I have criticisms of both sides of the tar sands debate. Although I am anti-tar sands, I have issues with anti-tar sands activism. It seems to me that all of the anti-tar sands organizations only care about winning as many people over to their argument as possible. They do this by throwing “facts” at people about the environmental destruction caused by mining and pipeline construction and they also use a great deal of appeal to the emotions of their audience. This type of rhetoric bothers me because this is a geosciences/environmental issue, and I think the strongest arguments are based on data and logic. The “facts” that these websites link to usually just bring you to another organization and I would like to be sure that no exaggerations are being made before I totally support the anti-tar sands argument.
The pro-tar sands argument isn’t without its flaws either. Campaigns generally focus around downplaying the negative environmental impacts of the tar sands mining and emphasizing how many jobs the pipeline will bring. The argument also focuses on national security. I feel that the pro-tar sands activists don’t have to work as hard to convince people to support their cause because of how blatantly obvious it is that we are still so dependent on oil as a natural resource.
It was a goal of mine at the beginning of this assignment to become more in touch with how I truly feel about this controversial issue. I would like to begin this post by saying that I really don’t know what the perfect energy solution is. I do think it is really important to continue in the search for alternative energy sources and I would love for the US, Canada, and the entire world to work towards ending the use of petroleum and fossil fuels. It is for this reason that I lean towards the anti-tar sands side of the debate. It really bothers me how so much destruction has be done to Canada’s forests and how polluted the fresh water has become due to tar sands mining and extraction.
I do acknowledge that moving away from fossil fuel dependence cannot happen overnight. Even though some progress has been made in utilizing wind, solar, geothermal, etc. energy, that fossil fuels are even needed to get these projects running as well. While North America is tapping into a large reservoir of domestic oil, I don’t think it is being done responsibly and unfortunately, I’m not sure if the oil could be extracted, transported, and used in a more responsible way. I can’t stop thinking about the billions of dollars that must support the tar sands and pipeline and I imagine the type of progress that could be made in the direction of cleaner, alternative energy with that kind of money.
A Permian-aged forest has recently been discovered in Wuda, China. It was preserved in a volcanic ash layer that dates to 298 million years old. The forest existed and the eruption occurred during the formation of Pangea. Click the link to read more!
In the winter of 2010, I was lucky enough to visit the country of New Zealand for 5 weeks. One of my favorite geology-related memories of my life is exploring White Island, an active volcanic island off the coast of Whakatane. Here’s a description of White Island’s geology.
For bragging purposes, and to prove I was there, here are some pretty cool photos I took while I was there!
^^the pebble in the center is about 1-2cm in length^^
Pamukkale, Turkey is a place I’ve always wanted to visit. Here are some stunning photos and a great description of the geology and the history of the site. Enjoy!
It’s impossible to Google “tar sands” without encountering what seems like an endless number of anti-tar sands organizations’ websites. It was actually much more difficult for me to learn enough about the pro-tar sands argument because it required much more in-depth research. To prove my point, here’s a screenshot I took of what the first result page of this “tar sands” google search:
Anti-tar sands activists and organizations have chosen to get their point across in a number of interesting ways. The first time I learned about the tar sands formations in Canada was in my Stratigraphy class. When I heard of this oil source and the controversy that surrounds it, I was at my retail job, a store called LUSH that is known for its handmade, all-natural bath and body products as well as its loud and proud pro-gay, pro-fair trade, and pro-environment stances. LUSH backs an organization called the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), another anti-tar sands organization. RAN has an entire section on its website devoted to the tar sands, which can be viewed HERE.
The webpage links to other sections of the site, where viewers can learn more about how the tar sands mining and the pipeline are negatively impacting the environment. The site encourages people to take action and allows viewers to send a letter to President Obama. All a person has to do is sign their name beneath a pre-written letter, which says,
“Dear President Obama,
America’s pipeline safeguards are broken.
In July 2009, federal inspectors with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) found evidence that an above-ground span of Exxon’s pipeline had become submerged under a creek and was piling up debris. Nearly 20 months later, in March of this year, Exxon reported that it was “evaluating control measures to keep future debris from accumulating over the pipeline.” Last weekend, in the same region cited in the inspection, the same pipeline ruptured during record flooding of the Yellowstone River.
Exxon’s spill in Montana is just the latest in a string of accidents as long as the industry is old. And while Big Oil says that it’s learning from its mistakes, even its newest pipelines can’t seem to contain the increasingly corrosive oil mined from Canada’s tar sands. We don’t need more pipelines. Most analysts actually expect a steady decline in U.S. demand for oil. What we do need is a system of regulations and penalties that keep our communities safe from the pipelines already in the ground.
Please establish an immediate moratorium on construction of new crude oil pipelines until the safety of our communities can be guaranteed. Please also ensure that the pending application of by TransCanada to construct the KeystoneXL pipeline is denied unless targeted safety guidelines for tar sands crude are established.
Sincerely,”
It is likely that the anti-tar sands argument has a leg up over the pro-tar sands argument at least in terms of how accessible the information is and how easy it is for citizens to become active. This argument also appears to originate from a much more “grass-roots” standpoint.
On the other hand, the pro-tar sands argument sides with the American Petroleum Institute (API), TransCanada, and the government, which has chosen to continue tar sands mining as well as the construction of the pipeline. One website, energytomorrow.org has a page that a viewer can click on to read about “mythology” surrounding the tar sands and the pipeline. The rest of the website has a number of articles that stress the importance of the pipeline and how it brings about employment and praises how it provides such large quantities of petroleum to North America. There are also many blog posts written by individuals that criticize anti-tar sands action and arguments. Overall, what I have noticed is that it is tricky to figure out what a person could do to help support oil sands mining and pipeline construction.
I was first made aware of the tar sands issue when I watched an incredibly moving TED talk given by nature photographer Garth Lenz. The ideas he presents appropriately sum up the major components of the entire anti-tar sands argument. Below, I have embedded the video and summarized the different aspects of this important talk.
Lenz places the most emphasis in his argument on the importance of preserving the Canadian Boreal Forest. He says that it is necessary to do as little damage to the forest due to the fact that it is just as important a resource as the bitumen in the tar sands. In fact, the forest’s wetlands, he explains, are depended upon by up to 50% of North America’s birds. A number of Canada’s indigenous tribes live off the land and natural water resources of the forest, including the Athabasca river, whose delta is one of few rare freshwater deltas in the world. This beautiful habitat is also a massive sink for greenhouse gases. The Canadian Boreal Forest, along with the Great Bear Rainforest, which lies further west and is the largest coastal temperate rainforest in the world, are at great risk due to the mining of the tar sands and construction of the pipeline, explains Lenz.
The strip mines that are created to access the tar sands are as big as major US cities. Lenz displays many upsetting images of the strip mines: flat, barren landscapes span many miles. Upon seeing these images I could only imagine the many acres of ancient trees and precious habitat being completely destroyed for the sake of human oil consumption. Lenz claims that more greenhouse gas is emitted by the tar sands than by any other petroleum source, and calls the tar sands “the world’s dirtiest oil”. The Athabasca river and delta as well as a number of other fresh water river networks are also in the process of being destroyed.
Lenz describes and displays images of what are called “tailings ponds”, 9,000-acre, man-made toxic impoundments that are visible from space. When the tar sands are being extracted, Lenz says, thousands of tons of water containing harmful toxins are dumped into these tailings ponds, which are in close proximity to the banks of the Athabasca river. Lenz’s argument quickly becomes emotional when he describes how the children of local families who must eat carcinogenic fish due to the high levels of contamination caused by tar sands mining. Lenz makes an interesting point, “we all live downstream”, meaning that in the end, everyone is effected by the tar sands, including human beings and their health.
The pipeline also poses its fair share of threats to the environment. Lenz describes the 2030 plan for pipeline expansion, which will industrialize an area of land as large as Florida. He raises awareness to the risk of transporting oil with tankers in the waters of the Great Bear Rainforest, which are known to be difficult to navigate. He explains that boats often run aground in the area and the risk of an oil spill by a massive tanker is an unfortunate reality.
Lenz raises awareness to the anti-tar sands argument, which simply does not support the destruction of the environment, fragile ecosystems, and human health. Most of all, it is important to make serious efforts towards ending altogether a reliance on petroleum. Lenz also makes the powerful statement that the tar sands are a complete “disincentive to clean energy”.
Much of the support and opposition to mining the Canadian oil sands revolves around the installation of a massive pipeline that supplies petroleum from Canada to the US. The TransCanada company is in charge of what is called the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. The pipeline extends from Hardisty, Alberta in Canada to Steele City, Nebraska, otherwise known as “Phase 1”. “Phase 2” extends from Steele City to Cushing, Oklahoma. The Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion is “Phases 3 and 4” in which the pipeline would continue from Cushing to Nederland, Texas. Construction of these final two stages are still awaiting approval from the US federal government.
Many people believe that the oil sands and pipeline will provide significant economic benefits to the US. Those who oppose the oil sands and the pipeline construction center their argument (in general) around the negative environmental impacts of the two major projects. In this entry, I will focus on the views of the pro-oil sands side of this debate.
Those in support believe the tar sands provide North America with a valuable resource as well as reducing its dependence on foreign/overseas oil. They also believe that the pipeline construction will provide a great number of jobs as well as lower gas prices, which could prove to be of particular interest to the US due to its current economic situation.
The pipeline and jobs:
On TransCanada’s “Careers” webpage, the company boasts that the Keystone XL pipeline is a “shovel-ready project”. This implies that the project is at the stage where the company is eager to employ a number of laborers immediately (provided it receives its Presidential Permit it has applied for to construct its final phases). According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), if the pipeline project is approved by the President, it will create thousands of jobs.
Lowering gas prices:
The API focuses its arguments on the idea that the tar sands oil and the pipeline will supply of to 830,000 barrels of oil every day via the pipeline, which would help to lower gas prices. In fact, an increase of petroleum being supplied to the US will “signal to the markets that more supply is on the way” due to the fact that markets are influenced by their expectation of resource supply, according to the API.
Increasing North American energy independence:
According to TransCanada, the oil from the tar sands supplied by the pipeline supply the US with about 5% of the total petroleum it requires for consumption and 9% of its total petroleum imports. The company boldly claims that “once permitted and completed, the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion project will supply roughly half the amount of oil the US currently imports from the Middle East or Venezuela”. The oil provided by the pipeline is also seen to be a much more stable and consistent energy source than what is currently imported from foreign nations, which may help to increase national security.
What does the pro-tar sands/pro-pipeline argument say about the environment?
The TransCanada website has its own page that discusses how the Keystone XL Pipeline Project plans to address environmental concerns. The company claims that it is sensitive to its environmental impact and will “implement calculated methods sand techniques” to remediate damages done to soil and topsoil. TransCanada also plans to minimize its impacts on wildlife, habitats, “significant water crossings” as well as “historical and paleontological resources”.
Regarding spills, the corporation claims that oil spills rarely occur due to pipeline failures, but ensure that in the case of a spill, it will aim to minimize and limit impacts as well as take responsibility for cleanup.
If the pipeline has negative affects on reservoirs, rivers, or aquifers, TransCanada claims that it would be responsible for providing water from another source.
Before getting started on presenting the the many different arguments in support of and against mining for tar sands, it is important to understand what the tar sands are. The Alberta Geological Survey has provided me with a sufficient amount of background information about the tar sands. I have provided their links at the bottom of this entry.
Tar sands can be found in about 70 countries in the world. The largest source of these tar sands (also called oil sands) is in Alberta, Canada. These particular tar sands are called the Athabasca oil sands and are Cretaceous fluvial-estuarine deposits that are found in an area of over 140,000 square kilometers. The Alberta Geological Survey claims that the Alberta oil sands are the third largest crude oil reserve in the world. The sands are enriched with bitumen, which has a viscosity similar to molasses and fills the pore spaces between the grains of sand.
The bitumen only flows upon heating, so steam is injected through wells in the sediment to enable its extraction. In order to access the sand layers to extract the bitumen, the “overburden”, which consists of soil and overlying clay and gravel sedimentary layers must all be removed. This process is also known as “strip mining”, a method which is controversial because it requires the complete destruction of entire forests, landscapes, and ecosystems. Stay tuned for upcoming blog entries with more information on the effects of strip mining as well as details about arguments against and for the mining of the tar sands.
