Alberta tar sands in National Geographic

Where the trapline and the cabin once were, and the forest, there is now a large open-pit mine. Here Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil producer, digs bitumen-laced sand from the ground with electric shovels five stories high, then washes the bitumen off the sand with hot water and sometimes caustic soda. Next to the mine, flames flare from the stacks of an “upgrader,” which cracks the tarry bitumen and converts it into Syncrude Sweet Blend, a synthetic crude that travels down a pipeline to refineries in Edmon­ton, Alberta; Ontario, and the United States. Mildred Lake, meanwhile, is now dwarfed by its neighbor, the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, a four-square-mile lake of toxic mine tailings. The sand dike that contains it is by volume one of the largest dams in the world.

Nor is Syncrude alone. Within a 20-mile radius of Boucher’s office are a total of six mines that produce nearly three-quarters of a million barrels of synthetic crude oil a day; and more are in the pipeline. Wherever the bitumen layer lies too deep to be strip-mined, the industry melts it “in situ” with copious amounts of steam, so that it can be pumped to the surface. The industry has spent more than $50 billion on construction during the past decade, including some $20 billion in 2008 alone. Before the collapse in oil prices last fall, it was forecasting another $100 billion over the next few years and a doubling of production by 2015, with most of that oil flowing through new pipelines to the U.S. The economic crisis has put many expansion projects on hold, but it has not diminished the long-term prospects for the oil sands. In mid-November, the International Energy Agency released a report forecasting $120-a-barrel oil in 2030—a price that would more than justify the effort it takes to get oil from oil sands.

You can read the whole piece here. Take a minute to look at the photo gallery.

I found this on National Geographic.

Share

As Risks for Oil and Gas Grow, USSF Offers Change

Weekly Mulch: As Risks for Oil and Gas Grow, USSF Offers Change

Friday 25 June 2010

by: Sarah Laskow  |  The Media Consortium | Report

BP oil has been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for more than two months, and while attention has focused there, deepwater oil drilling is just one of many risky methods of energy extraction that industry is pursuing. Gasland, Josh Fox’s documentary about the effects of hydrofracking, a new technique for extracting natural gas, was broadcast this week on HBO. In the film, Fox travels across the country visiting families whose water has turned toxic since gas companies began drilling in their area.

“So many people were quick to respond to our requests to be interviewed about fracking that I could tell instantly that this was a national problem—and nobody had really talked enough about it,” Fox told The Nation this week.

Natural Gas

In Washington, even green groups like the Sierra Club have been pushing natural gas as a clean alternative to fuels like coal; reports like Fox’s suggest that the environmental costs of obtaining that gas are not yet clear. Besides water contamination, natural gas opponents are also documenting environmental damage to air quality. Like the problems with deepwater oil drilling, which became apparent after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, the dangers of hydrofracking could go unchecked until disaster strikes.

And both deepwater drilling and hydrofracking are symptoms of the greater crisis threatening the country: as energy resources become harder to extract, energy companies are taking greater risks to get at the valuable fuels.

Continue reading

Share

BP wins again

The environment loses. This is unbelievable. Read this paragraph from the NY Times piece.

“But BP’s project, called Liberty, has been exempted as regulators have granted it status as an “onshore” project even though it is about three miles off the coast in the Beaufort Sea. The reason: it sits on an artificial island — a 31-acre pile of gravel in about 22 feet of water — built by BP.”

The Arctic is a very fragile ecosystem that will be permanently ruined if a spill happened up there. It’s just another example of how politicians and big business are all playing on the same team.

I found this in the NY Times.

Share

Six gas mileage myths

By Jim Motavalli

Posted Tue May 25, 2010 10:09am PDT
pumping gas
(Photo: Peter Dazeley)

Do Americans care about fuel economy as oil spills into the Gulf of Mexico and gasoline hovers around $3 a gallon? You bet they do, though they also have a fair number of misconceptions about how to squeeze a few more miles out of every drop.

The Consumer Federation of America’s (CFA) most recent survey says that if we had a 50-mile-per-gallon car fleet today, we’d save more oil than the entire proven reserves in the entire Gulf of Mexico. And people care about that.

According to Jack Gillis, author of The Car Book and a CFA spokesman, 87 percent of respondents said it is “important that the country reduce its consumption of oil,” and 54 percent said it is “very important.”

An amazing 65 percent of Americans surveyed support a mandated transition to a 50-mpg fuel economy standard by 2025. That’s a tough standard, some 15 mpg better than the ambitious goal set by the Obama Administration (35 mpg by 2016).

“The expectations of American consumers are reasonable and achievable,” Gillis said in a conference call.” CFA says that Asian carmakers, compared to the U.S. competition, are offering twice as many vehicles with 30 mpg or better. ”It’s shocking that so few of today’s cars get more than 30 mpg,” he said.

Mark Cooper, CFA’s research director, noted that in five years of the group’s polling, the public’s views have stayed remarkably consistent: Americans want less dependence on Middle Eastern oil and higher fuel-economy standards.

People care about fuel economy, but they’re misinformed about how to actually achieve it. The federal government’s fueleconomy.gov site (very useful to check cars’ mpg) just published the “Top 10 Misconceptions About Fuel Economy.”

Here are a few big myths:

  • It takes more fuel to start a vehicle than it does to let it idle.
    People are really confused about this one and will leave a car idling for half an hour rather than turn it off and restart. Some kids I know started an anti-idling campaign in the suburbs and are shaming parents into shutting down their cars.

    Idling uses a quarter- to a half-gallon of fuel in an hour (costing you one to two cents a minute). Unless you’re stalled in traffic, turn off the car when stopped for more a few minutes.

  • Vehicles need to be warmed up before they’re driven.
    Pshaw. That is a long-outdated notion. Today’s cars are fine being driven off seconds after they’re started.
  • As a vehicle ages, its fuel economy decreases significantly.
    Not true. As long as it’s maintained, a 10- or 15-year-old car should have like-new mileage. The key thing is maintenance — an out-of-tune car will definitely start to decline mileage-wise.
  • Replacing your air filter helps your car run efficiently.
    Another outdated claim, going back to the pre-1976 carburetor days. Modern fuel-injection engines don’t get economy benefits from a clean air filter.
  • After-market additives and devices can dramatically improve your fuel economy.
    As readers of my story on The Blade recall, there’s not much evidence that these “miracle products” do much more than drain your wallet. Both the Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Reports have weighed in on this. There are no top-secret 100-mpg add-ons out there.
  • Using premium fuel improves fuel economy.
    You might as well write a check to BP if you believe this. Only use premium if your car specifies it.

Here’s the complete list of myths.

I found this on Yahoo! Green.

Share

Watch out Canada. BP says you’re next.

Screw the Environment: BP and the Audacity of Corporate Greed

Thursday 27 May 2010

by: Dave Lindorff | ThisCan’tBeHappening

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Thomas Hawk, futureatlas.com)

Even as BP’s blown well a mile beneath the surface in the Gulf of Mexico continues to gush forth an estimated 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the sea, and the fragile wetlands along the Gulf begin to get coated with crude, which is also headed into the Gulf Stream for a trip past the Everglades and on up the East Coast, the company is demanding that Canada lift its tight rules for drilling in the icy Beaufort Sea portion of the Arctic Ocean.

In an incredible display of corporate arrogance, BP is claiming that a current safety requirement that undersea wells drilled during the newly ice-free summer must also include a side relief well, so as to have a preventive measure in place that could shut down a blown well, is “too expensive” and should be eliminated.

Read the whole article on Truthout.

Share