TAR SANDS: New CFR report addresses impacts of tar sands on climate change.
Image: FLICKR/RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NEW YORK—Further development of Alberta's famous oil sands will be neither the climate disaster that activists fear nor the energy security panacea that proponents suggest it is, the Council on Foreign Relations concludes in a new report.
The reality of the oil sands in the international energy and climate picture suggests both the United States and Canada would be wise to develop climate policy in tandem, or at least link whatever independent cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse gases each government may develop, a researcher at the New York-based think tank says.
"There is a compelling case, even absent the oil sands, for harmonizing U.S. and Canadian carbon pricing schemes," writes Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at CFR. "The oil sands factor, in both its energy security and climate change dimensions, only makes that case stronger."
The simplest way to do this would be to allow cross-trading of emission allowances between two systems, leading to carbon prices that are roughly the same on both sides of the border, Levi says. A combined cap-and-trade system would be even better.
It is unlikely that Canadian oil sands can free the United States of its dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the report concludes. But as the only non-OPEC source with the potential for large production growth over the next several years, the tar sands have very strong energy security implications -- meaning U.S. policymakers should not impose any restrictions on their development through such means as low-carbon fuel standards or special import tariffs, Levi concludes.
The council's analysis suggests the oil sands are unique in that they hold the potential to reduce OPEC's revenues, thus weakening the cartel and those members that often undertake policies hostile to U.S. interests. If the oil sands could replace 2 million barrels per day of OPEC production, that would lead to a $70 billion per year cut in revenue to OPEC states, even with prices at $100 a barrel.
"If, over the long term, Canadian oil sands growth displaces production in places like Iran or Venezuela, or drives down the prices that such states receive for each barrel of oil they sell, it will weaken them," Levi says.
Importing more oil from Canada and less from the Middle East would also probably drive down the United States' current account deficit, the scholar writes. Due to the close proximity of the two North American countries and their tight trading relationship, money diverted to Canada to purchase energy is much more likely to be recycled back into the U.S. economy through direct purchases of goods and services than if that same capital is sent to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC states.
And despite fears by climate change activists that increased oil sand production has profoundly negative consequences to global warming, Alberta's massive reserve base contributes relatively little to the problem at a global scale, Levi says.
Though increasing oil sands production, which many expect will triple by 2030, will grow Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to a huge extent if business-as-usual practices continue, the added carbon dioxide emissions are marginal in the U.S. and global contexts. Studies show CO2 output from oil sands production is equivalent to 0.5 percent of U.S. aggregate emissions from energy use and less than 0.1 percent of total global emissions.
On the other hand, U.S. energy security enthusiasts eager to boost supplies from a friendly and reliable neighbor can also rest assured that a price on carbon is unlikely to add huge costs to the oil coming from the tar sands, Levi says.
The CFR study guesses that a carbon price of $20 per ton of CO2 equivalent—roughly what prices have averaged in the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme—would add only $2.21 per barrel of additional production costs to the oil sands. A price of $50 per ton of CO2 equivalent would add an extra $5.53 per barrel.
"The oil sands are neither critical to U.S. energy security nor catastrophic for climate change," Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass says in the report foreword.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentTypically American. Just assuming what is ours is theirs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPM Steven Harper and others have already delivered polite but firm statements in Canada and the U.S that we intend to explore expansion of Oil sales to China and India further so as not to be dependant on one revenue source. Your recent economic problems, protectionist attitude, and new insulting boarder restrictions prove we need to shift our dependence.
The American assumption that if we are not screaming; we don't care; is wrong.
It's hard to imagine how the oil sands industry has transformed northeastern Alberta until you see the pictures in National Geographic: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-photography
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe no nukes never authors here at Sci American once again have neglected one of the first rules of journalism in producing this report - check your facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy Alberta has actually applied for a license to build two ACR-1000 reactors at Peace River. It is estimated 12 gigawatts of nuclear would replace all the natural gas and used in producing tar sands oil to 2015 thereby eliminating any excessive tar sands CO2 contributions.
The waste nuclear fuel for all of United States and Canada assuming nuclear was used to replace all North American fossil fuels would easily be stored in a tiny fraction of the moonscape tar sands operations leave.
I for one hope Obama makes nuclear a requirement for further tar sands exports into the United States.
sethdayal; thank you for the comment on use of nuclear to power retort of tar sands, a real, positive solution to Two problems. Generate electric power for grid use with the high temperature high pressure steam and retort and refine oil with the lower temperature secondary steam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough I'm afraid the Obamanation would be opposed to any positive solution to ether problem. At least Energy Alberta is not in the US. and doesn't need the permission of our government's bureaucrats for this great solution.
@Bill Case,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou give every impression of having not read the article. Also, are you always a generalizing bigot?
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTsk, tsk...Stooping to name calling again? You must have nothing real to say on the topic.
"tsk, tsk...Stooping to name calling again?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the shoe fits. You know what a bigot is do you not? Try replacing the following statement with Black, Jew, Women, etc. How does that look? Here let me try it: Typically Black. Just assuming what is ours is theirs. Comes off looking like a gomer. If you fail to see the problem here you need a lot self-examination.
"You must have nothing real to say on the topic."
I commenting on the comments? Is it verbotten? BTW, you got that evidence that Watson and Crick did not publish in a peer reviewed journal or not?
"Although I'm afraid the Obamanation would be opposed to any positive solution to ether problem."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation: He is not doing exactly what I think he should do. So he is a abomination in my sight. Right. Got it.
@Shoshin,
We got a name caller for your sensitive ears. Please do your concern troll act now, please.
Trent1492: I realize from your comments you are just trolling, but nonetheless by responding you have given me the opportunity to expand on my remarks and perhaps educate some uninformed American readers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Typically American. Just assuming what is ours is theirs."
The Council on Foreign Relations IS an American think tank. If you read their comments it is obvious they feel free to comment any way they please on Canadian tar sands production and proscribe how we should deal with environmental issues. Americans do this all the time about every country in the world. It is not new. So, before even getting to analysing the substance of the CFR's paper, a foreign reader has a general attitude/world view problem.
"PM Steven Harper and others have already delivered polite but firm statements in Canada and the U.S that we intend to explore expansion of Oil sales to China and India further so as not to be dependant on one revenue source." Harper made such statements both in a visit to Washington and when Obama visited Canada recently. At that time he (Harper) welcomed the noises coming out of Washington about the opening and/or renegotiating NFTA. His position was that if anything is opened, the whole treaty would be opened. Canada could then get a better deal for its energy exports to the U.S. Representatives from both China and India have been regularly conferring with Ottawa since then.
Trent1492, you may wish to wave such things off, but that would a demonstrate bigotry on your part and clear misunderstanding of the Canadian psyche. We do not yell and shout at each other very often on matters that count. We tend to just go about doing what needs to be done.
I could explain much more but I am running out of time and space. Let me just say that I stand behind each and every assertion made in my original post.
Bill Says: Tent1492: I realize from your comments you are just trolling...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I what your definition of trolling is: If you disagree with Bill Case then you are a troll. Got it.
Bill Case: ...but nonetheless by responding you have given me the opportunity to expand on my remarks and perhaps educate some uninformed American readers."
Yes, of course please educate them poor ignorant Americans. Can you please try harder for that unique combination of condescending platitudes and nation chauvinism you are marketing. Please more! /s
Bill Case Says: Typically American. Just assuming what is ours is theirs."
Again Bill Case Say: The Council on Foreign Relations IS an American think tank.
Yo, Bill. I am addressing what YOU said not what the American Council of Foreign Relations said. Got that Bill? You said "Typically American. Just assuming what is ours is theirs." Own up to the bigotry Bill.
" If you read their comments it is obvious they feel free to comment any way they please on Canadian tar sands production and proscribe how we should deal with environmental issues."
That is not an excuse for such a vast generalization of nation of 300 million plus. You would have been far more accurate if you had said How typical of the American Council of Foreign Relations. That way, Bill, you narrow it down to a few thousand people who voluntarily joined a organization and not a whole nation of millions of people? Can't tell the difference? Then you you are a bigot.
And, by the way Bill. People can talk about other nations without your sanction. You know just like you do but hopefully with more intelligence.
Bill the Canadian Victim of American Imperialism Says: Case: Americans do this all the time about every country in the world.
You mean Bill that entire nation of 300 million people do that the entire time? Tell me, Bill. Do Jews do the same thing with the financial industry too in your opinion? I mean while your in the bigotry business why not go for the whole hog?
"So, before even getting to analysing the substance of the CFR's paper, a foreign reader has a general attitude/world view problem."
Argument Ad Populum . Just because other foreign readers may share your views does not mean their bigotry is OK.
Bill Now Does A Long And Irrelevant Post About Canadian Trade Policy: "PM Steven Harper and others have already delivered polite but firm statements in Canada and the U.S that we intend to explore expansion of Oil sales to China and India..
Bill, you giving further evidence that you did not read the article.
Part II
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Case: Trent1492, you may wish to wave such things off, but that would a demonstrate bigotry on your part and clear misunderstanding of the Canadian psyche.
Bill, I do not accept you were elected by unanimous consent to the representative of Canadian opinion and especially the Canadian Psyche. You need to start owning up to your own opinions and stop hiding under the irrational skirts of chauvinism and bigotry. IOW, you are not Mr. Canada. Your just Bill Case.
To Trent1492: You should learn how to formulate an argument before you actually try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Case:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease lay off on dissing Trent1492. He's way too much fun when he jumps on his fierce thesuarus and rides into battle.
He's the ultimate critic. He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Gotta love the guy.
Getting back to the topic of the article itself....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly why are we supposed to trust the word of some guy from the Council of Foreign Relations in matters of energy, environment, and economics? Was it that hard for the author to get credible authoritative speakers for the subject? Or is this a not-so-subtle effort to get on policy's good side?
By the way, oil imports from SA are roughly on the order of 5% of our nation's total draw from foreign nations. Obviously a massive effort must be made to break this economic oppression.
@ Bill Case,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To Trent1492: You should learn how to formulate an argument before you actually try it."
Could you please give me some pointers? Please take one of my points and show me how I could have "formulated" it better. I really want to know how I should have pointed out to you that you speak only for yourself and not for a nation 0f 30 million plus.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please lay off on dissing Trent1492. He's way too much fun when he jumps on his fierce thesuarus and rides into battle."
Going to get to me on that assertion that Watson and Crick never published in a peer reviewed journal?
"He's the ultimate critic. He knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Gotta love the guy."
So nothing of substance to offer then. Typical.
Correction: Instead of, "Oh, I what your definition of trolling is: If you disagree with Bill Case then you are a troll. Got it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould say, Oh, I know what your definition of trolling is: If you disagree with Bill Case then you are a troll. Got it.
That trent1492 must be having a brain over load.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of words. not much of value.
The problem is not the alberta tar sands per se- the problem is that there are many similar MAJOR similar petroleum sources - the shale oil in Wisconsin is also well-known to many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrdinary coal abundant almost all around the globe is another raw-material for producing petroleum.
It is now a more or less well-established fact that at a cost of above ca 30 USD per barrel of crude these "new" sources of crude can let the world use diesel oil and gasoline for several hundred years ayt todays' consumption pace.
However, these methods result in ca 5 times more CO2 emission than pumping the crude from oil-wells.
China makes crude from coal in Mongolia - on a BIG scale. South Africa produces 30 % of its gasoline and diesel from coal.
Solutions anyone ??
Solutions anyone ??
"Lots of words. not much of value."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pot meets the kettle.
This article doesn't offer much. I'm disappointed. The subject is a complex matter of energy, the environment, and economics, areas that involve real science, and the experts on the matter are from the Council on Foreign Relations? Really?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CFR is only concerned with our relationship with the Middle East and our continued dependence on them. Thats it. There is no science in the whole article. The CFR states that climate change worries are inflated and "production of oil from oil sands only contributes 0.5% to US carbon emissions." Let's look at that statement. The production of oil contributes half a percent to US emissions. We then burn the oil produced and contribute even more. Downplaying climate change fears and economic costs to garner support for a political agenda that wants less oil imported from the Middle East. Thanks to all those at the Council of Foreign Relations. I'm looking forward to the thoughts of the American Geological Society on the relationship between Russia, Eastern Europe, and NATO.
Dennis Baker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispenticton bc canada V2A6Z3
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectance of humans.
yours sincerely
Dennis Baker
As soon as I read "CFR" I knew it would not address enviro issues much, being that the overall CO2 release shouldn't be much greater than overseas displacement. However, the local enviro desaster to follow needs to be stopped. I don't want to (have to) use it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee "the tar sands blow" video! It is very convincing, especially since there are obvious solutions to continued oil addiction...
Robotic solar PV and MIRRORS manufacturing (yes, solar thermal is more efficient), and robotic LiFePO4 battery (or better) production on utility scale. Whatever carbon tax there will be should be used to further this end.