FACT #4: The Alberta tar sands (click here) are holding Canada back on climate change action. Canada would be on track to reduce climate pollution over the next decade if not for the planned expansion of the tar sands industry. Instead Canadian emissions are predicted to increase.4
FACT #5: The toxic tailing lakes are considered one of the largest human-made structures in the world. The toxic lakes in Northern Alberta span 176 square kilometers and can be seen from space.
FACT #6: Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. In 2004, oil sands production surpassed 160 000 cubic metres (one million barrels) per day; by 2015, oil sands production is expected to more than double to about 340 000 cubic metres (2.2 million barrels) per day.
Fuel sources are currently evaluated by most environmental organizations, including the EPA, within a lifetime process. Oil Sands from harvest to burning far exceeds that of other forms of energy.
What are corrosion pits?Corrosion pits are very localized corrosion defects, or small ‘pits’ in the metal of the pipe. Pitting corrosion, unchecked, can result in a pipeline leaking. Operators have criteria to assess pits. Canadian codes require pits to be repaired when they reach 80% of the wall thickness. European codes allow up to 85%. In-lineinspection tools (known as intelligent pigs - see below) are used to detect pits and/or cracks.
What causes leaks and ruptures?
Internal corrosion, external corrosion, external intervention (for example: hit by a truck or back-hoe), soil displacement such as landslides, material defects, and system malfunctions (for example: operating over design pressure) can cause leaks and ruptures.
Based on incidents reported to the National Energy Board, the majority of leaks are related to pump stations and valves, rather than the body of the pipeline. In general, corrosion accounts for about 20% to 30% of pipeline leaks.
The United States of America have standards regarding carbon emissions. The Canadian Tar Sands vastly fails those standards regardless of how it is transported. The reason the USA will never use any of the Canadian Tar Sands is because of the high carbon ratio to the that of other fuels. That is why our land is being used a gateway to Texas refineries and exportation to the rest of the world.
The answer is, No. We don't pander to greed while allowing the climate consequences of dirty oil, including the inevitable oil spill of our farmland, prairie lands and water sources. Cherry picking particular areas of the Canadian Tar Sands oil is corruption. There is a process every drop of Canadian Tar Sands goes through and it far exceeds any CO2 allowed from CAFE standards of the USA. So, if tar sands oil were coming out of the tailpipe of American cars the outcome for the climate would be far more dangerous in accelerating degradation of the troposphere.
August 10, 2014
By Bobby McGill
...A new study (click here) published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change says the State Department may have underestimated the pipeline’s CO2 emissions by as much as four times. That’s because the consumer demand for oil will rise as new crude oil coming on the market from of Keystone XL will drive global prices down, the study says.
In other words, the more oil Keystone XL pumps, the more oil people will want to burn.
Peter Erickson and Michael Lazarus, both researchers at the Stockholm Environmental Institute, a research affiliate of Tufts University, said in their study that the State Department did not account for an increase in crude oil demand sparked by Keystone XL.
“The most important difference between our analysis and the State Department’s is that we consider the price effects of adding oil supply (in this case, Canadian oil sands) to global markets,” Erickson said via email....
Estimating jobs and emissions is not the same thing, although the Republicans would like it to be. Again, corruption for wealth.
This study validates AGAIN 'the lifetime carbon emission' of Canadian Tar Sands. The RESPONSIBILITY of the USA lies in acting morally to protect the lives of Americans in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It is completely irresponsible to say, the USA isn't contributing to the climate crisis because Americans don't pump this processed oil into their cars. The oil is transported across the USA FACILITATING it's use.
The USA doesn't exist in isolation. This climate crisis is a global issue. The problem with any climate strategy so far in the USA has been to isolate itself from the reality and expecting the rest of the global community to compensate for Americans' abuses.
It is like having the largest and most deadly military in the world. You don't simply use it because there is a grudge against a dictator.
This article is from 2014.
...The Koch projects (click here) will extract bitumen using a non-mining technique called steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), and are in various stages of development. The projects could ultimately yield an estimated 2.9 billion barrels of “recoverable” resources and could position the buyer “to be a top tier Canadian bitumen producer,” according to an online description of the offering.
Estimating jobs and emissions is not the same thing, although the Republicans would like it to be. Again, corruption for wealth.
This study validates AGAIN 'the lifetime carbon emission' of Canadian Tar Sands. The RESPONSIBILITY of the USA lies in acting morally to protect the lives of Americans in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It is completely irresponsible to say, the USA isn't contributing to the climate crisis because Americans don't pump this processed oil into their cars. The oil is transported across the USA FACILITATING it's use.
The USA doesn't exist in isolation. This climate crisis is a global issue. The problem with any climate strategy so far in the USA has been to isolate itself from the reality and expecting the rest of the global community to compensate for Americans' abuses.
It is like having the largest and most deadly military in the world. You don't simply use it because there is a grudge against a dictator.
This article is from 2014.
...The Koch projects (click here) will extract bitumen using a non-mining technique called steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), and are in various stages of development. The projects could ultimately yield an estimated 2.9 billion barrels of “recoverable” resources and could position the buyer “to be a top tier Canadian bitumen producer,” according to an online description of the offering.
The move by Koch to sell off one of its partnerships pulls the curtain back further on the Koch family’s deep but quiet involvement in Canada’s tar sands industry. Koch Industries has had a stake going back 50 years in Canadian heavy oil through mining, pipeline development and refining. Its Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota is now responsible for about 20 percent of the oil sands crude being piped into the United States and has played a key role in the growth of the family’s fortune. The family stands to profit further from growing U.S. reliance on tar sands imports.
The potential sale of Koch Exploration Canada comes amid a wave of deals involving oil properties and projects in Western Canada, home to the world’s third-largest proven reserves of crude oil. The investment surge has sent billions of dollars to Alberta’s oil patch and is expected to fuel a doubling of oil production by 2020. It is being led by companies from China—though last month Kuwait’s state-owned petroleum company announced a $4 billion joint venture it hopes to close in October....
This directly links the Koch Brothers to the Canadian Tar Sands as the third largest holder of those lands to exploit them for oil. In realizing that, this also links every Republican for federal office or otherwise directly to the Canadian Tar Sands. That is called conflict of interest. I didn't notice anyone in the US House or Senate sitting out of the vote because the vote conflicts with their campaign contributions.
March 20, 2014
By Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
CORRECTION: An earlier version (click here) of this piece said Koch Industries was the largest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands. On a net acreage basis the company is the largest American and foreign holder of leases in the region, but it might narrowly trail two Canadian companies overall. For more details on the top holders of oil sands leases, go here.
You might expect the biggest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest non-Canadian lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David....
This dirty oil is dirty in every sense of the word.
Why won't major oil companies purchase tar sands?
It is too expensive to process, the profit margin including capital improvements doesn't justify itself, it would reduce the price per barrel of oil, THUS, causing losses to their stockholders and possibly facing bankruptcy if the return on investment falls as expected with this processed oil. The Kochs had to go all the way to Kuwait to find investors to exploit the Canadian lands faster. That makes one third of the Koch's tar sands oil owned by Kuwait. We are back to realizing the Middle East owns most of the oil in the world following the USA.
If I were a Koch and wanted to control the world for the sake of "God's chosen people," I would seek to bankrupt all of Wall Streets competitors. If I recall, the oil barons of Texas have already complained publicly to the monopoly Koch is achieving and how it is effecting their ability to conduct business profitably. I would think the Democrats would at least be attractive enough for the major oil companies to donate to. Oh, wait, ExxonMobile did donate to US Senator Landrieu. Lawyers far exceeded any other of the campaign donors, though.
This directly links the Koch Brothers to the Canadian Tar Sands as the third largest holder of those lands to exploit them for oil. In realizing that, this also links every Republican for federal office or otherwise directly to the Canadian Tar Sands. That is called conflict of interest. I didn't notice anyone in the US House or Senate sitting out of the vote because the vote conflicts with their campaign contributions.
March 20, 2014
By Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
CORRECTION: An earlier version (click here) of this piece said Koch Industries was the largest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands. On a net acreage basis the company is the largest American and foreign holder of leases in the region, but it might narrowly trail two Canadian companies overall. For more details on the top holders of oil sands leases, go here.
You might expect the biggest foreign lease owner in Canada's oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn't the case. The biggest non-Canadian lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David....
This dirty oil is dirty in every sense of the word.
Why won't major oil companies purchase tar sands?
It is too expensive to process, the profit margin including capital improvements doesn't justify itself, it would reduce the price per barrel of oil, THUS, causing losses to their stockholders and possibly facing bankruptcy if the return on investment falls as expected with this processed oil. The Kochs had to go all the way to Kuwait to find investors to exploit the Canadian lands faster. That makes one third of the Koch's tar sands oil owned by Kuwait. We are back to realizing the Middle East owns most of the oil in the world following the USA.
If I were a Koch and wanted to control the world for the sake of "God's chosen people," I would seek to bankrupt all of Wall Streets competitors. If I recall, the oil barons of Texas have already complained publicly to the monopoly Koch is achieving and how it is effecting their ability to conduct business profitably. I would think the Democrats would at least be attractive enough for the major oil companies to donate to. Oh, wait, ExxonMobile did donate to US Senator Landrieu. Lawyers far exceeded any other of the campaign donors, though.
