bachu, above, the designation of Distinguished Scientist -- a title bestowed on only four other scientists in the council's 88-year history. He's an expert on the geological storage of carbon dioxide.

The Alberta Research Council has given Stefan Bachu, above, the designation of Distinguished Scientist -- a title bestowed on only four other scientists in the council's 88-year history. He's an expert on the geological storage of carbon dioxide.
Photograph by: Chris Schwarz, The Journal, Edmonton Journal

For one of the world's leading experts on the geological storage of carbon dioxide, there seems to be more demanding work to do on the surface of the Earth than deep underground.

"My biggest challenge is to convince the public, politicians and green NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a ploy by the oil industry -- seen as the villains -- to extend the life of fossil fuels," said Stefan Bachu, honoured recently by the Alberta Research Council as a "Distinguished Scientist," its top award.

Bachu's expertise in CCS, his work over the decades, his record of successful projects and his list of national and international collaborations convinced the council to make the rare award, only the fifth in its 88-year history.

His work has helped position CO2 storage as a key way to deliver substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions. And in 2007, he was one of the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize as a lead author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on CO2 capture and storage.

Colleagues are generous in their praise of Bachu, a hydro-geologist/ engineer.

"If I need to get a straight answer about a complicated or important issue relating to (geological storage), Stefan is one of three people in the world I call," said Howard Herzog, senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative.

Brent Lakeman, the research council's business unit manager for carbon and energy management, said the award is "for true leaders who are directing a research team of size and significance."

One of the past winners was Bill Gunter, a now-retired geochemist who also played a major role in the council's leading-edge work on CO2 storage.

"With Stefan and Bill, it is like Lennon and McCartney. The ARC is renowned for its work in this area," Lakeman said.

Perhaps the best-known project locally is the HARP (Heartland Area Redwater Project), which aims to understand the storage potential in the Redwater reef structure.

An oil and gas firm, ARC Resources, produces oil from one area of the reef and will soon drill an exploratory well into a non-oil-bearing zone to study its suitability for carbon dioxide storage.

The firm and council have worked closely, as Bachu is also research manager for HARP.

"He brings a wealth of experience and insight to the storage component of CCS, which has been very helpful to us," said Bill Sawchuk, manager of enhanced oil recovery reservoir engineering for ARC Resources.

Sawchuk said while the capture and transport of CO2 can now be considered almost routine, considerable research remains to be done on the storage component of CCS.

In an interview, Bachu said more "money and people" are needed to better understand geological storage.

"Not too many politicians and others understand that even if they make these decisions on carbon capture, they won't have the capacity to deliver" without more research, he said.

"CCS is part of the global solution to CO2 emissions, and not the only one. But without it we will not attain the targets."

Bachu said CCS is best targeted at coal-fired power generation plants.

"The (global) focus on Canada and the oilsands is totally misplaced."

Every week China adds about 10,000 megawatts of coal-fired power-generating capacity, almost as much as Alberta's total electrical power-generating capacity.

"CCS is about CO2 from coal-fired plants and large industrial operations like cement and steel plants, not about the oilsands."

Alberta is one of the few areas in the world with excellent geological formations for storing CO2, which is why CCS is so important here, he said.

"This is a big challenge for China because they may or may not have the geological capacity. There is plenty of capacity east of the Rockies and the Andes, and the North Sea. Australia has good capacity, but not where the resources are, and there is almost nothing in Japan and Korea."

Which brings Bachu to his second big challenge -- getting some large-scale CCS demonstration projects off the ground in the next few years.

"We need large-scale injection of CO2 between 2020 and 2050, cradle to grave for CO2, and places to put it safely."

Bachu predicts a major public education effort will be needed in some countries.

"Besides the North Sea, there are places on land in Europe to put it, but some people don't want it even if it is three miles down, so it is no longer NIMBY (not in my backyard) but not even under my backyard.

"They simply don't understand that CCS is safe (held under enormous pressure in porous rock, much like natural gas). Even well-educated people I met in Europe believe there will be huge lakes and rivers of CO2 flowing underground which will burst through the surface," he said.

"Perhaps public perception is the biggest challenge of all."

Shawn McCarthy and Nathan VanderKlippe

Ottawa, Calgary — Globe and Mail Update Published on Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010 8:15PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010 3:14AM EST

Upscale U.S. grocer Whole Foods Markets (WFMI-Q28.450.210.74%) assures its eco-aware shoppers that its meat has no antibiotics, that its coffee and roses are fair-traded and, now, that its organic produce is delivered using oil-sands-free fuel – for the most part.

Whole Foods' trucks travel more than 35 million kilometres annually, delivering organic and natural products to its 284 North American outlets, items such as Manchego cheese from Spain and Himalania-chocolate-covered Goji berries from China.

The earthy grocer has now committed to reducing its carbon footprint further by shunning, where possible, Canada's oil sands producers and the U.S. refiners who market gasoline and diesel made from Alberta's bitumen, which creates more emissions than conventional, light oil.

The move by Whole Foods is part of its ecostrategy to cut energy costs, appeal to its environmentally aware customers, and raise the pressure on oil companies operating in northern Alberta to find cleaner ways of producing fuel.

Critics, however, suggest it is mere “greenwashing,” a marketing ploy in which companies claim environmental progress that is, at best, difficult to quantify.

In fact, even with its new plan, Whole Foods may still use more of the so-called dirty oil, in percentage terms, than the rest of the U.S. economy.

Whole Foods and home furnishings retailer Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY-Q38.81-0.28-0.72%) have signed onto a campaign by environmental group, ForestEthics, in which they commit to reduce their reliance on fuel that is produced from Alberta's oil sands bitumen.

ForestEthics expects to sign up other Fortune 500 companies, and says it is currently negotiating with 30 companies, as it looks to increase public pressure on Canada to impose dramatic emission reductions on the oil sector.

“The goal here is to demonstrate to Alberta and to the oil patch that this problem isn't going away. In fact, it's going to get a lot worse,” ForestEthics executive director Todd Paglia said in an interview.

But industry experts say that it is extremely difficult for consumers to know the crude source of the diesel that fuels their trucks because refiners mix their feedstocks and swap product with competitors for efficiency reasons.

It's difficult to see the boycott as much more than a publicity stunt, said Alan Knight, a U.K.-based sustainable development consultant who worked with Virgin Airlines when it considered the possibility of refusing to use oil-sands-derived jet fuel.

Mr. Knight determined that not only was it impossible, it was the wrong thing to do for the environment.

He recommends that companies like Whole Foods work to improve oil sands' environmental performance by prodding the industry to accelerate investment in clean new technology, and by refusing to buy from those oil companies that are laggards among their peers.

“Boycotting is a lot easier. It's a lot cheaper and you get really good PR,” Mr. Knight said. “But you won't solve the problem. You'll bury the problem and hide it and probably make it worse.”

Still, Whole Foods switched its Indiana distribution centre from Marathon Oil Co. to CountryMark, a farmer-owned co-operative that produces its own conventional crude and processes it at a small refinery in Mount Vernon, Ind.

Whole Foods senior vice-president Michael Besancon insists the company is working with its suppliers to ensure they can provide fuel that is not derived from Alberta bitumen, and has been assured that they can.

“Because the tar sands are a higher carbon footprint and arguably a higher degree of environmental degradation regarding their extraction, that's one we want to move away from,” Mr. Besancon said. He denied the greenwashing charge, saying the company has undertaken a wide range of environmental initiatives to appeal to its ecoconscious customers.

Oil sands production currently accounts for about 6 per cent of the U.S. fuel supply. With the switch to CountryMark, the heavy Alberta crude represents less than 10 per cent of Whole Foods' fuel source.

Complicating the picture further is the fact that CountryMark opposes proposed U.S. cap-and-trade legislation, which aims to reduce emissions by imposing costly regulations on the oil industry.

Losing proposition


The StarPhoenixFebruary 16, 2010



It's difficult to determine who is being more cynical and ignorant -- the giant U.S. retailers claiming sainthood for avoiding oilsands fuel, or the activists trying to convince them to do it.

Any company that has its products manufactured at great distances from its market -- much of it in China or other developing countries -- and then claims to be concerned about the amount of carbon it takes to produce a barrel of oil from bitumen, must be convinced of its customers' ignorance.

But the customers should be asking from where the fuel is coming, if it isn't from the oilsands. That question was bluntly answered last week by David Jacobson, the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Canada.

In an interview with the Toronto Star, Ambassador Jacobson remarked on how much progress Alberta has made in trying to mitigate the environmental impact of oilsands' development.

When if comes to oil reserves, Canada is second behind Saudi Arabia, he pointed out, and this is the only country among a dozen oil-producing nations that consistently has demonstrated its friendship toward America, the world's largest economy. As well, Mr. Jacobso noted, Alberta's oil deposits represent half of the world's total reserves not owned by unelected governments for the most part.

His remarks come as the organic products giant, Whole Foods Markets Ltd. and home furnishings behemoth, Bed, Bath & Beyond, in the U.S. announced to fuel suppliers that the two companies would shun gasoline refined from the oilsands.

By the way, they took their stance the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced he had used Iran's oil money to produce weapons grade enriched uranium. His country is among the largest suppliers of oil to China, which not only refuses to use its influence to curb the suicidal nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic, but also uses the oil to produce and ship the kind of goods the giant American retailers need.

Apparently not satisfied with enriching the likes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria and other producers who have donated to al-Qaida, ForestEthics activist Aaron Sanger suggested that enlisting these two retailers was only a start.

Ironically, those battling the use of oilsands also battle the use of nuclear power -- almost assuring that the worst and most brutal regimes will hold sway when it comes to energy.

There's no doubt that Alberta and the oilsands industry must work harder to get their environmental house in order.

But well-intentioned corporations and activists should be careful what they wish for, because actions like this won't create a cleaner or better world.

- - -

"Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law." - The Supreme Court of Canada, 1938

Good morning class, welcome to Oilsands 101


By Robert Remington, Calgary HeraldFebruary 27, 2010Comments (5)



A look into the Albertaapproved curriculum of the future, inspired by the provincial government's upcoming initiative to educate students about the importance of the oil industry:

Good morning class. Today's lesson is the oilsands, or as we like to refer to it in Alberta, "God's oil spill."

Oilsands are made up of bitumen, a sticky substance that oozes naturally from the banks of the Athabasca River. First Nations people once used bitumen to patch their canoes. Today, we use it to heat our homes, power our vehicles and make all kinds of wonderful products such as balloons, soccer balls and even some candy. We all like candy, don't we?

Some people, like David Suzuki -- or as we like to refer to him in Alberta, Satan -- will try to tell you that the oilsands are bad. This is not true. Oil is used to make bicycle tires, and bicycles help reduce carbon from greenhouse gas emissions, which is the stuff that results from the burning of oil products, such as gasoline. Some scientists say that these gases cause global warming. So, by making bicycle tires, we help stop global warming. Therefore, oil is good for the environment.

Another way to reduce carbon in our atmosphere is to store it in the ground. This is known as carbon capture and storage, or sequestration. The Alberta government is spending $2 billion -- that's a lot of candy and bicycle tires -- on carbon capture. This will make the oilsands' carbon footprint about the same as imported oil from places like the Middle East, which has to be shipped across oceans in fossil-fuel burning tankers to reach markets like the United States.

Some U.S. states are talking about adopting a "low carbon fuel standard" (LCFS) which would restrict the importation and use of Alberta's oilsands. This is a dumb idea, because it doesn't take into account the reality of increased carbon caused by shipping Middle East oil to North America. Besides, Alberta bitumen is mingled with other sources of oil to produce gasoline, making it almost impossible to determine if fuel is made form a low-carbon source. And, if Alberta oil doesn't get shipped to the U.S., it will simply get sold to other markets such as China, which will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions globally due to increased shipping.

Did you know that Minnesota gets 83 per cent of its oil from Canada? Montana gets more than 90 per cent. They are among 16 U.S. states that directly import oil from Alberta. We are a safe and secure supply of oil, unlike oil from the Middle East, or oil that is controlled by crazy dictators like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Recently two Democratic U.S. senators in Wisconsin questioned LCFS proposals, fearing it will cost jobs in their districts. Some of the big, $40 million shovels that help process the oilsands are built in Wisconsin.

Big Environment refers to our oilsands as "tar" sands, which we consider to be derogatory. "Tar" sounds much more sinister, which is why it is used by Big Environment. It makes our oil sound "dirty."

Big Environment also like to fly over the oilsands north of Fort McMurray and take pictures of the mining operations that scoop bitumen from the ground using the Wisconsin-made equipment. Big Environment fails to mention that only 20 per cent of the deposits can be extracted this way. The other 80 per cent will be extracted using "in situ" technology, with limited surface disturbance. Most in situ extraction uses a process known as steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD, which involves pumping steam underground through a horizontal well to liquefy the bitumen that is then pumped to the surface.

To reduce water use for steam, the industry is using more non-potable and recycled water. Underground aquifers are also being tapped, so that we don't use as much water from the Athabasca River, even though we currently use only one per cent of the river's flow. Also, a technology known as directional drilling enables multiple wells to be drilled from a single location, further reducing the surface disturbance. Isn't in situ wonderful?

Well, class, that's all the time we have today. We'll be back again with more government-approved curriculum. In the meantime, keep those bicycle tires pumped up, and don't forget to wear a helmet. It's made from oil, too!

rremington@theherald.canwest.com

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainm … z0gqTbHNiF

It isn’t easy being clean

Tamsin Carlisle

    * Last Updated: March 06. 2010 10:44PM UAE / March 6. 2010 6:44PM GMT

The Syncrude oil sands extraction facility behind a lake reclaimed from an old mine near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta Province. Mark Ralston / AFP

Environmentalists have long portrayed Big Oil as Public Enemy Number One, creating intense pressure on oil companies to clean up their messes. Firms that take environmental stewardship seriously, however, are not getting an easy ride.

Take Syncrude Canada, the oil-sands consortium that hoped to become the poster child for environmentally responsible energy development, despite digging open pit mines so large they are visible from space.

The group, which includes ExxonMobil among its shareholders, says it has invested C$100 million (Dh357m) in the past five years on land reclamation. “To date, we’ve reclaimed over 4,500 hectares and planted over five million tree seedlings,” the company’s website says.

In 2008, Syncrude became Canada’s first oil-sands operator to receive government reclamation certification for a former mine, meaning that the company had demonstrated the site could support the same vegetation and wildlife as before the land disturbance. That has not saved it, however, from facing legal action over the deaths that same year of 1,600 ducks in a single incident at one of its tailings ponds, where mining waste is dumped.

Some other large oil producers, often the state-owned variety, are held to lower standards of environmental accountability, reducing their costs and creating a competitive advantage in a quintessentially global industry. That should raise red flags for environmentalists, as it creates a commercial incentive for oil development to migrate to the regions with the least stringent regulations, with cross-border implications for biodiversity, pollution and climate change.

Already, most of the world’s oil resources are controlled by national oil companies rather than their international counterparts, reversing the situation that prevailed before 1970. Among national oil companies, some adhere to environmental standards that are at least as high as those expected of international players, but others do not.

“I think the pressures are different,” says Robert Liddington, a spokesman for Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). “From the point of view of an international oil company, you’ve got a market image to sustain. Therefore you’ve got to appeal to your customer base and shareholders.

“For national oil companies, it depends on your national relationship. There’s not as much commercial pressure, only political pressure.”

Corporate culture also comes into play. For example, obtaining the reclamation certificate for the 104-hectare Gateway Hill site, which in the early 1980s was refilled and planted with spruce trees and other northern forest vegetation, was a source of pride and motivation for Syncrude employees.

“Reclamation begins with a vision,” says Ron Lewko, the leader of the group’s in-house reclamation research team.

“The plan is to design landscape to consist of a mosaic of land forms, ecosystems and a linked system of wetlands, lakes and streams.”

By 2080, all the company’s mining leases will be reclaimed, Mr Lewko predicts.

At Gateway Hill, he says, “what we said we’d do, we did”.

And yet, Syncrude was in court last week fighting charges relating to the duck disaster from both the federal government and the Alberta provincial government. Environmentalists as well as oil and mining industry representatives are watching the case closely because it will set a precedent.

Speaking outside the courthouse in Fort McMurray, Alberta, last week, Lindsay Telfer, the director of the environmental group Sierra Club Prairie, said the case went beyond a specific incident. “The tailings ponds themselves are on trial. I think that this incident specifically showed the world just how toxic the tailings ponds are,” she said.

Syncrude faces maximum fines of only $800,000 if found guilty of endangering wildlife, but its reputation could be badly tarnished and some of its managers could serve prison terms. Both would make it harder for the company to do business and attract the most skilled employees.

Syncrude has already apologised publicly for the ducks’ demise and stepped up measures to dissuade migrating birds from alighting on its oily ponds.

Another oil company trying to rehabilitate a messy reputation is Europe’s biggest petroleum group, Royal Dutch Shell. For decades its Nigerian oil operations have attracted condemnation from environmental and humanitarian groups. Last summer, a report from the humanitarian organisation Amnesty International blamed oil companies and the Nigerian government for widespread environmental and social abuses in Nigeria’s main oil-producing region.

“The Niger Delta provides a stark example of the lack of accountability of a government to its people, and of multinational companies’ almost total lack of accountability when it comes to the impact of their operations on human rights,” said Audrey Gaughran, the organisation’s head of economic relations.

Shell’s big mistake may have been paying too little heed to the standards of the national oil companies it chose as partners. That is not an error it is likely to repeat.

Recently, Shell said it was seeking to replace lost revenues from Nigeria. Qatar, where Shell has joint ventures in liquefied natural gas and gas-to-liquids synthetic fuels with Qatar Petroleum, is the chief candidate. “Qatar underpins Shell’s growth plans to 2012 and will be a heartland for decades to come,” Peter Voser, the group’s chief executive, said in November.

Qatar Petroleum has also been active in environmental rehabilitation. In 2006 and 2007 it relocated more than 4,500 coral colonies from undersea pipeline corridors, in the largest project of its type in the world. Researchers established a year later that 99 per cent of the transplanted corals had survived.

In Abu Dhabi, Shell is in join ventures with ADNOC, which supports a number of projects to protect biodiversity and wildlife in the Gulf, including a dugong research project and monitoring of the nesting sites of marine turtle and osprey.

t's just not cricket
Kevin Libin, Financial Post Magazine · Tuesday, Jul. 27, 2010

Britons relish attacking the oilsands as if development was a crime. Why should they expect sympathy when their oil is wiping out whole ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico?

Going by the old Moscow rules for spies, someone might want to keep an eye on the British. When something bad happens once, went the Cold War maxim, consider it an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times, and you're looking at enemy action. And BP PLC's catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill is at least the company's third serious U.S. Mishap in just the last while, counting the exploded refinery in texas in 2005 and a significant oil spill in Alaska the following year. Some Americans have, understandably, begun to turn hostile.

The British sense it; they've become defensive. BP is one of the U.K.'s largest corporations. One out of every six dollars funding British pensions comes from BP's annual $10-billion dividend. Barack Obama has pressured the company to suspend payouts, and start depositing billions into a damages account instead. BP's liability could hit US$180 billion, says Goldman Sachs. It may not survive. "BP is an important company… for people's pensions," exhorted a fretful prime minister David Cameron. "It employs thousands of people in the U.K.; it pays a lot of tax." London mayor Boris Johnson says Obama is using "anti-British rhetoric" to pick on foreign oil interests.

That's rather rich coming from the capital of anti-Canadian-oil agitation. Indeed, precisely as the British were carping about pensions going "down the pan" and Obama's "boot on the throat" of poor old Gran, another major U.K. firm, Lush Cosmetics, launched a fresh boycott campaign against the oilsands, calling it the "Most Destructive Project on Earth"-- this, as entire ecosystems were smothering under BP's sludge.

Predictable. Britons have delighted in anti-oilsands sanctimony. Fleet Street's been as fervid in its attacks as it has been ignorant of the industry's realities. Even after Deepwater, a Guardian columnist argued that turning from offshore to inland Alberta would bring worse than anything in the Gulf. The group Fair Pensions is building shareholder support to demand Shell and Royal Bank of Scotland divest from Alberta. Two hundred British MPs last year backed proposed reporting rules for oilsands operators that would require realizing "carbon liabilities" as debt. U.K.'s Co-Op Bank bankrolls lawsuits to shut down oilsands operations.

For years, in other words, Britain has messed with Canada's grannies. The health of every major Canadian pension fund relies on our energy sector, which in good times makes up nearly a third of the TSX market cap. Public pressure is pricey: ask Talisman Energy, which had to exit Sudan to save its battered stock from bad PR. Untold millions in equity value is missing from oilsands stock prices thanks to international stigma -- much of it from London, and much of it based on exaggeration and unproven claims. BP may not deserve all it's getting, but the Brits are learning first-hand how attacks on foreign firms cost real pensioners and real governments real dollars.

Canada's oilsands record isn't perfect, but its responsibility and environmental measures seem vastly better now. Certainly no Canadian producer can rival the calamitous sloppiness of BP. Suddenly, Alberta looks awfully prudent. Not that we'll enjoy it: BP's disaster has only spurred calls from Washington for more stringent drilling rules and carbon taxes that would punish Canadian exports especially. So our firms get dragged down with BP for its environmental carelessness, while the Brits vilify Alberta's record. If the British aren't careful, Canadians might start seeing them as hostile, too.

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/magazine/W … z0uzcbQGuy