START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
2,578,250 people care about Environment & Wildlife

The Sticky Truth about Oil Spills and Tar Sands

The Sticky Truth about Oil Spills and Tar Sands

The National Oil Spill Commission released its report on last year’s BP oil spill this week. The report laid out the blame for the spill, tagging each of the three companies working on the Deepwater Horizon at the time, Halliburton, Transocean and BP, and also offered prescriptions for avoiding similar disasters in the future.

As Mother Jones‘ Kate Sheppard notes, it’s unlikely the recommendations will impact policy going forward.

“I think the recommendations are pretty tepid given the severity of the crisis,” Jackie Savitz, director of pollution campaigns at the advocacy group Oceana, told Sheppard. “Even the small things they’re suggesting, I think it’s going to be hard to convince Congress to make those changes.”

No transparency for you!

Last summer, after the spill, the Obama administration tried hard to look like it was pushing back against the oil industry, even though just weeks before the spill, the president had promised to open new areas of the East Coast to offshore drilling.

This week brought new evidence that, despite some posturing to the contrary, the administration is not exactly unfriendly to the energy industry. One of the key decisions the administration faces about the country’s energy future is whether to support the Keystone XL, a pipeline that would pump oil from tar sands in Canada down to Texas refineries. And one of the key lobbyists for TransCanada, the company intending to build the pipeline, is a former staffer for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, filed a Freedom of Information requesting correspondence between the lobbyist, Paul Elliott, and his former boss, but the State Department denied the request.

“We do not believe that the State Department has legitimate legal grounds to deny our FOIA request, and assert that the agency is ignoring its own written guidance regarding FOIA requests and the release of public information,” said Marcie Keever, the group’s legal director, The Michigan Messenger’s Ed Brayton reports. “This is the type of delay tactic we would have expected from the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, which has touted its efforts to usher in a new era of transparency in government, including elevated standards in dealing with lobbyists.”

Tar sands’ black mark

What are the consequences if the government approves the pipeline? As Care2′s Beth Buczynski writes, “Communities along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed path would face increased risk of spills, and, at the pipeline’s end, the health of those living near Texas refineries would suffer, as tar sands oil spews higher levels of dangerous pollutants into the air when processed.”

What’s more, the tar sands extraction process has already brought environmental devastation to the areas like Alberta, Canada, where tar sands mining occurs. Earth Island Journal‘s Jason Mark recently visited the Oil Sands Discovery Centre in Ft. McMurray, Alberta, which he calls “impressively forthright” in its discussion of the environmental issues brought on by oil sands. (The museum is run by Alberta’s provincial government.) Mark reports:

The section on habitat fragmentation was especially good. As one panel put it, “Increasingly, Alberta’s remaining forested areas resemble islands of trees in a larger network of cut lines, well sites, mine, pipeline corridors, plant sites, and human settlements. … Forest disturbances can also encourage increased predation and put some plants and animals at risk.”

Not renewable, just new

The museum that Mark visited also made clear that extracting and refining oil from tar sands is a labor-intensive practice. He writes:

Mining, we learn, is just the start. Then the tar has to be “upgraded” into synthetic petroleum via a process that involves “conditioning,” “separation” into a bitumen froth, then “deaeration” to take out gases, and finally injection into a dual-system centrifuge that removes the last of the solids. Next comes distillation, thermal conversion, catalytic conversion, and hydrotreating. At that point the recombined petroleum is ready to be refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. It all felt like a flashback to high school chemistry.

Why bother with this at all? In short, because with easily accessible sources of oil largely tapped out, techniques like tar sands mining and deepwater drilling are the only fonts of oil available. This problem is going to get worse, as The Nation is explaining over the next few weeks in its video series on peak oil.

Energy and the economy

Traditional ideas about energy dictate that even as the world uses up limited resources like oil, technology will create access to new sources, find ways to use limited resources more efficiently, or find ways to consume new sources of energy. These advances will head off any problems with consumption rates. The peak oil theory, on the contrary, argues that it is possible to use up a resource like oil, that there’s a peak in supply.

Once the peak has been passed, the consequences, particularly the economic consequences, become dire, as Richard Heinberg, senior fellow with the Post Carbon Institute explains. “If the amount of energy we can use is declining, we may be seeing the end of economic growth as we define it right now,” he told The Nation

Light green

Part of the problem is that the energy resources that could replace fossil fuels like oil—wind and solar energy, for instance—likely won’t be in place before the oil wells run dry. And as Monica Potts reports at The American Prospect, our new green economy is getting off to a slow start.

Although the administration has talked incessantly about supporting green jobs, Potts writes that the federal government hasn’t even finalized what count as a “green job” yet. The working definition, which is currently under review, asserts that green jobs are in industries that “benefit the environment or conserve national resources” or entails work to green a company’s “production process.” But what does that actually mean?

“That definition was rightly criticized as overly broad,” Potts writes. She continues:

While nearly everyone would include installing solar panels as a green job, what about an architect who designs a green house? (Under the proposed definition, both would count.) … Another problem comes in weighing green purposes against green execution: We could count, for example, public-transit train operators as green workers. But how do we break down transportation as an industry more broadly? Most would probably agree that truckers who drive tractor-trailers running on diesel fuel wouldn’t count as green workers even if they’re transporting wind-turbine parts. And many of the jobs we would count as green already exist.

It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that the country is moving swiftly toward a bright green future.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. 


Read more: , , , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: wikimedia commons
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

96 comments

+ add your own
8:39PM PST on Feb 22, 2011

Lot to absorb in this article. One thing is certain.

Tar sands oil is DIRTY and is labor-intensive, to say the least -- look at all the steps to turn it into gasoline!

And -- for all the talk about green jobs, the government (be it, Obama's or any other) do not care to move fast enough towards "green" to avert a global climate catastrophe. I mean, we still give oil companies, like EXXON, SUBSIDIES, for chri*t sake!, and they make how many billion a year in profits?

As long as we have huge corporations dictating government policy, we will not have the change we NEED towards cleaning up our earth and turning to renewable green energy.

8:02PM PST on Jan 23, 2011

Thanks for the article.

2:17AM PST on Jan 23, 2011

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!

9:22PM PST on Jan 22, 2011

thanx for article :0

5:03PM PST on Jan 20, 2011

YOU KNOW WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CRAP?

3:24PM PST on Jan 19, 2011

Oops...can't leave out the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html

3:22PM PST on Jan 19, 2011

Stupid is as stupid does Jack...you oughta know that.

I guess I overestimated you...an impulsive tactical mistake to make in a debate.

I take it you never got into chess.

Anyway here is the link you requested.

Seems your man Tony Hayward dumped $1.4 mil worth...that was a good day.

Regards...

11:40AM PST on Jan 18, 2011

Donald "Just before the "disaster" high ranking BP Execs really stepped up to the plate, by dumping massive amounts of BP stock...reaping huge profits."

Such a stupid statement shows you know nothing of the way the stock market operates! Stock has a daily 'value'. You sell the stock at that day's value and make a profit or loss depending on what you paid for the stock. The fact that an ‘accident’ happened the next day - whether it was truly an accident or deliberate - does not affect the PREVIOUS day's stock value one iota! Duh!

11:31AM PST on Jan 18, 2011

Donald: "Just before the "disaster" high ranking BP Execs really stepped up to the plate, by dumping massive amounts of BP stock...reaping huge profits."

Please show us a link to where you found this gem, Don!

10:13AM PST on Jan 18, 2011

I was surprised that Clinton agreed to the pipeline from Canada. I thought the Clinton's were a little more environmentallly friendly, guess not. Probably all about the money and power. Meanwhile, Canada's great Boreal forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate for this disgusting dirty fuel. I've seen pictures of the tar sands, big black pools of sticky tar in a destroyed forest. We are not learning a damn thing. More pollution, more destruction, more sicknesses, more dying from our own stupidity. I've already signed letters to Clinton to say no to this pipline. Do a search on Clinton + petition + pipeline and sign the petition yourself. We all need to voice our concerns. Hopefully she will back down.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Oh my gosh does this hit home! I have two rescued lab rabbits, one tatooed and blinded, the other not.…

Really good news for the Rabbits. HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL YOU.

how come i don't hear republicans talk about other countries that are having global warming effects?…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.