OIL SANDS-PART 1: Showdown at Ft. McMoney
By Chris Arsenault*
Environmentalists say mining tar sands oil creates 3 to 5 times more
greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil extraction.
FT. MCMURRY, Canada, Oct 16 (IPS) - The sun rises in a bright, red
line over flat land, small lakes, boreal forest and peat bogs as our
small double engine plane bumps through early morning turbulence
between Edmonton and Ft. McMurray, Canada.
With more than 173 billion barrels of oil recoverable with current
technology and more than 100 billion dollars in committed capital
investment, the Alberta tar sands around Ft. McMurray are considered
the largest industrial project on earth. Unlike conventional crude,
oil here isn't pumped, it's mined.
Current developments could yield 21 billion barrels of oil, according
to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. In 2007, the tar
sands produced 1.2 million barrels of oil every day. By conservative
estimates, this number will rise to 3.5 million barrels per day by 2020.
Locals here call it Ft. McMoney, as the median annual income for a two
person family in this sprawling boom town is 120,100 dollars, the
highest level in Canada and about twice the national average.
But this wealth comes with hidden costs, according to
environmentalists. "Ft. McMurray is like an old-time gold rush and
this leads to socio-economic conflicts and environmental problems,"
Thomas Clayton-Muller from the Indigenous Environmental Network told
IPS.
In 1967, when Suncor energy opened the first tar sands operation, Ft.
McMurray had some 1,000 residents. Today, 60,000 people live here with
another 20,000 cloistered in temporary work camps, according to Janet
Annesley, a public relations representative with Shell Canada.
Annesley hosted a group of journalists and senior Shell executives on
a tour of Albian Sands Muskeg River Mines, a development that began
producing 155,000 barrels of oil per day in 2002. Albian Sands is
partially owned by Shell and the company is trying to counter negative
press.
In Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently
reprimanded Shell for a series of advertisements which called the oil
mine a "sustainable energy source".
"Because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively
managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to
limit climate change, we concluded that the ad was misleading," said
ASA in its ruling.
Don Thompson, president of the Oil Sands Developers Group, an industry
association, wouldn't comment on the Advertising Standards Authority
ruling. But in a meeting at Shell Canada's headquarters in downtown
Calgary, he told IPS that "recent media and NGO [non-governmental
organisation] reports have criticised the environmental performance of
the oil sands industry. Much of this criticism is unjustified."
Environmentalists say that mining tar sands oil produces three to five
times more greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than conventional crude.
Large amounts of water and natural gas are required to heat and
separate oily tar -- or bitumen -- from the sand.
Extracting one barrel of oil from the tar sands requires 650 cubic
feet of natural gas, according to Shell Canada figures.
"They [pipeline companies] are developing a multi-billion-dollar [gas]
pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta," said Dr. David Suzuki, Canada's
leading environmentalist. "All of that gas is going to be brought
down, but not to heat our homes. It's going to be burned in the tar
sands to melt the tar sands," Suzuki told IPS.
The tar sands currently account for around 5 percent of Canada's
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and that number is expected to rise as
production levels increase. By 2030, the tar sands could be producing
5 million barrels of oil per day, according to Alberta government
figures. "That would account for more than half of all the greenhouses
gases we produce in Canada," said David Suzuki. "It's just crazy."
"We didn't put the oil there," Shell's Janet Annesley told IPS in
response to questions about increased GHG emissions from increasing
levels of oil production.
When considering emissions from the beginning of production to the end
burning of gasoline in cars, or what oil lobbyists call the "well to
wheel life cycle", Annesley says oil sands crude is only around 15
percent worse than conventional oil in terms of GHG emissions.
Oil from countries like Saudi Arabia must be shipped to North America
on tankers, which increases GHG emissions, while tar sands oil is
moved to the U.S. via pipelines.
Environmentalists don't think those numbers are accurate and question
the well to wheel methodology. Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, an
environmental think-tank based in Alberta, told IPS that well to wheel
is "an attempt by industry to duck the issues and deflect attention,"
adding that tar sands oil is still between 16-40 percent more GHG
intensive than regular crude when using the industry's lifecycle
methodology.
In August, Pembina and other environmental groups pulled out of the
Cumulative Management Association (CEMA), an organisation created by
Alberta's provincial government and tasked with including various
stakeholders in discussions around tar sands operation and expansion.
"The oil sands approval process wouldn't even wait for CEMA reports
before approving new mines," said Dyer in response to why his
organisation pulled out of the co-management group.
"CEMA made a recommendation a couple of months ago to halt new land
leases [for tar sands operators] and the provincial regulators didn't
listen. The organisation [CEMA] was doing more harm than good," Dyer
told IPS.
Don Thompson from the Oil Sands Developers Group says he isn't
concerned that Pembina and other groups pulled out of CEMA, even
though the "multi-stakeholder" is now missing key participants.
Unlike Pembina, who tried to work with industry, Greenpeace Alberta
takes a more provocative approach. "We are calling for a cool out,
phase out approach," Mike Hudema, a spokesperson for the group, told
IPS.
In July, Greenpeace activists snuck into a facility owned by Syncrude,
the largest oil sands consortium, and unfurled a banner reading:
"World's Dirtiest Oil: Stop the Tar Sands."
In August, Syncrude launched a 120,000-dollar lawsuit against the
activists, claiming among other things that Greenpeace hindered the
"quiet enjoyment of the Operation Lands". Anyone who has visited tar
sands mines can affirm they are less than quiet places.
While one would assume that roughnecks and truck drivers getting rich
from the tar sands would clash with environmentalists, Greenpeace's
Hudema says they are particularly supportive when the group canvasses
for donations. "They [oil workers] are the nicest at the door and the
most ready to give," he said.
"Our campaign isn't against anyone working in the industry. The
potential for clean energy is huge in Alberta; it's the sunniest
province the country, with some of the most windy areas in its
southern corridor," Hudema told IPS. "We have to make a transition to
green jobs, so workers can put food on the table while having an
environment fit for their children and grandchildren."
*This is the first of a three-part series investigating the political,
environmental and social impacts of Canada's oil sands development.
Chris Arsenault holds the 2008/09 Phil Lind Fellowship at the
University of British Columbia. A portion of his visit to Alberta was
minded and financed by Shell Canada.
